From NL: All good people should go to the FBI’s website www.ic3.gov and demand an investigation of Kavanaugh

Testimony at today’s hearing was some of the most shameful gut wrenching testimony I have ever heard.

In addition, Dr Cordero reports that Kavanaugh’s jurisdiction in federal court has 478 judicial complaints dismissed out of hand and with no investigation.

Accordingly, please go to http://www.ic3.gov today and demand the FBI start and investigation on Kavanaugh for his obvious criminal activity.

He should not be a judge.

And Dr. Ford should do what other women have done, that is, sue for defamation, false light and slander.

Joanne

From Dr. Cordero: women continue to speak out against the 478 complaints against justices dismissed out of hand and lack of investigation by Kavanaugh and his cronies on the benc

Re: [DailyKos] Q 2 ALL: 1,600 MEN SIGN FULL-PAGE NYT AD IN SUPPORT OF CHRISTINE B. FORD – Proposal to join forces to expose judges’ abuse

and

Re: Proposal to join forces with Mothers in the Legal Profession who wrote “An open letter of thanks to Dr. Blasey Ford”

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Scott and Ms. Heil,

 

If you had only bothered to read my article, you would have realized that I do not state even once that I believe or disbelieve either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh.

 

You diminish your credibility when you hazard a comment or a reasonless conclusion on an article that you have not read.

 

Had you managed to read all the way down to the first paragraph, you would have understood what the purpose of the article is:

 

“I am a male non-partisan doctor of law and lawyer in New York City. I read with interest your letter in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I would like to join forces with you to advance our common cause of exposing abusive judges and judges’ abuse…I too fight abuse, in particular, that of judges who as a consequence of their unaccountability risklessly engage in abuse of power that injures women as well as men.”

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

******************************************

 

 

—–Original Message—–
From: WILLIAM SCOTT <04wmscott@comcast.net>
To: drrcordero <drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org>; Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. <dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net>
Cc: DailyKos <DailyKos@yahoogroups.com>; gregdempseyusa <gregdempseyusa@gmail.com>; DailyKos-owner <DailyKos-owner@yahoogroups.com>; aleonardi <aleonardi@unitedrepublic.org>; vaughan.smith <vaughan.smith@frontlineclub.com>; steven.burda.mba <steven.burda.mba@gmail.com>; CorderoRic <CorderoRic@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2018 8:41 am
Subject: Re: [DailyKos] Q 2 ALL: 1,600 MEN SIGN FULL-PAGE NYT AD IN SUPPORT OF CHRISTINE B. FORD – Proposal to join forces to expose judges’ abuse

This is a witch hunt. Do not approve. Wm Scott

On September 27, 2018 at 8:12 AM drrcordero@judicial-discipline-reform.org wrote:

Subject: Proposal to join forces with the 1,600 men who signed the NYT ad and the Mothers in the Legal Profession who wrote “An open letter of thanks to Dr. Blasey Ford”

 

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.JudicialDiscipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com

 

 

 

You may share and post this email
without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

 

 

 

 

Dear Mothers in the Legal Profession and the 1,600 who sign the NYT ad,

 

I am a male non-partisan doctor of law and lawyer in New York City. I read with interest your letter in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I would like to join forces with you to advance our common cause of exposing abusive judges and judges’ abuse.

 

Indeed, your letter caught my attention when you wrote:

 

In particular, we support women who take a stand to call out and fight injustice in many forms, including all manner of personal and professional abuse that targets or disproportionately affects women…We have watched with growing concern as questions mount regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s truthfulness, judgment, and character. As practitioners who interact with the judiciary on a daily basis, we thank you for coming forward to make that bench stronger through critical examination of those nominated to serve as judges.

 

I too fight abuse, in particular, that of judges who as a consequence of their unaccountability risklessly engage in abuse of power that injures women as well as men.

 

Hence, I too advocate for a “bench stronger” as a result of judges having been rendered accountable and liable to the victims of their abuse. Those victims want to come out of their silence and share the self-assertiveness of the MeToo! public, who has grown intolerant of “injustice in many forms”.

 

You, the Mothers, and I, want to expose more than just sexual abuse; and your constituents are also in my constituency. Jointly, we can advocate for them more cost-effectively.

 

We should join forces because abuse develops insidiously: Even candidates for judgeships or justiceships deemed today to be “the most honorable public servants, who can be trusted to treat all litigants with fairness and respect”,but who are exempt “for decades to come” from any accountability will progressively abuse their power. This is so because “power corrupts, and absolute power [whose hallmark is unaccountability] corrupts absolutely”(*>jur:27fn28).

 

That corruptive effect of power is shown in the open letter below addressed to Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to “assist the Senate with this crucial vetting process”.

 

The letter’s distinguishing feature is that it does not rely on the account of “personally victimized women”, who are victimized once more by those politicians that have already prejudged what Dr. Ford has yet to say and self-interestedly dismissed it.

 

Rather, the letter below relies on the official statistics(§F infra) that Judge Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Garland Merrick of the same District of Columbia Circuit (DCC), and their peers have by law submitted to Congress for the last 11 years. Those statistics show that of the 478 complaints lodged with DCC about them they have dismissed the 478: Through complicity and secrecy they have devised and enforced an unlawful policy of 100% self-exoneration to escape any discipline.

 

We are lawyers and as such recognize that nothing impeaches a person’s credibility as his or her own contradictory words and actions. J. Kavanaugh’s policy of 100% dismissal of complaints about him and his peers indisputably exposes his partiality toward himself and his peers; and his unfairness to the plight of complainants. Thus, it provides probable cause to believe that his dismissal of Dr. Ford’s story follows that same policy and is motivated by the same partiality and unfairness.

 

How many of those 478 complaints tabulated in the official statistics concern sexual abuse and harassment by J. Kavanaugh and his peers?

 

How many similar complaints and incidents are mentioned in the more than 100,000 pages that the White House has refused to disclose?

 

To know that, you, I, and all advocates of an honest judicial confirmation process need one or more ‘allies’ in the Judiciary Committee, in particular, and the Senate, in general, as well as all possible ‘allies’ in the media and the national public.

 

Thus, n ot only can “we demand that the senators listen to your story, [Dr. Ford], and treat you with respect”, but we can also provide them with non-partisan, objective statistics officially submitted to, and accepted by, them on which they can rely to impeach J. Kavanaugh’s credibility, impartiality, and fairness, regardless of whether they choose to believe the circumstantial evidence supporting Dr. Ford’s story.

 

Many senators will feel that they cannot confirm J. Kavanaugh upon learning that he has abused his power to ‘pardon’ himself and his peers, and do so secretly while pretending to be processing according to law complaints about them.

 

Consequently, I respectfully request that we join forces, and to that end, that you:

 

  1. read the open letter below and contact me;

 

  1. share the letter with the signatories of your letter, like-minded people, and the media;

 

  1. persuade them to email it, and follow-up with a call, to at least two of the senators whose contact information is in §G infra so as to cause them at the hearing on Thursday, September 27, to rely on official statistics to question the impartiality, fairness, and respect for the law of J. Kavanaugh, and by extension, of all other judges who have abused their power to exempt themselves from accountability while leaving complainants at the mercy of complained-about judges and those who cover up for them.

 

Let’s think strategically and argue the senators’ case: If for the first time ever and on national television, a senator adopts this line of questioning based on non-partisan, official statistics analyzed by the objective “math of abuse”, that senator can gain reputationally so much as to become the modern equivalent of Sen. Howard Baker when at the Senate Watergate hearings he asked his famous question, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” That senator’s question may be:

 

Did you find that 100% of complainants had fabricated stories, as you say Dr. Ford has, or did you find that you and 100% of your peers can do no wrong, for you are Judges Above the Law?

 

That senator’s performance can be so remarkable and effective in exposing J. Kavanaugh’s judicial unfitness –and that of so many other unaccountable abusive judges– as to lay the foundation for her or his reelection campaign or a 2020 presidential bid as the national Champion of Justice.

 

Time is of the essence. We should get in touch as soon as possible.

 

The letter below is at  >OL2:768 in my study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:

 

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field 
of judicial unaccountability reporting * 

 

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

 Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

 

Visit my website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

 

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York 10472
http://www.Judicial – Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.netDrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com

 

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and passion for justice are.

 

DONATE
in support of professional research and writing,
and advocacy to advance the common interest
in exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse:

here

 

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www .gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

****************************************

 

Re: How J. Kavanaugh can be questioned at the Senate hearings based, not on allegations and partisan opinions, but rather on his and his peers’ 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them that they officially reported to Congress, to determine whether he has been impartial, fair, and law-abiding as a judge and would be so as a justice

How Judge Kavanaugh can be questioned
at the Senate hearings based,
not on allegations and partisan opinions,
but rather on his and his peers’
100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them
that they officially reported to Congress,
to determine whether he has been
impartial, fair, and law-abiding as a judge and
would be so as a justice

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:768

 

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.JudicialDiscipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com
You can forward this email to
the members of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
see also the addresses in §G infra
(You may cut this email at the bottom to fit the inline email form)
Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sen. Grassley, Sen. Feinstein, and Committee Members,

 

This email is intended to be of interest to you because it concerns the conduct of Judge Brett Kavanaugh based, not on allegations or opinions, but rather on the official statistics of the District of Columbia Circuit (DCC), required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) to be submitted to Congress and the public annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

 

You and your colleagues in Congress have without dispute accepted those statistics for decades; are presumed to be familiar with them; and have relied on them to oversee the performance of the federal courts.

 

Hence, the information hereunder will enable you to question J. Kavanaugh at the hearings scheduled for September 27 on a basis trusted by you, verifiable by others, and persuasive thanks to its objective demonstration by ‘the math of abuse’ of power.

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has participated in the dismissal of 100% of the 478 complaints about him and his peers lodged with DCC

 

 

 

  1. Theofficial statistics at stake here concern the handling by J. Kavanaugh and his peers of complaints about them in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period during which he has served on DCC. Those statistics and their analysis can be retrieved through the links in §F infra.

 

 

 

  1. The statistics show that 478 complaints about them were lodged. He tolerated the dismissal of the 478 of them regardless of their gravity and without any investigation, except in one case, which also ended up in complaint dismissal; as a current member of the DCC Judicial Council, he has participated in the 100% denial of petitions to review those dismissals.

 

 

 

  1. Such 100% record betrays his and his peers’ complicity in an unlawful agreement to protect each other from any adverse consequences of their complained-about conduct. Theirs is not the “good Behaviour” required by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1(*>jur:22fn12a), but rather behavior in dereliction of duty.

 

 

 

  1. Indeed, the essence of being a judge is being impartial and fair. That is how a judge conducts himself who is faithful to his oath of office(*>jur:53fn90), and thereby discharges his duty, to uphold the law.

 

 

 

  1. Judge Kavanaugh has shown that he is neither impartial between complainants and complained-about judges nor fair to the plight of complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public, whom he has recklessly left at the mercy of complained-about judges regardless of the gravity of their alleged misconduct. He has held himself and his peers unaccountable. As a result of such assurance of risklessness, he has emboldened himself and them to keep engaging in ever graver misconduct.

 

 

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh’s partiality and unfairness in covering up for himself and his peers in DCC provide probable cause to believe that he:

 

 

 

  1. covered up the sexual misconduct of Former 9thCircuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, for whom he clerked and with whom he interviewed prospective clerks for Supreme Court justices; and

 

 

 

  1. covers up for himself regarding the sexual assault accusations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

 

 

 

  1. That probable cause is undergirded by my study of judges and their judiciaries(e.g.,*>jur:21§§1-3), which is titled and downloadable thus:

 

 

 

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field 
of judicial unaccountability reporting * 

 

 

 

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

 

        † Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394

 

This email is at OL2:768.

  1. Judge Kavanaugh’s conduct contradicts his statement “I’m a pro-law judge” and renders it perjurious

 

 

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has acquiesced and enforced DCC’s institutionalized cover-up of his and his peers’ complained-about conduct. So, he has impeached his assertion under oath during his confirmation hearings that ‘he is not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge, but rather he is a pro-law judge’. If he were the latter, he would have denounced and refused to apply DCC’s unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of judges.

 

 

 

  1. On the contrary, he and his peers have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect, and risklessly show contempt for, the law governing complaints about judges: the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364;jur:24fn18a).

 

 

 

  1. In defiance of the law, J. Kavanaugh has protected his and his peers’ interest in escaping any discipline resulting from their complained-about conduct, while depriving complainants of their fundamental due process right: to be heard. They abuse their power to elevate themselves as Judges Above the Law(*>OL:5fn6).

 

 

 

  1. Issues for the Senate Judiciary Committee to question J. Kavanaugh on

 

 

 

  1. The official statistics allow the Committee to challenge him onhisenforcementof the DCC unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of himself and his peers from complaints about them.

 

 

 

  1. The Committee can require that J. Kavanaugh disclose his copies of all complaints involving him. All complaints are self-interestedly kept secret, contrary to the tenet “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44fn71). Such secrecy prevents ascertaining the nature, extent, and gravity of individual and collective misconduct, and detecting its patterns and trends.

 

 

 

  1. Also, the Committee can examine all the statements that J. Kavanaugh may have made concerning the Catholic Church’s decades-old policy of covering for abusive priests while leaving at their mercy ever more Church members and the rest of the public. Do his statements reveal the partiality and unfairness of a hypocritical double standard in favor of himself and his peers? Can he claim to be a pro-law judge when his conduct is guided by what is anathema to his duty as such: “The Law is NOT Equal For All”?

 

 

 

  1. Let the Committee question him on the official statistics(§F infra)showing that he and his peers do not even read the majority of briefs, never mind write the dispositive orders(cf.>OL2:546¶¶4-7). Their pretense at applying the law to briefs that they have not read causes injury in fact and renders them liable to a host of causes of action(OL2:729).

 

 

 

  1. Such abusive conduct prompts the emergence from aMeToo!public intolerant of any form of abuse of a national movement of current, former, and prospective parties to demand that the courts refund filing fees, pay damages, and require judges to dispose of each case by writing a decision and that it be reasoned and address the brief section “Relief Requested”.

 

 

 

  1. Requested action from you in your own andWe the People‘s interest

 

 

 

  1. Questioning J. Kavanaugh and all judicial candidates based, not on allegations and opinions, but rather on their own statistics will draw to you significant media and public attention. It can establish the framework for a bipartisan approach on the objective basis of “the math of abuse”.

 

 

 

  1. Such questioning can attract the attention of a huge (OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc: The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. They are waiting for a courageous politician to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. You can become their national Champion of Justice.

 

 

 

  1. Thus, I respectfully request that you:

 

 

 

  1. question J Kavanaugh using the official statistics of his and his peers, as discussed above;

 

 

 

  1. publish this email on your website; and otherwise share and post it widely;

 

 

 

  1. share it with the journalists that cover you and ask them to have their media outlets publish it.

 

 

 

  1. The publication of this email can set in motion a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse similar to the one into sexual abuse sparked byThe New York Times‘s publication of its Harvey Weinstein exposé. It will be traced back to your concern for integrity and accountability in the federal and state judiciaries. It can lay the foundation for your reelection campaign and even a presidential bid.

 

 

 

  1. My offer of a presentation

 

 

 

  1. The above shows the kind of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) that informs the presentation that I offer to make to you, your colleagues, and supporters on what you can gain by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power.

 

 

 

  1. So I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Meantime, I kindly request that you acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform

 

 

  1. Links to official court statistics and their analysis

 

  1. Article on using official statistics and “the math of abuse”to expose J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers’ abuse of power: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf

 

  1. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf

 

  1. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf

 

  1. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 13 federal circuits and two national courts:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf

 

  1. Article on “the math of abuse”: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary and fiat-like dumping forms;http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf>OL2:760, 457§D

 

 

  1. Contact information about senators

 

 

  1. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

 

 

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley: https://wwwgrassley .senate.gov/constituents/questions-and-comments ; Phone: 202-224-3744; Fax: 202-224-6020

 

 

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: https://wwwfeinstein .senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me ; Main: (202) 224-3841; Fax: (202) 228-3954

 

 

 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: https://wwwklobuchar .senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-amy ; phone:202-224-3244; fax: 202-228-2186

 

 

 

Sen. Mazie K. Hirono: https://wwwhirono .senate.gov/contact ;  Phone: (202) 224-6361; Fax: (202) 224-2126

 

 

 

Sen. Kamala D. Harris: https://wwwharris .senate.gov/contact/email ; Phone (202) 224 – 3553; Fax (202) 224 – 2200

 

 

 

Sen. Cory Booker: https://wwwbooker .senate.gov/?p=contact ; Phone: (202) 224-3224; Fax: (202) 224-8378

 

 

 

Sen. Dick Durbin  https://wwwdurbin .senate.gov/contact/email ; p: 202.224.2152; f: 202.228.0400

 

 

 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: https://wwwblumenthal .senate.gov/contact ; tel. (202) 224-2823; fax (202) 224-9673

 

 

 

Sen. Christopher A. Coons: https://wwwcoons .senate.gov/contact/email-chris ; Washington, D.C. 20510; Phone:(202) 224-5042

 

 

Sen. Patrick Leahy: https://wwwleahy .senate.gov/contact ; tel. (202) 224-4242

 

 

 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: https://www .whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/email-sheldon;P: (401) 453-5294; F: (401) 453-5085

 

 

  1. Key Senate members who are not JudiciaryCommittee members

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

 

 

Sen. Charles E. Schumer: https://wwwschumer .senate.gov/contact/email-chuck ; 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2301, New York, NY 10017; Phone: (212) 486-4430; Fax:  (202) 228-2838; DC: Phone: (202) 224-6542; Fax: (202) 228-3027

 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: https://wwwmurkowski .senate.gov/contact/email ; Phone: (202)-224-6665; Fax: (202)-224-5301

 

 

Sen. Susan Collins: https://www.collins.senate.gov/contact ; tel. (202)224-2523; schedulers Darci Greenacre and Elsa Thibodeau at scheduling@collins.senate.gov

 

 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/email-me ; NY: Tel. (212) 688-6262; Fax (866) 824-6340; DC: Tel. (202) 224-4451; Fax (202) 228-0282; phone at (212) 688 – 6262 or email casework@gillibrand.senate.gov ; senator@Gillibrand.senate.gov

 

 

Visit the website Judicial Discipline Reform at,
and subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

 

Put your money
where your outrage at judges’ abuse
and your passion for justice are.

 

 

Donate here

 

or

 

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

 

 

 

https://www .linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

 

 

 

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

 

From JD: INS detention centers provide massive campaign funds to elected representatives; foreigners for cash

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/06/20/company-runs-immigration-detention-centers-top-donor-two-texas-congressmen

Are immigrant detention centers suffering from the same problems as forced nursing home placements?  Campaign cash for favors?

How do we stop all this?  It’s all like the poor houses and work houses of 19th centurn England.

Read on:

Company that runs immigration detention centers is top donor for three Texas congressmen

 

Updated at 2 p.m. June 21 to include contributions to U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock. The headline was updated to reflect that GEO is the top donor for three Texas congress members. 

WASHINGTON — One of the country’s largest operators of private immigration detention facilities has made significant contributions to several Texas members of Congress.

The GEO Group’s PAC and executives have given $32,900 to Houston Republican Rep. John Culberson’s campaign this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission documents and OpenSecrets.org. GEO is Culberson’s largest donor.

In Texas, GEO operates detention centers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Karnes City, Laredo, Pearsall and Conroe.

Culberson is facing a tough re-election race against Democrat Lizzie Fletcher. The race has been rated a ‘toss up’ by nonpartisan analyst Cook Political Report.

Culberson received the most funding from GEO out of Texas members of Congress, but GEO is also the top donor this cycle for U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, who received $32,400, and Round Rock Republican Rep. John Carter, who received $31,600.

Both Culberson and Cuellar serve on the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, which funds private immigration detention centers. Culberson is also the chairman of and Carter serves on the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science, which oversees funding for private prisons.

Cuellar’s campaign manager Colin Strother said that GEO is one of the largest employers in Cuellar’s district, and that Cuellar has not allowed campaign contributions to influence his decisions.

“If you live in a district in the state of Washington, you get boating money. If you live in a district in Nebraska, you get agriculture money. We have a district with lots of jail facilities that employ lots of people,” Strother said.

Culberson’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

GEO has also donated to other Texas lawmakers, including Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who received $10,000;  House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, who received $2,500; Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-McAllen, who received $2,500; Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, who received $1,000; and Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Heath, who received $1,000. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz received $150.

GEO has come under scrutiny by immigrant rights organizations for alleged mismanagement and abuse in detention facilities. GEO faced class-action lawsuits in which detainees alleged that they were forced to work. In a GEO facility in California, three detainees died in custody. The American Civil Liberties Union accused GEO of denying detainees food, water and bathroom access.

“We strongly dispute these allegations. On a daily basis, our dedicated employees deliver high quality services, including around-the-clock medical care, that comply with performance-based standards set by the Federal government and adhere to guidelines set by leading third-party accreditation agencies,” GEO said in a statement.

Another one of the largest groups that runs private immigration detention centers in the United States is CoreCivic. The company runs facilities in Houston, Laredo, Dilley and Taylor.

CoreCivic PACs have given less money to candidates than GEO, but still contributed to three Texans, according to OpenSecrets.org: Culberson with $11,000, McCaul with $3,500 and Cuellar with $1,500.

Washington correspondent Camille Caldera contributed to this report.

From FB: Cal. AG nominee investigated for ethics violations

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steven-bailey-gop-nominee-for-california-attorney-general-faces-ethics-panel/

Steven Bailey, GOP nominee for California attorney general, faces ethics panel

Republican Attorney General candidate Steven Bailey, speaks at a candidate debate Wednesday, March 21, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif.

 RICH PEDRONCELLI / AP

Republicans’ nominee for California state attorney general is facing an ethics tribunal just two months before the November election.

Former judge Steven Bailey is accused of using his office to further his statewide campaign, improperly accepting gifts and steering business to a firm where his son worked — all in violation of judicial ethics. Bailey served as an El Dorado County judge from 2009 through the end of August 2017.

Bailey says the allegations “simply lack merit” and blames political gamesmanship. Three special masters from the Commission on Judicial Performance will begin considering them Tuesday.

The hearing in Sacramento creates another hurdle as Bailey tries to unseat Democratic incumbent Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was appointed to fill a vacancy last year.

No decision is expected from the commission until well after the Nov. 6 election. Bailey eventually could be publicly admonished even though he is no longer a judge, but not disqualified from the attorney general’s race.

“Judge Bailey initially expressed interest in running for attorney general because of the office’s recent trend toward hyper-partisan politics to the detriment of public safety,” James Murphy, one of Bailey’s attorneys, said in a statement to The Associated Press. “We question if this inquiry is nothing more than a politically motivated and brazen attempt to sabotage his campaign.”

He denied that Bailey’s actions interfered with his judicial impartiality and blamed inadvertent error for several of the allegations, including that Bailey provided a written testimonial for a political survey company.

The commission is deciding whether to discipline Bailey over claims of conduct “that brings the judicial office into disrepute” and of “willful misconduct in office” — the worst possible charge and enough that it could potentially have prompted his removal were he still a judge.

They include allegations that for a year he improperly used his judgeship to raise funds and promote his candidacy for attorney general. Bailey says in his response that he retired months before filing his formal declaration of candidacy in February and that the board is infringing on his constitutional right to free speech and to run for office.

He is also alleged to have repeatedly ordered defendants to use an electronic monitoring service without disclosing that his son worked at the company providing it or that the company’s owner was a friend who worked on his 2008 judicial campaign. The commission also alleges that he ordered a defendant to pay $140 in restitution in 2009 after a letter signed by the judge’s son said the man owed that amount for electronic monitoring.

Bailey says in response that he followed the ethics advice of other judges that he did not have to routinely disclose the relationship with his son, and that the owner was a “professional acquaintance” with no real involvement in his campaign. He says the monitoring company was approved by the county probation department, as required by law, and that he arranged to have a second, competing company also provide monitoring services.

Bailey also is accused of accepting hundreds of dollars in gifts between 2009 and 2012, including nearly $350 from a Placerville attorney. The commission says he appointed the same attorney to oversee a case in 2011 at the unusually high rate of $350 an hour to be paid by the defendant, without disclosing that the attorney was a friend.

He denied failing to report or falsely reporting travel-related payments and reimbursements, saying he believed all the gifts were permitted.

He also denied that he was showing bias by telling another judge in response to a compliment about a shirt that he got it from a “gay guy” and that “gays really know how to dress.”

The hearing is expected to last until Sept. 14 before one appellate judge and two superior court judges appointed by the state Supreme Court. The special masters then have about 60 days to report their findings to the commission. Both sides may respond to that report in writing and in an oral argument before the commission.

The commission must ultimately decide if the allegations are proved by clear and convincing evidence and whether to impose discipline.

Featured in Politics

From NL: On Brent Kavanaugh–his stats: 100% dismissal of all complaints against him–the math of abuse of power

How Judge Kavanaugh
can be questioned at the Senate hearings
based on official court statistics,
rather than allegations and partisan opinions,
to determine how he has treated
you and the rest of We the People
as a judge and would do so as a justice

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2 /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:768

 

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial- Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq @ verizon.net,
DrRCordero @ Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ,

 

You may share and post this email
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

 

You can forward this email to
the members of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/
(You may cut this email at the bottom to fit the inline email form)

Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sen. Grassley, Sen. Feinstein, and Committee Members,

 

This email is intended to be of interest to you because it concerns the conduct of Judge Brett Kavanaugh based, not on allegations or opinions, but rather on the official statistics of the District of Columbia Circuit (DCC), required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) to be submitted to Congress and the public annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

 

You and your colleagues in Congress have without dispute accepted those statistics for decades; are presumed to be familiar with them; and have relied on them to oversee the performance of the federal courts. Hence, the information hereunder will enable you to question J. Kavanaugh at the hearings scheduled for the week of September 24, on a basis trusted by you, verifiable by others, and persuasive thanks to its objective demonstration by ‘ the math of abuse’ of power .

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has participated in the dismissal of 100% of the 478 complaints about him and his peers lodged with DCC

 

  1. The official statistics at stake here concern the handling by J. Kavanaugh and his peers of complaints about them in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period during which he has served on DCC. Those statistics and their analysis can be retrieved through the links in§F infra.

 

  1. The statistics show that 478 complaints about them were lodged. He tolerated the dismissal of the 478 of them regardless of their gravity and without any investigation, except in one case, which also ended up in complaint dismissal; as a current member of the DCC Judicial Council, he has participated in the 100% denial of petitions to review those dismissals.

 

  1. Such 100% record betrays his and his peers’ complicity in an unlawful agreement to protect each other from any adverse consequences of their complained-about conduct. Theirs is not the “good Behaviour” required by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1(*>jur:22fn12a), but rather behavior in dereliction of duty.

 

  1. Indeed, the essence of being a judge is being impartial and fair. That is how a judge conducts himself who is faithful to his oath of office(*>jur:53fn90), and thereby discharges his duty, to uphold the law.

 

  1. Judge Kavanaugh has shown that he is neither impartial between complainants and complained-about judges nor fair to the plight of complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public, whom he has recklessly left at the mercy of complained-about judges regardless of the gravity of their alleged misconduct. He has held himself and his peers unaccountable. As a result of such assurance of risklessness, he has emboldened himself and them to keep engaging in ever graver misconduct.

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh’s partiality and unfairness in covering up for himself and his peers in DCC provide probable cause to believe that he:

 

  1. covered up the sexual misconduct of Former 9thCircuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, for whom he clerked and with whom he interviewed prospective clerks for Supreme Court justices; and

 

  1. covers up for himself regarding the sexual assault accusations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

 

  1. That probable cause is undergirded by my study of judges and their judiciaries(e.g.,*>jur:21§§1-3 ), which is titled and downloadable thus:

 

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field 
of judicial unaccountability reporting * 

 

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

 

 Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2 /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394
(This email is at OL2:768.)

  1. Judge Kavanaugh’s conduct contradicts his statement “I’m a pro-law judge” and renders it perjurious

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has acquiesced and enforced DCC’s institutionalized cover-up of his and his peers’ complained-about conduct. So, he has impeached his assertion under oath during his confirmation hearings that ‘he is not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge, but rather he is a pro-law judge’. If he were the latter, he would have denounced and refused to apply DCC’s unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of judges.

 

  1. On the contrary, he and his peers have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect, and risklessly show contempt for, the law governing complaints about judges: the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364;jur:24fn18a).

 

  1. In defiance of the law, J. Kavanaugh has protected his and his peers’ interest in escaping any discipline resulting from their complained-about conduct, while depriving complainants of their fundamental due process right: to be heard. They abuse their power to elevate themselves as Judges Above the Law(*>OL:5fn6).

 

  1. Issues for the Senate Judiciary Committee to question J. Kavanaugh on

 

  1. The official statistics allow the Committee to challenge him onhisenforcement of the DCC unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of himself and his peers from complaints about them.

 

  1. The Committee can require that J. Kavanaugh disclose his copies of all complaints involving him. All complaints are self-interestedly kept secret, contrary to the tenet “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44fn71). Such secrecy prevents ascertaining the nature, extent, and gravity of individual and collective misconduct, and detecting its patterns and trends.

 

  1. Also, the Committee can examine all the statements that J. Kavanaugh may have made concerning the Catholic Church’s decades-old policy of covering for abusive priests while leaving at their mercy ever more Church members and the rest of the public. Do his statements reveal the partiality and unfairness of a hypocritical double standard in favor of himself and his peers? Can he claim to be a pro-law judge when his conduct is guided by what is anathema to his duty as such: “The Law is NOT Equal For All”?

 

  1. Let the Committee question him on the official statistics(§F infra)showing that he and his peers do not even read the majority of briefs, never mind write the dispositive orders(cf. >OL2:546¶¶4-7). Their pretense at applying the law to briefs that they have not read causes injury in fact and renders them liable to a host of causes of action(OL2:729).

 

  1. Such abusive conduct prompts the emergence from aMeToo!public intolerant of any form of abuse of a national movement of current, former, and prospective parties to demand that the courts refund filing fees, pay damages, and require judges to dispose of each case by writing a decision and that it be reasoned and address the brief section “ Relief Requested ”.

 

  1. Requested action from you in your own andWe the People’s interest

 

  1. Questioning J. Kavanaugh and all judicial candidates based, not on allegations and opinions, but rather on their own statistics will draw to you significant media and public attention. It can establish the framework for a bipartisan approach on the objective basis of “the math of abuse”.

 

  1. Such questioning can attract the attention of a huge (OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc: The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. They are waiting for a courageous politician to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. You can become their national Champion of Justice.

 

  1. Thus, I respectfully request that you:

 

  1. question J Kavanaugh using the official statistics of his and his peers, as discussed above;

 

  1. publish this email on your website; and otherwise share and post it widely;

 

  1. share it with the journalists that cover you and ask them to have their media outlets publish it.

 

  1. The publication of this email can set in motion a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse similar to the one into sexual abuse sparked byThe New York Times’s publication of its Harvey Weinstein exposé. It will be traced back to your concern for integrity and accountability in the federal and state judiciaries. It can lay the foundation for your reelection campaign and even a presidential bid.

 

  1. My offer of a presentation

 

  1. The above shows the kind of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) that informs the presentation that I offer to make to you, your colleagues, and supporters on what you can gain by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power.

 

  1. So I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Meantime, I kindly request that you acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

 

  1. Links to official court statistics and their analysis

  1. Article on using official statistics and “the math of abuse ” to expose J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers’ abuse of power: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf

  1. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf

  1. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf

  1. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 13 federal circuits and two national courts:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf

  1. Article on “the math of abuse”: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary and fiat-like dumping forms; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf > OL2:760, 457§D

Visit the website Judicial Discipline Reform at,
and subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

  http:// www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at judges’ abuse
and your passion for justice are.

 

Donate here

 

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www . gofundme .com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

https://www .linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

Contact Dr. Cordero by sending your email to this bloc of his email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq @ verizon.net , DrRCordero @ Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic @ yahoo.com .

From SS/AAAPG.net–All hands on board. Linda Aters false arrest for failure to pay an attorney in an abusive gship $11k

while I still don’t know all the details, this woman is in jail for failure to pay $11k.  Her assistant says she had no money to pay $11k to some probate attorney because they took all her money.

Please write, call and fax the parties involved and here they are:

Linda Aters, false arrest/imprisonment Maricopa County, Arizona

Sheriff Penzone 602-876-1000
Community Outreach 602-876-1685
Professional Standards Bureau 844-887-4483

Chris De Rose is clerk of the Superior court
email him: coccustomerrelations@mail.maricopa.gov
clerk of court phone number

Matthew E. Delinko, SBN 030540
BAUMAN LOEWE WITT
& MAXWELL, PLLC
8765 East Bell Road, Suite 210
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 502-4664
4 Facsimile: (480) 502-4774
Emails:mdelinko@blwmlawfirm.com

and the judge’s name is Steven Holding in probate. Phoenix AZ
PROBATE
(This includes questions about Wills, Guardianship, and Affidavits of Real and Personal Property) To view information on the website you may click here, or you may call (602)37-CLERK, or (602)372-5375 for assistance.

Clerk’s office chris de rose:

case no. CASE NO.: CV2017-054872

court media relations: courtpio@mail.maricopa.gov
Bryan Bouchard
Public Information Officer

her attorney is
Brent M. Gunderson
Gunderson Law Group, P.C.
1839 S. Alma School Road, Suite 275
Mesa, AZ 85210
TelephonelFax: (480) 750-7337
E-mail: Brent@gundersonlawgroup.com
Attorney for Defendant Linda B. Arters

Also, Barb Stone is still in prison for protecting her mother and embarrassing the shizzola out of the lawyers and judges involved.  I will be getting more info on her case this week to write, fax and call.

We have to stick together on abusive probate guardianships and demand that they end.

Joanne

From RM: Great list of youtube videos to watch on the probate/guardianship horror show which is always playing at a theater near you

This is a series of videos explaining how Court guardianship Human Trafficking operates. (posted by Wazabooz with Jeff and Marit Oakley)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
CITIZENS SAFETY MAP USA Corruption Publishers Map
Institutionalized Senior Abuse www.predatoryprobate.com website
Isolated from those you love by an American Nazi Judiciary. The story ofShowstarks  
Here is another group of murderers and thieves running the probate courts in Ohio.
 
This is one of the most honest overviews of guardianship I have seen in a long time. Good job John Oliver… posted Jun 3, 2018….
and a new movie is even coming out. It’s time to clean up the court system.  Let’s do it!

From IAHC: Irish barristers come to the US to help on Innocence Projects

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/five-irish-barristers-travel-us-work-innocence-project-caseshttp://www.thejournal.ie/innocence-project-2-3219614-Feb2017/

ON 16 OCTOBER, 1995 Audrey Edmunds was minding a neighbour’s, 7-month-old daughter Natalie at her home in Wisconsin in the US.

Edmunds had left Natalie alone in a bedroom for half an hour, but when she came back the child appeared to be choking and was unresponsive.

Emergency services were called, however by then Natalie’s condition had deteriorated and she died soon after.

An autopsy revealed extensive brain damage, and a forensic pathologist determined the cause of death to be shaken baby syndrome.

Edmunds was later convicted of murder. A court ruled that she had killed Natalie by shaking her to death.

Shaken baby syndrome (also known as abusive head trauma) is a term used to describe a number of conditions which when taken together are thought to show that a baby has been violently shaken.

Diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome has been the determining factor in a large number of murder, manslaughter and child abuse cases in the US.

However, the science behind the condition has long been questioned by experts, and convictions are increasingly being challenged across the US with the help of the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project

After years of failed appeals and parole hearings Edmunds – who always maintained her innocence in Natalie’s death – had her case taken up in 2003 by the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project was first set up in 1992 and it aims to exonerate the wrongly convicted. This is done through DNA testing and reforms to the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.

Shaken baby syndrome cases have increasingly become an increasing part of Innocence Project cases as the science behind convictions becomes more and more questioned.

An extensive 2015 investigation by the Washington Post also cast a lot of doubt on shaken baby syndrome convictions in the US. 

With the help of the Innocence Project, Edmunds was able to challenge the expert opinion that had led to her conviction in 1996. She was eventually fully exonerated.

It was another shaken baby case that Irish junior barrister Mark Curran spent the majority of his time focussed on when he worked with the Wisconsin Innocence Project over the summer.

Curran was one of five Irish barristers to be awarded a scholarship from the Bar of Ireland last year to travel to different states in the US and work with Innocence Projects there.

Speaking this week at the launch of the Bar’s 2017 scholarships, Curran said he didn’t know what to expect when he went over.

“I didn’t really know what I was getting into when I arrived in Wisconsin and what the day to day life as an innocence attorney would be like,” said Curran.

He said that a senior colleague sent him a link to the David and Goliath Wikipedia page as an example of the quintessential innocence project case.

“That’s what it is to be an Innocence Project attorney,” said Curran.

“It’s small very dedicated, underfunded group of individuals who are seeking to exonerate inmates.”

These inmates would in many cases have exhausted the appeals process and be near the end of having any chance of proving their innocence.

Curran said that 99% of the time he spent working in Wisconsin was on a single case of a child who died from shaken baby syndrome.

His case involved a man who was convicted in 2006 for the reckless homicide of his 11-week-old son and had been sentenced to 40 years in prison without parole.

“A huge amount of cases are being taken by Innocence Projects right across the United States challenging shaken baby syndrome cases,” said Curran.

As the last five to 10 years in particular show the science behind shaken baby syndrome… just isn’t as solid as was previously thought.

Read: Dean Strang on Steven Avery: ‘I’m very hopeful that they will discover new evidence and get him back in court’

Read: Gang members, DNA evidence and Making a Murderer: The burden of proving innocence in the US

 

Five Irish barristers to travel to US to work on Innocence Project cases



Andrew Walsh BL, Paul McGarry SC, Chairman, Council of The Bar of Ireland, Maria Watson BL, Paddy Armstrong, Grainne Larkin BL, Patrick Crowe BL, Anne Purcell BL & Susan Lennox BL
Pictured (l-r): Andrew Walsh BL, Paul McGarry SC, Chairman, Council of The Bar of Ireland, Maria Watson BL, Paddy Armstrong, Grainne Larkin BL, Patrick Crowe BL, Anne Purcell BL & Susan Lennox BL

Up to five Irish barristers will travel to the US this year to help exonerate wrongfully-convicted individuals with support from The Bar of Ireland.

Paddy Armstrong of the Guildford Four, who was falsely convicted of carrying out bombings in 1975, spoke at the launch of The Bar of Ireland’s 2018 Innocence Scholarships in the Law Library.

Since 2010, The Bar of Ireland has sponsored junior members to travel to the US to work on Innocence Project cases.

Mr Armstrong, who spent 15 years in prison after being convicted of helping carry out the Guildford and Woolwich bombings in 1975, commended The Bar for for supporting access to justice.

He said: “It’s a sad state of affairs that in 2018 people the world over are still being robbed of their human rights and spending years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

“People working in the legal profession gain very valuable insights by both witnessing this injustice and in working to counter it first-hand. I commend The Bar of Ireland for supporting these scholarships on an annual basis, and in particular I thank the barristers who travel each year. I am very confident your efforts and commitment mean the world to the people at the centre of the innocent projects cases you represent.”

Also speaking at the launch were two barristers who were awarded Innocence Scholarships in 2017: Maria Watson BL, who travelled to Wisconsin, and Patrick Crowe BL, who travelled to Florida.

Paul McGarry SC, chairman of the Council of The Bar of Ireland, said: “Every year we are reminded of the importance of our Innocence Scholarships when participants return home and share their experiences with us. The experience they gain both professionally and personally working on cases of such importance is invaluable.

“As barristers, advocating for access to justice on behalf of our clients is central to our day to day work. Doing so on behalf of wrongfully convicted and imprisoned individuals heightens that mission even further.”

Humbolt County California corruption victim seeking low cost/fee housing near San Francisco

This is a very nice young man, age about 30, who has filed a federal court lawsuit regarding a false corrupt guardianship case.  Since he is a targeted individual (by police and authorities), it is best his location and information should be kept confidential.

Call or email me if you some room for this nice young man.  He has suffered quite a bit.  he is Christian.

From EB: Massive fraud found in Palm Beach gship cases of Betsy Savitt–fees to be disgorged

EXCLUSIVE: Betsy Savitt guardianship report alleges ‘wrongdoing by sitting judges’

   

Posted: 8:15 p.m. Wednesday, September 05, 2018


A confidential investigation into controversial professional guardian Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt contains “allegations or suggestions of wrongdoing by sitting judges,” an administrative judge revealed on Wednesday.

The revelation surfaced during a first-of-its-kind hearing into whether Savitt should face sanctions for conflict of interest with judges involved in her guardianships, including her husband, former Circuit Judge Martin Colin.

The action against Savitt by the state Office of Public and Professional Guardians is based on the report by the Inspector General of the Clerk of Court in Palm Beach County. The new guardianship office is asking for sanctions against Savitt. Those sanctions could effectively bar her from practicing in this county and may include repayment of up to $190,000 in guardianship fees.

Savitt, as a professional guardian, was a so-called “member of the judicial community,” dining with judges and even going on vacation with one. The former chief judge felt it necessary to move all her cases out of the South County Courthouse, concerned with the appearance of coziness between Savitt and judges there.

Savitt’s attorney, Ellen Morris, tried in vain to exclude the investigative report, with its judicial allegations of wrongdoing, from Wednesday’s proceeding. Morris in a pleading said the report contains “statements and conclusions that are highly objectionable throughout.”

But Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy said she found nothing in the report that makes it confidential under state law — no Social Security numbers or medical information of incapacitated seniors or disabled adults. Palm Beach County Clerk Sharon Bock has refused to turn over the report despite a public records request filed by The Palm Beach Post on June 20.

Creasy said Morris’ concerns about the allegations against judges was also not a basis to bar the report as evidence against Savitt.

2012 investigation of Savitt

Anthony Palmieri, the clerk’s deputy inspector general, testified at the hearing that in May 2012 the clerk’s office alerted then-Chief Judge Peter Blanc about a conflict of interest involving Savitt and Colin. He didn’t know what Blanc did with the report but Blanc told The Post last week that he cautioned Colin to be careful not to preside over his wife’s cases.

Savitt testified she didn’t know until recently that her husband signed orders in her cases. She said if she had known, she would have alerted her attorney to “a mistake.”

However, she also repeatedly said she had no conflict of interest despite the fact that her husband sat as a guardianship judge who at times ruled on her cases and granted fees in other cases to attorneys who worked for her. Morris argued state guardianship statutes don’t specifically say that a guardian married to a guardianship judge has a conflict of interest.

“I don’t have a conflict of interest arising from my marriage,” Savitt said. “I didn’t appear in front of Judge Colin. He wasn’t presiding over any of my cases. He wasn’t the judge on any of my cases.”

The Post reported Sunday that Colin’s was an invisible hand in Savitt’s guardianship cases. He asked Delray Beach elder law attorney Sheri Hazeltine in the fall of 2009 to represent his wife as the tennis instructor aimed to enter the lucrative field. A professional guardian is appointed to oversee the affairs of seniors who are found incapacitated by the court. They can handle all financial, health care and residency decisions for the ward.

At least twice, Colin appointed Hazeltine, who took action that led to Savitt becoming a guardian.

Savitt, in testimony, denied Hazeltine’s account that Judge Colin pegged her to represent Savitt. Hazeltine at the time had numerous cases in front of Colin and told The Post that being a sole practitioner with a disabled child that “there was a natural measure of fear involved” in being asked to do something for her home-court judge.

Hazeltine said she quit as Savitt’s attorney when she learned that the guardian was taking fees prior to judicial approval.

Savitt also testified that there had never been any complaints from family members of her ward about a conflict of interest.

‘Never said a word’

However, James Vassallo said Savitt never disclosed that she was married to a guardianship judge and if he had known, he would have never allowed her to be guardian to his father, Albert Vassallo Sr.

“Never ever did she say a word to me about that,” Vassallo said. “I would never have hired her. I found out later. She told me that it didn’t matter what I said, she was married to a judge and that she could do whatever she wanted.”

Vassallo said Wednesday that he spent $20,000 fighting Savitt over his father’s trust and to keep her from funneling money to his sister, who had previously taken money from his dad and was the reason he sought the guardianship in the first place.

“And I’m still getting bills that my father owes, like from the hospital and stuff, that she never paid.”

Thomas Mayes, son of Savitt ward Helen O’Grady, said in The Post’s 2016 investigation, Guardianships: A Broken Trust that Savitt never disclosed her conflict with her husband.

The Mayes family learned that Savitt was married to a judge when Circuit Judge Rosemarie Scher, then presiding over their case, said she’d been out to dinner with the couple and described the judge’s wife as “part of the judicial community.”

“Savitt never told us beforehand, which I thought she should have,” said Mayes. “The lawyers never told us.”

Savitt testified she disclosed her marriage by identifying her husband as “Martin Colin” on her guardianship applications. However, Savitt didn’t identify him as a sitting judge, saying that the court or the clerk of court would automatically just know.

Palmieri testified that just putting Colin’s name under spouse in the guardianship applications did not go far enough.

One easily refutable statement by Savitt, under oath, at Wednesday’s hearing was that no other judge but Colin recused himself from her cases. In fact, Circuit Judge John Phillips recused himself routinely. Also, after The Post’s investigation, then-Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath required south county judges to recuse themselves from Savitt’s cases. He also removed all of Savitt’s cases from the South County Courthouse out of concern of conflict of interest.

A large swath of time at Wednesday’s hearing was spent delving into when Savitt took money from the life savings of her wards prior to a judge’s approval.

Savitt admitted she wrote checks out of the wards’ accounts prior to judicial approval and deposited them into a personal checking account but insisted she was serving the wards’ best interest.

Palmieri testified that of the 2,000 guardianship cases he has investigated, only Savitt has taken retainers. The Post found Savitt took $20,000 in retainers in at least seven guardianship cases.

Savitt testified she took retainers at the advice of her counsel at the time.

Palm Beach County’s judicial circuit prohibited the practice after The Post reported on Savitt and Colin.

Morris argued at the hearing that Savitt eventually disclosed the retainers to the judges presiding over her cases and that they were all approved.

Vacationed with judge

Savitt also addressed her relationship with Circuit Judge David French, who oversaw the majority of her cases. Michael McKeon, senior attorney for the Department of Elder Affairs, asked Savitt whether she was “friendly” with French.

“I’m friendly to all the judges,” Savitt said.

Savitt said French is a friend and that she vacationed with him in the Bahamas in 2006 or 2008 before he was a guardianship judge. She couldn’t remember the last time she visited his home.

When asked whether she believes she has a conflict when it comes to French, Savitt said no. “Judge French takes an oath. He would recuse himself,” she said.

Despite an order from the chief judge to recuse himself from Savitt cases, French appointed the guardian to a pro bono case in January 2017 — her last guardianship appointment. The appointment allows Savitt to remain on the wheel for random appointments under new rules.

The latest case, involving senior Mavis Samms, includes accusations from the family that Savitt allowed the senior’s home to go into foreclosure.

“Savitt has made a mess of my mom’s finances,” according to an emergency motion filed by Samms’ daughter, Paula, in May 2017.

McKeon asking Savitt to be declared “unfit to serve as a guardian” due to the conflict of interest and acting in bad faith toward her wards.

Morris, representing Savitt, said the guardianship office brought the complaint in bad faith and that she would be seeking attorney fees.

The hearing will continue today. Judge Colin and Hazeltine are listed as witnesses.


From DF: Polypharmy in the elderly; taking too many prescription meds can be risky or even deadly

https://www.agingcare.com/articles/polypharmacy-dangerous-drug-interactions-119947.htm

Polypharmacy in the Elderly: Taking Too Many Medications Can Be Risky

Marlo Sollitto Updated 
Follow
Share
AA

Polypharmacy occurs when a patient takes too many medications for their own good. It is most common among seniors and individuals with multiple medical issues. Because older people metabolize drugs differently, the combined effects of numerous medications can be especially harmful.

Being on too many medications can lead to potentially dangerous drug interactions and exposure to many side effects at once. Keep in mind that this applies not to just prescriptions, but also to over-the-counter (OTC) medications and dietary supplements, which patients often use as needed without informing their doctors.

Treating only one chronic medical condition may require several prescriptions, but for seniors who often have several ailments, their medication regimens can be very complex. It can get to the point where the patient doesn’t know all the drugs they are taking, why they’re needed, or how to take them properly. What’s worse is that even their physicians may not be aware of all the medications they’re taking.

The average older adult takes four or more prescription drugs each day. While each one was created to treat or correct a specific medical problem, each comes with its own risks and side effects. The more medications a person takes, the higher the chances are for experiencing adverse reactions, negative side effects and even life-threatening conditions.

Symptoms of Polypharmacy

“Polypharmacy is a huge problem in our society,” says Stephen Sinatra, MD, internationally renowned cardiologist and author of, The Great Cholesterol Myth. According to Sinatra, elderly patients are often put on five or more medications at once and it’s no surprise that they develop serious side effects. This is especially true for people who have been diagnosed with heart disease or recently suffered a heart attack or stroke. “Unfortunately, many doctors attribute these side effects to just getting older,” Dr. Sinatra notes, but age isn’t always the culprit.

If a loved one takes multiple prescriptions, OTC medications and/or supplements each day, it’s important to keep an eye out for the following red flags:

  • Tiredness, sleepiness or decreased alertness
  • Constipation, diarrhea or incontinence
  • Loss of appetite
  • Confusion, either continuous or episodic
  • Falls
  • Depression or general lack of interest
  • Weakness
  • Tremors
  • Hallucinations, such as seeing or hearing things
  • Anxiety or excitability
  • Dizziness
  • Decreased sexual behavior
  • Skin rashes

Responsible Medication Management Can Minimize Polypharmacy

The first and most important step is to inform every physician involved in your loved one’s treatment of every medication and supplement your loved one takes. The easiest way to do this is to collect every pill bottle/container and make a detailed account of their medication regimen. The list should include each drug’s name, strength (in milligrams or international units), recommended dosage and instructions (such as frequency and timing), and any cautions stated on the bottle or package.

Retain a copy for your own records and provide each of your loved one’s physicians with a copy. Each time a drug is added, removed or changed, be sure to update the document. This tool allows all doctors to get a complete and accurate picture of your loved one’s health and medications before making any treatment decisions. Having a copy on hand in the event of an emergency can be extremely useful as well.

Whenever a new drug is prescribed, it is crucial to read the printed medication guide that comes in the package. This insert will provide information about the medicine, how to take it, possible interactions with certain medical conditions, other drugs, and foods, and tips for avoiding adverse effects while taking it.

Try to Use One Pharmacy to Fill Prescriptions

As another line of defense against medication related problems, make your loved one’s pharmacist a larger part of their care team. Some people like to shop around for the best prices on their prescription medications, which often means filling them at several different pharmacies. Unfortunately, this prevents pharmacists from gathering information about all the medications a patient is taking and detecting possible side effects and interactions. It’s best to use one pharmacy for all prescriptions to minimize the chances that potential risks are overlooked.

Schedule Regular Brown Bag Check-Ups

Depending on how frequently a senior’s regimen changes, it’s wise to attend a “brown bag” checkup with your loved one’s physician or pharmacist at least once a year. Traditionally, this involves bringing all a senior’s medications in a brown bag (or you can use a current copy of your loved one’s medication list) to discuss improvements that might be made to their regimen. Of course, a doctor will have more insight into and control over these changes, whereas a pharmacist can only make minor alterations to a prescription after receiving approval from the prescribing physician.

Vik Rajan, MD, president and founder of Houston Patient Advocacy in Texas, recommends asking these questions during a medication check-up with a doctor:

  1. What medications is my loved one taking and why?
  2. How necessary is each medication? Can any be removed or have dosages reduced?
  3. Are any medications interacting with each other in a negative way?
  4. Could these medications be causing additional symptoms or conditions?

It may be wise to schedule a doctor’s appointment specifically dedicated to answering these questions to ensure you have time to address all your concerns. It’s difficult to squeeze everything into a generic 15-minute appointment.

A pharmacist can run a database analysis of each drug your loved one is taking and the overall combination. This service identifies possible side effects and drug conflicts, often at no additional cost. While consumers can usually walk in and consult with a pharmacist, making an appointment with the pharmacy for a full medication review will help ensure you won’t be kept waiting.

Polypharmacy may be the biggest threat to seniors’ health, quality of life and longevity. As a caregiver, you can work with your loved one’s care team and spearhead efforts to prevent medication issues. Following all the suggestions above can help you get started.