From Dr. Cordero: Resources for pro se’s learning the law and procedure. Law Student resources

Hmmm. this is a great idea.  Maybe I should keep these references for court corruption victims at my offices.

NOTE: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
I kindly encourage you to share and post it in your and the public interest.
To subscribe for free to articles similar to the one hereunder go to > >left panel >↓Register.

Taking action
to insert the issue of
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse
in the presidential campaign
thus giving our common cause
the strongest publicity boost;
learning basic law
by studying introductory law books
used by law students
so as to avoid the application to your brief of

Nonsense in, dismissal out



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 , ,


You may share and post this email
in its entirety, without deletion, addition, or modification,
and with attribution to its author
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website


Dear Ms. Traci, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Reddick, Mr. Munson, Dr. Hamilton, Mr. Straw, M. Huang, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vrooman, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,


Thank you for your emails and your kind words about my work.


  1. Introductory books for law students rather than professional practice books for lawyers that pro ses should study because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and ignorance invites predators


  1. Your statement that you “started studying actual law” could mean either of two things:


  1. You are in law school: If so -or if you are in any other educational institution, such as a journalism, business, or Information Technology school- you can be instrumental in causing one or several student organizations jointly to invite me to make a presentation on how the students can carve a market niche by representing or reporting on people who will be outraged upon being informed that:


1) judges do not read the vast majority of briefs, although each party must spend $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce its brief(>OL2:760); and


2) judges intercept people’s mail and email communications(>OL2:781), whereby they deprive people of their First Amendment rights of “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances”(>OL2:792¶1).


  1. You are now self-teaching the law by reading law books as opposed to relying on TV legal dramas and what pro ses claim to be the law and its meaning, which leads to their case beingofficially counted as one third of a case(>OL2:455§B)from the moment of filing it in court: If so, you can benefit substantially from studying the key subjects of law that first year law students (1L) study in law school, namely, civil and criminal procedure, torts, criminal law, property, contracts, constitutional law, and law research and writing, as well as the specific law subject of your case:


1) To engage in that study you can read, in addition to the professional practice law books and multi-volume encyclopedic series listed in the article below, the following series of introductory books, known as black letter law books or hornbooks, that law students read:


  1. a) Emanuel Law Outlines;


  1. b) Gilbert; and Legalines Law Summaries;


  1. c) First Year Law School Study Aids: e.g., The Acing Series;


  1. In either case, you can take action in the mass emailing campaign to inform the public and presidential candidates about, and outrage them at, unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power.


  1. The objective is to take advantage of the opportunity to cause the presidential candidates to advance their own electoral interest in attracting national media and public attention by denouncing the harm that unaccountable judges inflict on parties and the rest of the public.


  1. Candidates can make their denunciation at a press conference, at every interview, rally, and townhall meeting, and in their political platform laid out on their websites.


  1. Thereby they would unwittingly give our common interest in honest judiciaries the strongest publicity boost by inserting the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse in the presidential campaign and thereafter in the national debate and party agenda.


  1. Media dissemination of news on presidential candidates addressing that issue will provide the strongest to boost to our effort to inform and outrage the public and form a national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform.


  1. Therefore, I encourage you to take action by sharing the article below, as well as similar ones that I have written and will continue writing, with your friends and family, and posting them to social media as widely as possible. You can do the latter and effectively reach a large number of people by posting the articles to Yahoogroups and Googlegroups, such as those listed at>OL2:433.


  1. Moreover, you can also arrange for me to make my Programmatic Presentation(>OL2:821-824) to you and your group of classmates and professors, victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse, potential investors in Judicial Discipline Reform(OL2:914), and other people interested in honest judiciaries. The presentation can be delivered in person if all my expenses are paid, or via video conference, e.g., through Skype.


  1. Answering questions of general or individual interest


  1. This and other articles of mine may elicit in you questions. You may find their answers by using the binocular icon on the two pdf files containing the more than 1,200+ pages of my two-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:


Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting


* Volume 1: >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393


 Volume 2: >from page OL2:394


  1. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.


  1. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at


  1. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(*>blue references) very easy.


  1. To questions of general interest to readers and the public at large I try to work answers somewhere into the body of subsequent emails and articles.


  1. To ask me your personal questions you may retain my services either on a flat fee per a piece of work or on an hourly basis, as described in my model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).


  1. To expect that I drop what I am doing in the public interest to answer every question of every reader or work pro bono for everybody who contacts me by email, mail, and phone is neither reasonable nor fair to me. “Oh, no, no, no! I don’t expect you to work for me or be my private instructor for free. I just want to pick your brain…clean”. That is called consulting and it entails the payment of a fee.


  1. I encourage you tovisit the website of Judicial Discipline Reform at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus >Left panel ↓Register

or    + New   or   Users >Add New


  1. No meaningful cause can be advanced without money.Support Judicial Discipline Reform in its:


  1. professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D);


  1. enhancement of its website athttp://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orginto:


1) a clearinghouse for complaints about judges that anybody can upload; and


2) a research center, run on a for-profit basis for investors(>OL2:914), where subscribers can search many complaints for the most persuasive type of evidence, i.e., patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse of power;


  1. tour(*>OL:197§G) of Programmatic Presentations(>OL2:821-824) on forming a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform;


  1. call for unprecedented citizen hearings(>OL2:812§E) on judges’ abuse, to be held at universities and media stations, and conducted by journalists, journalism professors, and business professors, and Information Technology experts;


  1. investigation of the potentially most outrageous abuse: judges’ interception of people’s communications(>OL2:781); and


  1. creation of the institute for judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(*jur:131§5).


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







at the GoFundMe campaign at



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




Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City,,


NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and >OL2:781, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.


NOTE: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
I kindly encourage you to share and post it in your and the public interest.
To subscribe for free to articles similar to the one hereunder go to > >left panel >↓Register.

The need for pro ses to learn the basics of the law

before attempting to represent themselves
and write their own briefs,
lest they bring upon themselves
the application of judges’ saying:
Nonsense in, dismissal out



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 , ,

You may share and post this email
in its entirety, without deletion, addition, or modification,
and with attribution to its author
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website



Dear Dr. H, Pro ses, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

  1. Is there any justification for judges’ and other officers’ saying ‘Nonsense in, dismissal out’?

  1. Your email contains the following strings of slapped-together terms that make no sense whatsoever.

  1. When you, though an educated person holding a doctorate, can make so many and gross mistakes in dealing with the law, can the average pro se, who may not have gone to college or even finished high school, realistically expect to do better?

  1. You and all other pro ses and self-improvised lawyers can benefit from reading the terms below and asking yourselves whether you understand them and, more importantly, whether you understand what you say in your own briefs and letters to public officers.

  1. “the strict scrutiny to detect”

  1. “arguments unique to church arrests without jurisdiction with the separation of Church & State Watson v. Jones (1871)”

  1. “to deepen our argument with probable cause to show that we have been subjected to illegal arrests in the preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”

1) the proper phrase is ‘probable cause to believe that X committed the offense charged’

2) ‘arrests in the preponderance of the evidence’ is nonsense

3) ‘the preponderance of the evidence’ is the lowest standard of proof of evidence applied in civil cases; it means that ‘there is 50+% chance that the evidence proves what it offers to prove’;

4) ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the highest standard of proof of guilt applied only in criminal cases

5) you have conflated two of the three standards of prove! (the intermediary standard of proof is ‘clear and convincing evidence’.

  1. Judges are not the lawyers of pro ses. They are not supposed to rewrite their briefs so that they make sense. When they read something like the above quotes, they repeat once more: “Nonsense in, dismissal out”.

  1. If you and the other pro ses do not read even the articles, such as mine, written by a lawyer on their behalf, there is every reason to assume that you have not read any legal treatise to acquire even a basic understanding of the law, e.g., those published by Thomson Reuters Westlaw and listed at

  1. Although lawyers did slog through three grueling years learning the law at law school, they nevertheless consult secondary sources as the first step in preparing to write a brief. Among those sources are these:

  1. American Law Reports, Federal, 2d (ALR Fed® Series);

Cf. >Appendix 5:Research Works, 5-9

  1. American Jurisprudence, 2nd;

  1. American Law Reports, 6th[on state law]) (ALR series); ;

  1. Wright & Miller Federal Practice and Procedure;–MillermdashCivil-Only-subsetmdashExcluding-Criminal/p/100028922

  1. C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum);

  1. Restatements (2d, 3d and 4th) and Principles of the Law, with Appendices;

  1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

  1. State practice guides;

e.g.: New York Practice,

  1. See also my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability 
and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field of 
judicial unaccountability reporting

* Volume 1: >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

 Volume 2: >from OL2:394

  1. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

  1. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at

  1. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(*>blue references) very easy.

  1. When you skip the arduous work of learning the basics and jump right into the decisive work of writing a brief, the result is inevitable: Nonsense in, dismissal out.

  1. You should start that work by reading the whole of the article hereunder.

  1. A realistic strategy, based on statistical facts, current events, and electoral interests, for advancing our common cause of judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform

  1. The article below makes it patently evident how unrealistic it is that by merely writing to prosecutors and public integrity officers about your or somebody else’s case they are going to believe what a pro se says, especially in spite of nonsense similar to that pointed above, and start investigating judges.

  1. Those pro ses who have a sense of reality and a minimum understanding of statistics should think carefully about this: In the last 230 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:21§a) The chances that a pro se may cause officers to investigate judges are close to zero. It is an exercise in futility and ignorance.

  1. That is why the article below sets forth a qualitatively and quantitatively different strategy for advancing judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform.

  1. It aims to impeach judges with their own official statistics submitted to Congress as required by law.

  1. It concerns all the complaints submitted to them, not just one’s personal anecdote of abuse by the judge in one’s case.

  1. It applies strategic thinking, rather than one’s own experience of abuse, to appeal to each of the 24 presidential candidates, who are desperate to gain national media and public attention, to actin their own electoral interestto denounce judges’ abuse as a realistic way of approaching the huge(>OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with the Judicial and Legal System.

  1. If you read the article below, you can benefit from it. Then we can join forces to take the concrete, realistic, and feasible steps of its strategy for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform.

  1. I cannot help all those who contact me by mail, email, and phone asking for my help pro bono. It is not realistic or fair to ask me to do so. “Oh, no, no, no! I don’t want you to work for me for free. I just want to pick your brain…clean”. That is called consulting and it entails the payment of a fee. Hence, if you want to retain me to render you any legal service, read my model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

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

to the professional law research and writing, and
strategic thinking of
Judicial Discipline Reform







From FB: USA Today publishes 85K records of police misconduct

We found 85,000 cops who’ve been investigated for misconduct. Now you can read their records.

USA TODAY is leading a national effort to obtain and publish disciplinary and misconduct records for thousands of police officers.

Updated 6:33 a.m. CDT May 23, 2019

At least 85,000 law enforcement officers across the USA have been investigated or disciplined for misconduct over the past decade, an investigation by USA TODAY Network found.

Officers have beaten members of the public, planted evidence and used their badges to harass women. They have lied, stolen, dealt drugs, driven drunk and abused their spouses.

Despite their role as public servants, the men and women who swear an oath to keep communities safe can generally avoid public scrutiny for their misdeeds.

The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed.

Reporters from USA TODAY, its 100-plus affiliated newsrooms and the nonprofit Invisible Institute in Chicago have spent more than a year creating the biggest collection of police misconduct records.

Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.

Search for police discipline records
USA TODAY Network has gathered discipline and accountability records on more than 85,000 law enforcement officers and has started releasing them to the public. The first collection published is a list of more than 30,000 officers who have been decertified, essentially banned from the profession, in 44 states. Search our exclusive database by officer, department or state.

Among the findings:

  • Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.
  • Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.
  • Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.

The level of oversight varies widely from state to state. Georgia and Florida decertified thousands of police officers for everything from crimes to questions about their fitness to serve; other states banned almost none.

Search the database: Exclusive USA TODAY list of decertified officers and their records

Tarnished Brass: Fired for a felony, again for perjury. Meet the new police chief.

That includes Maryland, home to the Baltimore Police Department, which regularly has been in the news for criminal behavior by police. Over nearly a decade, Maryland revoked the certifications of just four officers.

Tamika Staton leaves a message at a memorial in the middle of the road where teenager Michael Brown died after being shot by a police officer in 2014 in Ferguson, Mo., an incident that sparked investigations, protests and a nationwide discussion about policing.

Show caption

Tamika Staton leaves a message at a memorial in the middle of the road where teenager Michael Brown died after being shot by a police…

We’re making those records public

We’re making those records public

The records USA TODAY and its partners gathered include tens of thousands of internal investigations, lawsuit settlements and secret separation deals.

They include names of at least 5,000 police officers whose credibility as witnesses has been called into question. These officers have been placed on Brady lists, created to track officers whose actions must be disclosed to defendants if their testimony is relied upon to prosecute someone.

USA TODAY plans to publish many of those records to give the public an opportunity to examine their police department and the broader issue of police misconduct, as well as to help identify decertified officers who continue to work in law enforcement.

Seth Stoughton, who worked as a police officer for five years and teaches law at the University of South Carolina, said expanding public access to those kinds of records is critical to keep good cops employed and bad cops unemployed.

“No one is in a position to assess whether an officer candidate can do the job well and the way that we expect the job to be done better than the officer’s former employer,” Stoughton said.

“Officers are public servants. They police in our name,” he said. There is a “strong public interest in identifying how officers are using their public authority.”

Dan Hils, president of the Cincinnati Police Department’s branch of the Fraternal Order of Policemen union, said people should consider there are more than 750,000 law enforcement officers in the country when looking at individual misconduct data.

“The scrutiny is way tighter on police officers than most folks, and that’s why sometimes you see high numbers of misconduct cases,” Hils said. “But I believe that policemen tend to be more honest and more trustworthy than the average citizen.”

Hils said he has no issue with USA TODAY publishing public records of conduct, saying it is the news media’s “right and responsibility to investigate police and the authority of government. You’re supposed to be a watchdog.”

The first set of records USA TODAY is releasing is an exclusive nationwide database of about 30,000 people whom state governments banned from the profession by revoking their certification to be law enforcement officers.

For years, a private police organization has assembled such a list from more than 40 states and encourages police agencies to screen new hires. The list is kept secret from anyone outside law enforcement.

USA TODAY obtained the names of banned officers from 44 states by filing requests under state sunshine laws.

The information includes the officers’ names, the department they  worked for when the state revoked their certification and – in most cases – the reasons why.

The list is incomplete because of the absence of records from states such as California, which has the largest number of law enforcement officers in the USA.

Bringing important facts to policing debate

Bringing important facts to policing debate

USA TODAY’s collection of police misconduct records comes amid a nationwide debate over law enforcement tactics, including concern that some officers or agencies unfairly target minorities.

A series of killings of black people by police over the past five years in Ferguson, Missouri, Baltimore, Chicago, Sacramento, California, and elsewhere have sparked unrest and a reckoning that put pressure on cities and mayors to crack down on misconduct and abuses.

The Trump administration has backed away from more than a decade of Justice Department investigations and court actions against police departments it determined were deeply biased or corrupt.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department would leave policing the police to local authorities, saying federal investigations hurt crime fighting.

Laurie Robinson, co-chair of the 2014 White House Task Force on 21st Century Policing, said transparency about police conduct is critical to trust between police and residents.

“It’s about the people who you have hired to protect you,” she said. “Traditionally, we would say for sure that policing has not been a transparent entity in the U.S. Transparency is just a very key step along the way to repairing our relationships.”

Help us investigate

Help us investigate

The number of police agencies and officers in the USA is so large that the blind spots are vast. We need your help.

Though the records USA TODAY Network gathered are probably the most expansive ever collected, there is much more to be added. The collection includes several types of statewide data, but most misconduct is documented by individual departments.

Journalists obtained records from more than 700 law enforcement agencies, but the records are not complete for all of those agencies, and there are more than 18,000 police forces across the USA. The records requests were focused largely on the biggest 100 police agencies as well as clusters of smaller departments in surrounding areas, partly to examine movement of officers between departments in regions.

Share your stories of police misconduct with us

We want to hear from you if you believe you’ve encountered misconduct by a law enforcement officer or agency. You can send tips and records about an officer or agency to
Email Us
Need anonymity or security? Send records and tips to us via SecureDrop.

USA TODAY aims to identify other media organizations willing to partner in gathering new records and sharing documents they’ve already gathered. The Invisible Institute, a journalism nonprofit in Chicago focused on police accountability, has done so for more than a year and contributed records from dozens of police departments.

Reporters need help getting documents – and other kinds of tips – from the public, watchdog groups, researchers and even officers and prosecutors themselves.

If you have access to citizen complaints about police, internal affairs investigation records, secret settlement deals between agencies and departing officers or anything that sheds light on how agencies police their officers, we want to hear from you.

Contributing: James Pilcher and Eric Litke.

The team behind this investigation

REPORTING AND ANALYSIS: Mark Nichols, Eric Litke, James Pilcher, Aaron Hegarty, Andrew Ford, Brett Kelman, John Kelly, Matt Wynn, Steve Reilly, Megan Cassidy, Ryan Martin, Jonathan Anderson, Andrew Wolfson, Bethany Bruner, Benjamin Lanka, Gabriella Novello, Mark Hannan

FROM THE INVISIBLE INSTITUTE: Sam Stecklow, Andrew Fan, Bocar Ba

EDITING: Chris Davis, John Kelly, Brad Heath


PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEOGRAPHY: Phil Didion, Christopher Powers, David Hamlin, Robert Lindeman

DIGITAL PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT: Spencer Holladay, Annette Meade, Craig Johnson, Ryan Marx, Chris Amico, Josh Miller


Originally Published 8:15 p.m. CDT Apr. 24, 2019

Updated 6:33 a.m. CDT May 23, 2019

Fired for a felony, again for perjury. Meet the new police chief.

From Facebook: Tex. Judge awards family $127k for taking child without warrant$127000-for-wrongful-removal-of-kids/4657493/?fbclid=IwAR03JjClAI_01rYMUtWEVyc15lQEFSKLhl3TLS0aDXCu875MWf9v3KSFQSc

TOMBALL, Texas (KTRK) — A Harris County judge has ordered Child Protective Services to pay a Tomball family $127,000 after finding they wrongfully removed their children from their home.

It started as an accidental fall for Melissa and Dillon Bright’s 5-month-old son Mason. He was rushed to the hospital, where doctors found he had two fractures in his skull.

The family says that because doctors did not believe the second fracture came from the fall, they were investigated for child abuse.

“We were just completely oblivious to the fact that they were accusing us of abuse,” Melissa said.

CPS placed the children with another family member. The Brights tell ABC13 that in the meantime they sought a second opinion from another doctor.

That doctor explained that the second fracture could have in fact come from the same fall.

While still in placement with another family member, the Brights say they reached out to CPS numerous times to tell them this information, and to also request that the children be moved closer to home due to medical issues their youngest son was having.

With no response, the Brights say they informed CPS they would be bringing both of their children back home.

The family’s attorney says during that time they were contacted by their caseworker, who asked how the children were. The Brights say they responded with happy photographs and stated they were well, but later things would go wrong again.

During another hearing, the Brights say they were shocked to learn that CPS told a judge they had no knowledge of the children being back home. The family attorney says the judge was convinced to order another removal.

The Brights say they had no idea where their children were taken at first, and when they were finally able to see them, their 2-year old daughter Charlotte had a black eye. Melissa says the only explanation CPS had was that she fell from a bed.

The family’s attorney, Dennis Slate, says they later found several inconsistencies in reports from CPS.

A judge ruled Thursday that there was no solid or substantial reason to interfere with the Bright family.

ABC13 reached out to CPS, who said that the caseworker who was assigned to the Brights is still employed.

They would not comment on whether or not he is being investigated, but did say they are exploring all options, including a possible appeal to the judge’s decision.

Follow Stefania Okolie on Instagram and Twitter.

From Lanre Amu: He did nothing wrong but expose corruption and the ARDC is holding up relicensing him

When Lanre Amu was a lawyer, he fought tirelessly for the rights of many people, often without pay.  He served the poor, the person of color and the immigrant.

He was well educated and held three degrees, on in engineering, an MBA and a JD.  He is a devout Christian and follows the principles of Jesus.

However, when he exposed corruption of certain high powered judges in Cook County, the power that be, Jerome Larkin and James Grogin of the ARDC (Atty Regn and Disciplinary Commission) put him through a kangaroo trial with absolutely no witnesses and against him and awarded him a 4 year suspension for revealing publicly the fact that Judge Lynn Egan was having her brother’s law firm appear in front of her and was granting all their motions (no matter how stupid), and denying all of Amu’s motions.

He complained, and the ARDC went after him like gang busters to remove his license.

they succeeded with their crony minions and Mr. Amu was awarded a 4 year suspension for speaking out against corruption.

His suspension was up about 1.5 years ago and this is what he has to say:

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:36 PM ‘Lanre O. Amu <> wrote:
I am proud of you Ken, and even at 93+++ they should give you back your Illinois law license, apologize, clear your name, and pay damages for the harm caused! That is my view of these things. Its only fair.

I am personally very hopeful. But will never give up.

It should be comforting for us to know that these lawyers: the late Nelson Mandela suffered the same fate in South Africa with his law license, and that the late Mahatma Ghandi also suffered the same fate in South Africa with his law license. Mahatma Ghandi championed freedom from British Colonialism in India and the winds of that change liberated Africa. Nelson Mandela championed the end of Apartheid in South Africa. To be in the league of these legal giants of Civil and Human Rights is a tall order!

If I have to lie to get the Illinois law license back, then that law license not worth it for me. I must get it back with a straight face, an apology, and compensation! That is what should be done.
They lied, not me! My law license was suspended without any human being testifying under Oath or presenting any evidence under Oath to any wrongdoing by me! I was the only witness at my IARDC kangaroo trial and I denied making any false statement. I affirmed the truth of my statements with supporting evidence and without contradiction. So, how was I found guilty of making a false statement?
After Illinois Supreme Court’s Suspension came all of a sudden Chicago Crain’s Investigation confirming what I unearthed and exonerating me of false accusation by the IARDC, but they (IARDC and Illinois Supreme Court) still did not reverse their perversion of justice! We contacted the FBI, Department of Justice, etc., etc., no response.

On all these: I am supposed to apologize, affirm I have been rehabilitated from lying, and will not lie or tell the TRUTH like that again. It will never happen as long as I am living on earth!

Three things are not long hidden: The Sun, the Moon and the TRUTH!

It may take some time. But no surrender for me. The TRUTH will ultimately come out!

My regards to everyone.
Thanks a million!

‘Lanre O. Amu

Formerly Licesed Attorney Illinois
So, if anyone is wondering why there are so many lying corrupt attorneys in Illinois (including our politicians who have gone to prison, many of these were in fact crooked attorneys) take a look at my case, Ken Ditkowsky’s case and the case of Lanre Amu.  If you speak out against corruption in Illinois, the ARDC will go right after you in an attempt to silence you and Jerome Larkin will sign all the pleadings.
And Illinois is still ranked as the most corrupt State in the Nation, and one of the most corrupt cities now.
The ARDC clearly is part of the system of corruption in Chicago and Illinois because Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu did nothing wrong, but they spoke out against corruption.  Lanre Amu was cleared by Crain’s Chicago Business.  Complaints were filed against Judge Egan, but the Illinois JIB did nothing.  Lynn Egan sat on the Board of Directors for a Hospital and was hearing their cases. When the hospital found out, Lynn Egan had to resign and apologize to the Board. But the Illinois JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) did nothing.
It’s time to clean up the JIB and the ARDC in Illinois

From our corrupt legal friends in the UK: Top UK court finds Judge bullied mother into accepting care orders

Top Court Finds Judge Bullied Mother Into Accepting Care Orders For Her Children

Top Court Finds Judge Bullied Mother Into Accepting Care Orders For Her Children

A judge bullied a mother into agreeing to care orders for her two children, the Court of Appeal has found. The orders made by Her Honour Judge Carr QC in Sheffield were set aside by the Court of Appeal and replaced with short-term interim care orders.

The Court of Appeal raised a number of serious concerns in its judgment. The now common practice of judges making up their minds about a case before the parties put their arguments forward during hearings was noted, a phenomenon that will be familiar to lay advisors and families who have been forced to represent themselves in their own family cases.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson sitting at the Court of Appeal said that there had been “a serious procedural irregularity.”

The judgment says:  “consent or non-opposition to the interim care order was not freely given, but was secured by oppressive behaviour on the part of the judge in the form of inappropriate warnings and inducements”. These included:

  • The judge repeatedly isolating the mother and threatening her
  • The judge making fun of her counsel

The Court of Appeal also noted that family law and social work professionals in the case appeared to know very little about the case’s details and that the local authority had mishandled the case and its approach to the appeal.

Legal Futures offers the background to the case and quotes from the judgment, which contain some of the judge’s comments:

Before the mother’s barrister was able to brief the judge on his instructions to contest the care order, HHJ Carr told him that “if it is heard today I shall certainly make findings that your client will be stuck with”.

Her Honour HHJ Carr used the following language, which amounted to bullying and coercive threats, before hearing the case: ‘very risky for her’; ‘a very very precarious position’; ‘inevitably, I’m going to make findings… that that is significant harm. I don’t think there’s any question about it’; ‘not… without some consequences’… “oh, nonsense” and “preposterous proposition you’re putting to me, it’ll fall on deaf ears.”

HHJ Carr also threatened the mother by telling her that she would probably send any findings to the police and make sure that they go to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Jackson LJ said: The only conclusion that the mother and her advisers could draw from this and similar statements… is that the judge had made up her mind and was sure to make adverse findings that would be damaging to her in the long run.”

This kind of behaviour is commonplace in the family courts. We would like to invite all those lay advisors and parents who have experienced this kind of bullying and pre-emptive decision making to leave their comments below this piece as the site is read by judges and politicians. Thank you.


From EF: a Complaint against Jerome Larkin head of the ARDC

Thursday, June 8, 2017



Please find below a complaint I filed against Administrator Jerome Larkin who covers (read: enables)  massive  fraud upon IL court systems committed by certain corrupt and dishonest lawyers whom Larkin helps to maintain  their legal licenses while harass and oppress ethical lawyers who fulfill their duties and report corruption.
Complaint was filed with Cook County Board of Ethics, IL Supreme Court, Senate, and IL Attorney General and mailed to Chicago and Washington FBI offices.
I will provide updates how my  Complaint was handled by authorities.
Best regards,
Elena Fedorova
June 8, 2017
Re: Request to investigate ARDC Administrator Jerome Larkin for corruptionand other misconduct.
Dear Honorable Committee on Ethics, IL Supreme Court and other Authorities:
Please find this Notice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4 and my demand to investigate for corruption and remove from the office ARDC Administrator Jerome Larkin, for his willful misconduct in the office and conspiracy with certain lawyers who relentlessly commit fraud in our Courts; file forged documents accompanied by false statements; operate collection mills commonly known as “racket” and other malpractices. All of those violations are known by ARDC Administrator Jerome Larkin who always covered for banks and HOAs lawyers’ fraudulent conduct, while readily attack and disbar ethical lawyers who expose corruption in our Court system.
Moreover, I respectfully demand to investigate Mr. Larkin for potential banks’ fraud and bribery scheme. According to research conducted by lawyer Kenneth Ditkowski, “Jerome Larkin, the Administrator of the ARDC has funneled several million dollars through his property in the last ten years. For example, Larkin took out a loan for $450,000 in December of 2001 and paid it back in exactly five years. In the meantime, he had taken out another $450,000 loan—in October of 2006, which he paid back in just a tad over four years, in January of 2011. In the meantime, he had taken out yet another mortgage—this one for $101,000—in November of 2009, which he was miraculously able to repay in just about a year. But his unusual loan behavior doesn’t stop here. In January of 2011, Larkin took out a whopping $750,000 mortgage on the same piece of property. Larkin must have a direct line to lottery bucks, because he was able to repay this loan by January of 2013. In the meantime . . . are you getting the picture yet? . . . he took out another $750,000 loan in December of 2012. Neither Jerome Larkin nor his wife, psychologist Antoinette Krakowski responded to telephone inquiries concerning the amount of money being funneled through their home.”
I further demand to investigate Mr. Larkin’s relationship with IL Democratic Party Speaker Michael Madigan, where Mrs. Julia Larkin, who I believe is Mr. Jerome Larkin’s daughter, worked from 2007 to January 2017 and was compensated $53,000.00 per year from taxpayers’ funds. Based on my observation of public records, and Mrs. Julia Larkin’s own words, she was not only a trusted political aid to Mr. Madigan whom she helped to support his preferred candidates elections, but also worked to advance Mr. Madigan’s personal legal practice where Mr. Madigan helps his wealthy friends and clients to lower their property taxes and pass the bill on IL taxpayers whose property taxes skyrocketed.
According to Mrs. Julia Larkin’s resume, her job as a Head of Opposition Research included “Reviewing wide range of complex documentation including but not limited to property tax documentation” which has very little to do with elections but directly related to Speaker Madigan’s personal legal practice, where I believe he used Mrs. Larkin’s services to advance his own profits, while Mrs. Larkin’s work was compensated from taxpayers funds.
I believe that Administrator Larkin, who must be aware of banks, HOAs and their lawyers collection mills and massive fraud in IL Court system under guise of certain corrupt judges, many of whom owe their positions of public Trust to Mr. Madigan , intentionally covered for lawyers and judges misconduct; and concentrated on prosecuting those lawyers who expose judicial corruption. 
I submitted numerous complaints against certain lawyers, accompanied by facts and material evidence of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice and other malpractices. All my complaints were closed by Jerome Larkin who always refused to investigate merits of my complaints. I demand investigation intoMr. Jerome Larkin’s professional misconduct as well as his suspicious manipulations with his property loans. 
Mr. Larkin must be removed from his position as ARDC Administrator and this position must be transferred to an ethical person who will protect IL public from dishonest lawyers’ malpractices, not to cover for their misconduct. 
Respectfully submitted.
Elena Fedorova