As a member of the public and having reviewed Dr. Ford’s testimony and Kavanaugh’s testimony on youtube.com, you have the right to demand he be removed as a Federal Appellate Justice. You have to write to the Clerk of Executive Offices, Federal DC Circuit, Court of Appeals. 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001. For more info, see http://www.uscourts.gov/…/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct…? and https

the next step will be to remove him from the DC bar.  When he is removed from the Court of Appeals for DC, I will publish info on how to remove him as a lawyer for past misconduct.

We have to stop giving judges jobs when they come from court systems where any judicial complaint was dismissed without a thorough investigation.

This is how corruption in the courts flourishes.

see below.

Joanne:

From Dr. Cordero

Dear Ms. Denison, Victims of, and Witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you for your email.

To those “readers who think it’s okay to dismiss these complaints out of hand”, put the question:

“How would you feel if you complained about the performance of the judge(s) in your case and they dismissed out of hand your complaint without any investigation?”,

As stated in my article:

7. The official statistics explicitly tabulates some allegations in the complaints about judges. They are very grave, for they include:

1. “acceptance of a bribe”,

1. “conflict of interest (including refusal to recuse)”,

1. “racial, religious or ethnic bias”,

1. “improper discussion with party or counsel”,

1. “partisan political activity or statement”,

1. “retaliation against complainant, witness, or others involved in the process”,

1. “failure to give reasons for decision”,

1. “undue decisional delay”; etc.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:755¶7

If your readers want to see the official tables of complaints about judges prepared by the courts, compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, whose director is appointed by the U.S. Chief Justice, for submission to Congress in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, let them know the following:

Dr. Cordero has collected all the statistics on complaints against federal judges that are available on the website of the Administrative Office. They cover the 21 fiscal years from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 2017; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf.

He has created a table collecting all the District of Columbia Circuit statistics for the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period during which both Judge Kavanaugh and Now-Chief Judge Merrick Garland have served on the Court of Appeals for that Circuit; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf.

Use the data found in the collected tables to create a table for another circuit or court by filling out the table template at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf.

More importantly, tell your readers that they have the opportunity to bring to the attention of their senators and the other senators a way of evaluating Judge Kavanaugh’s impartiality, fairness, and respect for the law, particularly its due process and equal protection requirements, that is based on official statistics submitted to, and accepted by, them rather than personal allegations and partisan opinions.

Indeed, as the article below shows, in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period, people have filed 478 complaints against J. Kavanaugh and his DCC peers, but he and they have dismissed 100% of them without investigation.

By so doing, J. Kavanaugh and his peers have institutionalized their abuse of their power to exonerate themselves from the complaints and exempt themselves from any discipline, while leaving complainants at the mercy of complained-about judges and their covering-up peers.

They have turned themselves into Judges Above the Law.

To expose them, encourage your readers to use the contact information in §G below to contact at least two senators by:

1. first using the inline email form on their respective website’s “Contact Us” webpage to send them the open letter below;

1. then calling their office to ask the answering assistant to use the reader’s email address to retrieve the emailed letter from the senator’s website;

1. request that the senators demand that J. Kavanaugh produce the copies that he has and the originals that DCC has of the complaints about him as well as those that include him among the complained-about judges. This will allow the ascertainment of the nature, frequency, and gravity of complaints about him and the detection of patterns and trends of complaints; and

1. ask that the White House release the 100,000+ pages on Judge Kavanaugh that it has so far refused to produce. Do they include any mentions to abusive conduct on the part of J. Kavanaugh?; and

1. demand that the Senate hold nationally televised public hearings on judges’ abuse of power.

By taking action and being instrumental in exposing judges’ institutionalized abuse of power, you and your readers can become nationally recognized Champions of Justice. This is realistic: On Friday, September 28, two courageous women confronted Senator Jeff Flake on the elevator in the Senate and caused him to force the Committee to ask for an FBI investigation.

But time is of the essence because the Senate may vote on the Judge by October 5.

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

https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

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

NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., 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.

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

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

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.net, DrRCordero@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.Judicial–Discipline-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.net, DrRCordero@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.Judicial–Discipline-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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 9^thCircuit 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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”?

14. 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).

15. 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

16. 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”.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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://www. grassley .senate.gov/constituents/questions-and-comments ; Phone: 202-224-3744; Fax: 202-224-6020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Patrick Leahy: https://www. leahy .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

2. Key Senate members who are not JudiciaryCommittee members

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

Sen. Charles E. Schumer: https://www. schumer .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://www. murkowski .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.

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:

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

• Share 
• Tweet 
• Reddit 
• Flipboard 
• Email

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.

© 2018 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

• Share 
• Tweet 
• Reddit 
• Flipboard 
• Email

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 9^thCircuit 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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”?

14. 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).

15. 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

16. 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”.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 .

Merle says being in a nursing home for a stint was the worst thing that ever happened to him, so his wife Stella, age 95 took him home.

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

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

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

Published 26 February 2018

---

---

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.”

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.

   …

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

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

View at Medium.com

On May 15, 2018, federal judge Lee H. Rosenthal in Houston issued a landmark ruling allowing a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against the $500,000 public official bond of state probate judge Christine Butts in Harris County. The claim against Judge Butts’ bond was brought to the Southern District federal court of Texas by Sherry Johnston who alleges Judge Butts turned a blind eye to the preventable decline of her aging mother Willie Jo Mills while she was a ward of the State of Texas under guardianship.

“It is unconscionable that this abuse can occur under the watch of the U.S. Attorney General in 2018,” said Taso Pardalis, an attorney and partner with Pardalis & Nohavicka Lawyers in New York. “Approximately 5 to 10% of adult guardianships in this country are reported to have a fraudulent aspect — yet the percentage is most certainly much higher.”

In North Carolina, Ginny Johnson claims she had been named her father Hugh Beverley Johnson’s power of attorney and health care proxy but after a sibling filed for guardianship in Wake County’s Special Proceedings Estate Division Probate Court, a professional guardian was appointed instead.

Johnson says she cared for the 95 year old Hugh in the colonial home she was raised in for 35 years until one day, three months after her dad had been guardianized, she came home to find herself locked out of their Raleigh house with no trace of her Dad.

“My father was in great shape until he was warehoused by the court appointed guardian in a care center that starved him, restricted him from seeing me and didn’t shower him regularly,” Johnson said.

A year later, the elderly military veteran, who had owned a dry cleaning business, passed away at 96 years old, according to Johnson who has since filed a wrongful death lawsuit with the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

The Commission declined to comment.

“We are the state’s designated tribunal/court for tort claims against the State of North Carolina and, as such, we simply cannot comment on any potential, pending or adjudicated claim before us,” said J. Brian Ratledge, general counsel with the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

Johnson is among a growing number of adult children who regret involving their local court to stop the negative dynamics of their dysfunctional families.

“Family dysfunction and sibling rivalry are the primary reasons the matriarch or patriarch of a family is typically guardianized and ultimately starved, drugged or isolated to death unless they are restored to capacity,” said Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship(AAAPG) in Hollywood, Florida.

Errol Rappaport has taken to standing in front of the residence daily where his 100 year old mother Frances resides with a sign that says, “I want to see my Mommy” in order to draw attention to the emotional pain he is experiencing at being alienated from his parent who is under a court appointed guardianship.

“I am my mother’s son, her flesh and blood,” Rappaport said. “I don’t understand why I cannot visit unannounced. My mother wants to be around family members when she passes away not caregivers.”
Rappaport says he was taking care of his elderly mother and father just fine but after his father died, relatives allegedly asked to sell the family’s $6 million apartment located at 200 Central Park South apartment and 59th Street.
When Rappaport opposed the sale, he says he was hauled into housing court where a judge appointed a guardian over his mother who was then moved to an apartment in Queens. Originally, the devoted son could visit the elderly Frances 5 hours a day but now he is allegedly only allowed to visit 2 hours and he has to schedule that time 48 hours in advance.

“What are they hiding?” Rappaport said.

The court appointed guardian in Rappaport’s case is Sabrina Morrissey, an attorney who declined to comment.

“Even though a guardianship should be used to honor the best interest of the ward, it’s become clear that the system has become a business,” said Pardalis.

A “ward” is a legal term used to describe a senior citizen who has been guardianized due to cognitive decline, such as memory loss. But younger adults are also at risk for becoming a ward of the state due to autism, mental illness or car accidents that lead to disabilities.

The AAAPG’s Dr. Sugar says he gets new calls daily from adult children who are either left penniless, restricted from visiting their parents or both.

“It’s the worst punishment to inflict on an adult child whose parent is at the end of their life because they may never see their mother or father again,” Dr. Sugar said. “Court insiders collude on these restricted visitation orders to crush any challenge to the Judge or guardian’s ultimate authority.”

Active pending adult guardianship cases in the U.S. range from fewer than 1 million to more than 3 million, according to the National Center for State Courts, but with baby boomers entering their golden years and experiencing Alzheimer’s or dementia, that number is on the rise.

By 2020, some 14 million seniors are expected to be afflicted, according to the Alzheimer’s Association data, and they will be at risk for guardianization by the courts.

“The court and the court appointed guardian cannot strip the person of all their assets unless they first declare the individual incapacitated at which point the guardian owns them the way a master owns a slave,” said Dr. Sugar who authored the best selling book Guardianships & The Elderly:The Perfect Crime.

That’s because once an individual is placed under guardianship, he or she becomes a ward of the state, forfeiting their assets while losing all of their rights.

Critics claim guardians appointed by judges, whether they are greedy family members or court insiders, rob the estate by overcharging for tasks and duties that family members perform out of love.

“Private guardians are legally allowed to charge a ‘reasonable’ fee but the State has not defined the term,” Pardalis said. “Some private guardians charge rates as high as $600 an hour for tasks as menial and mundane as writing emails. Fees are billed to the ward’s estate and without sufficient supervision by the State of the guardian’s operations, there is a high potential for financial abuse.”

Orders of restricted visitation can also be very expensive.

For example, Mary Bush in West Chester, Pennsylvania is required to pay $50 to visit her 87 year old mother Genevieve Bush who resides at Park Lane nursing home.

An APS worker and a Sheriff must also be present, according to Bush’s visitation order.

“The court has unjustly labeled me a criminal and violated my due process rights,” Bush said. “My mom had a million dollar estate that has been liquidated by court appointed guardians.”

The Honorable Judge Katherine Platt of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas declined to comment specifically on the Bush guardianship but stated that neither the county nor the state profit from senior citizens who are wards of the state of Pennsylvania under guardianship.

“If anything, they are a drain on judicial resources,” Judge Platt said. “Judges are law trained. We are not social workers and most of us don’t have advanced degrees in the mental health arena. Family dynamics, in some cases, go beyond what our constitutional commission requires of us.”

Judge Platt says she has witnessed court appointed guardians and judges alike being pulled into the dynamics when a parent of a dysfunctional family is guardianized.

“If a court appointed guardian has to deal with dysfunctional relatives of an incapacitated person, they are entitled to be compensated for the time it takes to intercede,” said Judge Platt, an Orphans’ Court judge.

As for orders of visitation that limit an adult child’s visitation with a relative at the end of their life, Judge Platt said, “There’s nothing written in our statute that defines severity.”

But Philadelphia Attorney Alan Denenberg defined severity in a federal lawsuit he filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against two Westtown East Goshen Police Officers whom he alleges conspired to violate Ms. Bush’s 4th Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution by using excessive force in the parking lot of Park Lane nursing home where Ms. Bush’s mother resides under guardianship.

Bush v. East Goshen Township et al, against Sergeant James Renegar and Ted Lewis of West Chester, outlines four counts including assault and battery under state law.

“Sgt. Renegar lunged at the Plaintiff Mary Bush, grabbing her cell phone and throwing it to the ground,” stated Counselor Denenberg in an August 29, 2018 Amended Complaint. “Sgt. Renegar then body slammed the Plaintiff onto the pavement causing her head to strike the hard surface. Although she was not resisting arrest, Sgt. Reneger got on top of the plaintiff, twisted her left arm way up her back and threatened to shoot or taser the Palintiff.”

The adult guardianship system in the U.S. is in plain need of greater oversight. But in the meantime, in order to avoid a full-on custody court battle that leads to restricted visits with relatives at the end of their lives, Judge Platt recommends professional mediation.

“Sometimes real contentions exist between family members and there’s quite a discernment that needs to take place to evaluate deep seated historical grievances,” she said. “Mediators have more time for the nuances.”

Meanwhile, the adult children who feel defrauded and are restricted from visiting their elderly relative are increasingly joining immigrant parents who are protesting being separated from their children under detention.

“We feel their pain,” Bush said. “It’s the same situation except it’s our elderly parents who are being detained and we are Americans being separated from them.”

View at Medium.com

View at Medium.com

https://www.pacermonitor.com/articles/2017/11/02/alleged-elder-negligence-in-florida-leads-to-multimillion-dollar-jury-award/

For those of you who are trying to decide whether you can sue in Federal Court for the abuses your loved one suffered, read on:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/federal-report-examines-civil-death-of-the-rights-of-people-with-disabilities-and-the-elderly-under-guardianships-calls-on-department-of-justice-to-ensure-full-and-fair-due-process-rights-300618287.html

CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge in two of Illinois’ highest profile cases has been removed from hearing all his criminal cases after it was revealed he exchanged emails with an employee at the U.S. attorney’s office in which he commented on and joked about one of his trials in progress at the time.

Some legal experts said Tuesday the matter could lead to a review of hundreds of cases to see if Judge Colin Bruce had sent out similarly inappropriate emails during trials before, a review process that could create trial delays and logjams at the U.S. District for Court for central Illinois.

“It is an understatement to say that this is outrageous,” said Phil Turner, a defense attorney in Chicago and a former federal prosecutor in northern Illinois with no cases before Bruce. “It’s extremely unusual and way beyond the pale.”

The Urbana-based Bruce had been presiding over ex-U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock’s corruption case and the case of Brendt Christensen, accused in the 2017 kidnapping and slaying of Yingying Zhang, a Chinese scholar at the University of Illinois. Neither case has yet gone to trial.

Schock, a Peoria Republican, resigned in 2015 and was indicted on allegations of misusing funds in 2016. The 37-year-old has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Christensen, saying he tortured Zhang, 26, before killing her.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Shadid said in a one-sentence statement Tuesday that he had “temporarily reassigned” all of Bruce’s cases in which federal prosecutors are a party. He didn’t say why.

Bruce’s emails to a paralegal at Springfield’s U.S. attorney’s office came to light last week in a motion for a new trial by Sarah Nixon, convicted in December 2016 of international parental kidnapping. She was sentenced last year to just over two years in prison. The U.S. attorney’s office disclosed the emails to the defense in May, saying it had only recently become aware of them, according to Nixon’s motion.

In one Dec. 17, 2016, email Bruce sent before Nixon’s trial had ended, he said sarcastically that a prosecutor had done “a WONDERFUL job of repeating the bull—- the defendant said as if the defendant’s story was all fact.”

“This trial went from slam-dunk for the prosecution to about 60-40 for the defendant,” he wrote. A Dec. 18 email added: “I really cringed when the inexperienced DOJ attorney started (cross-examining) the defendant.”

Turner said Bruce’s comments, if conveyed to the trial prosecutors, could have helped them adjust how they questioned witnesses.

Bruce’s office declined any comment Tuesday, as did prosecutors.

But in a filing last week following Nixon’s motion for a new trial, Bruce recused himself and defended his emails to someone he described as a longtime friend. He said the point of the emails was to explain why he hadn’t attended a retirement party for an outgoing U.S. attorney.

“At the time it was sent, and now, I consider the email exchange to be innocuous and merely a private email conversation with someone entirely uninvolved in this case,” he wrote.

Turner said he expected many defense attorneys whose clients were convicted in cases heard by Bruce to ask for an investigation, which he said would include examining the judge’s email archives.

The temporary reassignment of Bruce’s cases, he said, could easily end up becoming permanent, saying an argument could be made that the judge should be booted from the bench entirely.

The Illinois Rules of Court are confusing, not all in one convenient place and disorganized.

Women like organization, so I am appalled.

Here are the 5 places to check before you file anything in an Illinois court.

Always check before you file:

1.  Supreme Court of Illinois Rules:  SCOI has a set of rules they like.
2.  Illinois Code of Civil Procedure:  the State Legislature passes Rule for Court that they like.  While these don’t seem to overlap, why aren’t these two state organizations organizing the rules?
3.  Cook County Rules of Court:  Timothy Evans and his Judges’ committee passes our local Rules of Court which means Cook County and the Suburban Court System get rules. Well SCOI and the legislature get to pass rules, so they need to have a whack at it.
4. Cook County Rules:  Even more confusing, each of the districts in Cook County gets to have their own rules of court. For example:  in Cook County you can bring in laptops and cell phones. In outlying courts you can’t.  Go figure. They say it’s for “safety purposes” but I think that’s nonsense. No studies have been done.  It was all anecdotes when they implemented these rules.  Further, they made no evaluation of lesser restrictive rules to accomplish any alleged safety concerns.  I vote political BS or nonsense.
5.  My fav, the judge’s website.  Here is where you will find when to bring courtesy copies, where to bring them, how many days you have to serve courtesy copies and all sorts of minutia BS. But if you don’t know it, your judge might fall into grudgeland against you.  Joke:  what’s the diff between a liberal and a conservative judge?  Answer: a liberal judge only holds a grudge against you for violating his/her rules for 30 days; a conservative judge will take 5 to 10 lawsuits to forgive a grudge.

Any way, that’s my humor and info for the day.

Why can’t they just KISS? esp for the pro se’er’s out there. Keep it Simple, Stupid.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-supreme-court-justices-impeached-over-spending-n900461

All of West Virginia’s Supreme Court justices impeached over spending

Lawmakers approved an article they had abused their authority and failed to control office expenses, including $1 million in renovations to offices.

by Associated Press / Aug.14.2018 / 9:02 AM ET / Updated Aug.14.2018 / 3:23 PM ET

Excessive spending leads to impeachment for West Virginia Supreme Court justices

AUG.14.201801:11

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — West Virginia lawmakers completed the extraordinary move of impeaching all four state Supreme Court justices Monday night for spending issues, including a suspended justice facing a 23-count federal indictment.

The state House of Delegates voted to impeach Justice Allen Loughry on eight articles, setting the stage for a trial in the state Senate.

Beth Walker became the final justice to be impeached when an article was approved stating all four justices abused their authority. It said they failed to control office expenses, including more than $1 million in renovations to their individual offices, and not maintaining policies over matters such as working lunches and the use of state vehicles and office computers at home.

Walker had dodged impeachment earlier Monday night when lawmakers decided to overlook her $131,000 in spending on office renovations. A short time later, another article was withdrawn against Chief Justice Margaret Workman, who spent $111,000 in renovations.

Justice Robin Davis was impeached for $500,000 in office renovations. And lawmakers approved articles against Loughry for spending $363,000 in renovations to his office; having a $42,000 antique desk and computers, all owned by the state, at his home; lying to the House Finance Committee about taking home the desk and a $32,000 suede leather couch; and for his personal use of state vehicles.

Loughry, Workman and Davis also were impeached for their roles in allowing senior status judges to be paid higher than allowed wages. Lawmakers say the overpayments violated state law and stopped when they were challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

Another impeachment article was withdrawn dealing with an accusation Loughry used state money to frame personal items at his office.

Minority Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that approved the articles last week had tried to speed up the impeachment process in the hopes of beating an Aug. 14 deadline for arranging a special election in November if any justice is removed from office or leaves office. Instead, the committee took its time, even conducting a tour of the state Supreme Court offices earlier this month.

Republican Gov. Jim Justice will be allowed to appoint new justices to replace any who are impeached — with no requirement that they be from the same party as the incumbent.

Democrats have accused Republicans of attempting to wrest the court away from voters, who elected the current justices in nonpartisan elections.

Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer of Monongalia County said Democrats agreed all along there was enough to recommend Loughry’s impeachment. But she said going after the other justices “was a power grab, was a takeover of the court and using the impeachment process to take over another branch of government.”

“We’re taking away from the people,” she said

Some legislators said they didn’t support impeaching any justice for wasteful spending, only for articles pertaining to lying, cheating or stealing.

But John Shott, a Mercer County Republican who chaired the House Judiciary Committee hearings that drew up the impeachment articles, asked whether there is public confidence in the court, and if not, “we need to take action to try to rebuild that trust.”

Several lawmakers noted the Supreme Court has a separate budget and is currently allowed to spend as it sees fit. But Shott said the court should spend that money wisely “and for the benefit of its citizens.”

A proposed constitutional amendment this fall would bring the state courts’ budget partly under legislative control.

Loughry, who wrote a 2006 book chronicling West Virginia political corruption, was indicted in June on 23 counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, lying to federal law enforcement, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Justice and legislative leaders have asked him to resign. Loughry has not responded and did not testify at the committee hearings.

One impeachment article accused Loughry of lying to the House Finance Committee in January about his involvement in his office renovations, including a custom-designed wooden-inlay map showing all 55 West Virginia counties embedded in the floor.

Loughry was suspended earlier this year. Justice Menis Ketchum retired and agreed to plead guilty to a federal wire fraud count involving the personal use of state-owned vehicles and fuel cards.

A special election already is set in November to fill the remainder of Ketchum’s term.

Circuit judge Paul T. Farrell has been sworn in to act as the court’s chief justice for the Senate trial, whose timeline is uncertain. The court’s fall term starts in early September. In the event that one or more justices is on trial in the Senate, the court said last week it would hear all cases on the docket as scheduled.

The last time the Legislature was involved in similar proceedings was 1989, when state Treasurer A. James Manchin was impeached by the House of Delegates after the state lost $279 million invested in the bond market. Manchin resigned before the state Senate took up the impeachment measure. He was never charged and the state recovered $55 million from lawsuits against nine New York brokerage firms involved in the losses.

 Bradley Amendment (Federal Law:  Public Act 99-509 (42 U.S.C. § 666 – yes, I appreciate the irony of the number 666 as the sign of the Beast/Devil), and its effect on Child Support.

Quickly, here is what the Devil’s Law (okay, I’m pushing the irony envelope here), I mean Bradley Amendment does:

-Automatically triggers a lien each time child support is due.  That means, if you miss 3 payments, you have three separate liens against you.  Each occurring on the date that the child support is due.  The obligee does not have to do ANYTHING to initiate the lien.  It’s an automatic judgement against the obligor, as if you got sued 3 times and lost 3 times.

-Since it is non-expiring, it never ends.  It does not matter if you are 95 on Social Security eating dog food; it survives.  There is no Statute of Limitation.  I guess that the government puts this on par with murder.

-But unlike murder, it survives death.  That is, if you die, you cannot be charged with murder.  But for child support purposes, if you die (or the obligee dies, or the child dies) the lien still exists.  It ends up in probate court for them to find anything of value to satisfy the lien.  It does not matter if you are 95 and your child is now 75.  Or if your child died before you and you inherited from your child’s estate, and then you died; the obligee gets the money.

-It cannot be discharged in Bankruptcy.  Here is where the corruption of family court makes it worse.  Judges often tell attorneys (or attorneys do on their own) to list attorney fees as “in the nature of child support” (whether true or not) so that attorney fees are treated as non-dischargeable.

-It cannot be discharged, even if it was based on lies/fraud/mistake (mother named wrong dad).

-It does not matter if the Child died.  If the State does not enter in the computer that the child died, child support continues without discharge.

AND NONE OF THIS CAN BE CORRECTED RETROACTIVELY.  That is, once the date the support is due, it is written in stone.  In other words, it cannot be corrected, despite lies, fraud, mistake, stupidity, unconstitutionality, you name it.

AND THE BIGGIE IN STUPIDITY:  There is no judicial discretion.  Zero.  Ziltch.  No matter how warped, stupid, or unconstitutional the results.  Here are some of my favorites of stupid (and unconstitutional) results.  There are cases where the obligor was:

-In a coma (and failed to go into court to reduce their child support, not that a judge would even reduce it.).  I heard of a case where a judge ordered a obligor in Australia who was in a long-term coma be placed in custody for contempt until he started paying.

-A captive of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War.  I guess Dictator Saddam Hussein would not give the guy time to file for a modification to child support.

Here are some actual cases (with the State’s response):

-Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed employee in Kuwait from North Carolina, was captured by Iraqis and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage. Sherrill was arrested the night after his release for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage.

–Clarence Brandley, a Texas high school janitor, was wrongly convicted in 1980 of murder.  After spending many years in prison and on death row, he was released in 1990 and he then sued the state of Texas for wrongful imprisonment in 1993. The state then responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.

–Taron James, a U.S. Navy veteran from California, was forced to continue to pay child support until 2006, even after the child was demonstrated by DNA test in 2001 to be not his; James paid $12,000 in such payments.  There are lots of cases similar to this one.

-Larry Souter was wrongly convicted of murder in 1992 and spent 13 years in prison before being exonerated and released in 2005. Upon release, he was ordered by the court to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for failing to pay $38,000 in combined back child support, interest, and penalties (damn, interest and penalties too).  Notice a State pattern – we wrongly convicted you, you could not pay (because we wrongly locked you up), so now we’re going to punish you more.

Link this with the perverse incentives of Title IV-D, and a obligor has no chance.

And that my kids, is today’s lesson on the Bradley Amendment and Due Process in America.  Sleep well.

MG–advocate for fair child support payments

https://pbs.org/newshour/health/most-nursing-homes-are-not-adequately-staffed-new-federal-data-says

Most nursing homes are not adequately staffed, new federal data says

Health Jul 13, 2018 11:19 AM EDT

Youtube often sends related videos on many topics based upon what you have watched in the past.  Since I watch and review a ton of legal videos, this popped up in my feed from youtube.

The sad part is that I cannot tell you in all of this sad story what is false.

Leave a comment below if you disagree with John Oliver on any of these topics.

I have heard from a ton of criminal defendants, and I assure you the poor are the main targets of govt abuses: guardianship, child custody, the criminal “justice” system and many other courts where the mighty dollar reigns supreme.

Joanne

Managing your attorney: the litigation process.

Okay so you got sued. Maybe it was a slip and fall your property, maybe a dog bite or an auto accident. Whatever happened, even if it’s a crazy lawsuit, you got sued. People can get sued for the right reasons, the wrong reasons or even crazy reasons.

At periodic intervals, look at the online docket, or better yet, go down to court and check on the computer file. Print out anything you don’t understand or didn’t receive from your attorney and take it to your attorney. Get a second opinion if you still have questions. You might not be able to sue for malpractice if you knew your atty was screwing up and you did nothing about it. Do regular file checks, don’t trust your attorney.

1) did you get served, did you get served properly? Go to the court and look for first court date and make sure you or a family member over 14 residing in your house was properly served. If not, check about objecting to jurisdiction. If they served the cleaning lady, a nurse, someone not residing with you, first step is your attorney objecting to jurisdiction.

2) jurisdiction by posting. If the sheriff has attempted 2 or 3 times, the plaintiff can get an order for posting. By posting, there can be no money judgment, but there can be an order for eviction or against property.

3) if you were served, make sure your attorney filed an appearance promptly.

4) at the time the answer is due, your attorney should file a “motion to dismiss”. Failure to do so, is often malpractice. Check it out. Ask him/er why this was or was not done. Once the motion to dismiss is denied, the court will require your attorney to file a written answer to your complaint. Make sure they do it on time and you review it before it is filed. At that time, the court will set a “case management schedule” or “trial schedule”. Make sure your attorney gets every task done on time. Judges hate it when you miss deadlines. Miss enough deadlines and you might get sanctioned. Plaintiffs can have their suits tossed out (DWP’d or Dismissed without Prejudice) for missing multiple deadlines.

5) Next step is sending out written discovery to all crucial witnesses. As soon as the motion to dismiss is decided (may take 2 to 6 months or more), and you did not get a dismissal, it’s time to start discovery. Your attorney should serve written discovery consisting of interrogatories, requests for documents and requests to admit. Failure to serve any or all of these before discovery ends, may be malpractice. Give your attorney a list of crucial witnesses and documents and demand s/he serve discovery. Once written discovery is over, the attorney should depose all crucial witnesses.

6) If you think the plaintiff does not have a case after discovery is over, instruct your attorney to file a Judgment on Pleadings (this is where you take all the pleadings filed in the case and attach it to a motion explaining why you feel plaintiff still does not have a case). If that is denied, you can file a Summary Judgment Motion. If the Plaintiff has a weak case, it may be malpractice to fail to file one or both of these. Again after the MSJ or JOP is filed, it may take the court 2 to 6 months to render a decisions.

7) After fact witness discovery closes, the attorneys will tell the court if they will have expert witnesses. If you will be having experts, this part of the case will proceed very quickly right to trial, so get ready and have your witnesses in mind for the close of fact discovery. You will then declare your witnesses and provide discovery and a written expert report to the court. If their witness for whatever reason, seems weak and not helpful (e.g. a Realtor testifying to building construction, an engineer testifying to patent infringement, which is a legal opinion), your attorney should move to strike their BS witnesses. Make sure they file a motion right away.

Next, the experts will be deposed for trial. Make sure your attorney deposes their experts before trial and you check out their expert reports.

8) Trial. Look closely at the trial schedule. Your attorney generally has a ton of work to do for trial, making an exhibit list, a witness list, having exhibit binders (this can be done electronically, if the judge allows), preparing a trial brief where your attorney explains the facts of the case and any relevant case law.

Your attorney should give you a copy of the trial binder so you know what will happen at trial.

You will also get to make “opening statements” and your attorney should get these to you in advance.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, your attorney can ask for a “directed verdict” meaning plaintiff didn’t show enough evidence to even get his/her case to the jury and no reasonable juror could find for plaintiff.

At the close of defendant’s case, the jury will come back with a verdict. Your attorney can then make a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, meaning no reasonable jury could have come to that conclusion.
Client rights:

You have the right to review and sign off on all pleadings prior to filing.

You have the right to request your attorney correct pleadings that are done wrong.

You have the right to fire your attorney at any time by just calling and/or emailing or texting your attorney instructions to file a Notice to Withdraw. In Illinois most judges will give you 21 days to get a new attorney.

Your attorney should not make any agreements with the otherside without informing you first. Many clients put this in their retainer agreement that any settlements of their case or substantive issues in their case must be in writing and signed by you.

Criminal trials: You have the right to a speedy trial (160 days in general if not in jail or prison, 120 days if incarcerated), you have the right to the attorney of your choice or no attorney. You have the right to fire your attorney. You have the right to see your entire file, whether it is in the clerk’s office, the state’s attorney’s office or with your attorney. However, an attorney can withhold your file if you bill has not been paid. Insist that your attorney scan in all documents and share them with you on gdrive so you have them all. Put it in the retainer agreement.

Attorneys are supposed to give clients of all documents they receive or send out on the client’s case within a few days. Insist on that. Put it in your retainer agreement. Insist all documents are kept on gdrive and shared with you.