Judicial-discipline-reform.org



(jur:73?154; 100?228b6)“not for publication” and “not precedential” (jur:43?82)1st Amendment (jur:130?276b and fn268)225 years; Whereas 2,131 federal judges –including justices and magistrates– were in office on September 30, 2011(jur:22fn13), in the 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8! (jur:22fn14). Such historic record of irremovability in practice has given judges reliable assurance that they are in effect unimpeachable. They enjoy impunity because the politicians in Congress who can impeach them and the politicians in charge of the law enforcement authorities in the Department of Justice and the FBI hold them unaccountable. They are as a matter of fact Judges Above the Law. They form an unelected, undemocratic class with the privileged status that they have arrogated to themselves and abuse with impunity: Judges Above the Law.(jur:21§A) 3-step plan of action 1. Read the study of the Federal Judiciary that I researched and wrote to expose judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and the circumstances enabling it to become their institutionalized modus operandi. The study is titled and downloadable as follows: Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; at or . or or If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let me know by emailing me at Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@. 2. Arrange presentations by us of: a. the evidence already available of judges’ coordinated wrongdoing(21§§A-B); b. two stories(OL:100) that can outrage the national public at such wrongdoing and interbranch connivance, for they are truly unique and national stories involving a sitting president and the first sitting S.Ct. justice whom he nominated, Justice Sonia Sotomayor(65§§1-3), as well as the Federal Judiciary to which she belongs and which is the only national jurisdiction, and the executive branch agency that has outraged the most the majority of Americans together with the rest of the world, the NSA; and c. the proposed library and field investigation(OL:66) of those two unique national stories and of judicial wrongdoing and reform(OL:115). These presentations are intended to have a multiplier effect by not only beginning the process of progressively informing the public about judicial wrongdoing and reform, but also of recruiting professionals(128§4) and graduate students(129§b) for the investigation. Therefore, we should arrange those presentations at: a. private meetings(jur:ii) with journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) and press conferences(jur:97§1); b. graduate schools of: 1) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23) 2) law(Lsch:1, 21) 3) business(jur:104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a); and 4) Information Technology(OL:42, 60); c. professionals at public interest entities(jur:86§4); d. political leaders and activists at political meetings(OL:51, 58); etc. 3-step plan of action C. The time is now, before the elections for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to join forces to inform and outrage the national public 8. I have proposed a 3-step plan of action(OL:127) to implement that strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform that begins with the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts. It provides for Advocates to: a. read the study of the Federal Judiciary titled Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(id. >title page); b. undertake a similar study of your local jurisdiction; and c. take public action that informs and outrages the people. 9. The proposed action is reasonable and feasible in terms of effort and money: to inform through presentations(Lsch:9) of: a. the evidence already available of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A-B); b. investigative activities(OL:115), e.g., the pursuit of those two stories(OL:100) that can outrage the public at the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians, i.e.: 1). the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation; and 2) the Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation; c. the proposal for judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8); and d. the material and moral rewards(OL:3§F) that can be earned by pursuing those activities and stories, such as winning a Pulitzer Prize, being played in a blockbuster movie, and receiving the recognition of a grateful nation as We the People’s Champions of Justice. 3-step Plan of action (short version) I have put forward a 3-step plan(OL:127) for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. It proposes that advocates of honest judiciaries: a. read the study of the Federal Judiciary titled Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:Title), because Knowledge is Power; b. make a similar study of their local judiciary; c. arrange presentations of the available(jur:§§21A-B) evidence of judges’ wrongdoing, two unique national cases(OL:100) and a documentary(OL:85) to expose it, and judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), to be held by us at: 1) graduate schools of: a) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23, 24) b) law(Lsch:1, 21) c) business(jur:104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a); and d) Information Technology(OL:42, 60); 2) public interest entities(jur:86§4; Lsch:7); 3) private and public meetings with political leaders and activists(OL:51, 58); 4) private meetings(jur:ii) with journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) and press conferences(jur:97§1); 6 W’s of writing articles(OL:321)Abe Fortas Indeed, it was through the revelations by Life magazine of the financial ‘improprieties’ of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas that he was forced first to withdraw his name for the chief justiceship, and then to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d). His conduct was not even a misdemeanor; in fact, it did not offend against any law whatsoever. It was simply conduct improper for a justice. The precedent for this is Justice Abe Fortas, who was forced to resign on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties, though the latter did not even amount to misdemeanors(jur:92§d). This is reasonable as well as realistic: Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties, although they did not even amount to misdemeanors(jur:92§d). A Watergate-like(id. >jur:4??10-14) generalized media search for the conceal assets of J. Sotomayor that discovers the mechanism(cf. jur:105fn213b) put in place for such concealment by judges can suffice, even if the assets are not found, to shake the Federal Judiciary to its foundation. Hence, the point is to cause, first, journalists to investigate the two unique national stories: the P. Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story described in the article. They will reveal the Judiciary's abuse of its pervasive secrecy, its self-exemption from accountability, and the enabling circumstances that allow federal judges to engage in wrongdoing: the motive, means, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3). Abe Fortas, JusticeSuch findings can lead to the impeachment or resignation of justices ?such as Justice Abe Fortas, who resigned on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties(92§d)? and top politicians –such as President Nixon, who resigned on August 8, 1972, due to his participation in the Watergate scandal, which sent to prison all his White House aides(4??10-14).The standard applicable to the investigation of wrongdoing by J. Sotomayor is provided by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and is easy to meet by journalists: She failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”123a. There is precedent for the expectation that its application to her can cause her resignation or impeachment. Indeed, the articles in Life magazine on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas’s financial improprieties, which were not even misdemeanors, never mind crimes, but simply conduct deemed inappropriate for a judge, caused him first to withdraw his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship and subsequently to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d). To be effective, the investigation need not find her concealed assets.They are also held unaccountable by journalists and media outlets, who fear their retaliatory wrath because if one judge is ‘attacked’ in the media, all his peers and colleagues close rank behind him. Federal judges with lifetime appointments have a long memory. Yet, federal judges are the most vulnerable public officers to media reports that they violated the injunction in their own Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). In fact, the articles in Life magazine on the financial improprieties of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, which were not even misdemeanors, never mind crimes, but simply conduct held inappropriate for a judge, caused him first to withdraw his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship and subsequently to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).abrogation(jur:24§b) in practice by judges of the lawJudicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24fn18a)Abuse of discretionA. Showing abuse of discretion: a difficult undertaking and ineffective approach On the issue of citizen grand juries’ prosecuting cases of abuse of discretion, it must be considered that by its own nature abuse of discretion is extremely difficult to prove. Even reasonable judges exercising fair and impartial judgment may disagree on whether it was abused under the circumstances of the given case. This means that proving abuse of discretion is: 1. a case-specific exercise; 2. requires people, including the laypeople of a citizen grand jury, journalists, and the general public, to delve into the details of the case, which they hardly ever do and in any event, lack the legal training necessary to do properly. How easy or difficult do you think it would be for you, your colleagues, and me to determine whether a firefighter chief abused his discretion when he, as a fire propagation containment measure, ordered the destruction of houses near those already on fire? Compare that with proving that he concealed part of his income?; and 3. can hardly cause such public outrage as to determine the public to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake the far-reaching, historic judicial reform necessary for citizen grand juries to attain their objective. B. Judges’ financial wrongdoing: can be proven objectively and outrage everybody A more effective approach is showing that judges, taking advantage of their unaccountability to do wrong risklessly, have engaged in self-beneficial financial wrongdoing, as by concealing assets to evade taxes or laundering money of their illegal provenance, which are crimes, id. >OL:5fn10. Their involvement in those and other crimes would outrage the vast majority of the public. Showing that, as suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico, id. >jur:65fn107a, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor concealed assets, and must presently continue to do so to avoid self-incrimination by all of a sudden declaring the concealed assets, would be scandalous. It would be even more scandalous to show that President Obama knew about it through the FBI vetting report on Justiceship Candidate Sotomayor, but disregarded it and lied to the American public by vouching for J. her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those who were petitioning that Retiring Justice Souter be replaced with a woman and the first Latina, and from whom in exchange he expected support for the passage of Obamacare. This is not a matter subject to differing notions of ‘discretion’. This is something that can be established with certainty by: 1. tracing the whereabouts of the money that J. Sotomayor has earned over the years, which as a public servant is a matter of public record(cf. id. >jur:65fn107c); and 2. demanding that the President release the FBI vetting report on J. Sotomayor. No citizen grand jury of one state can conduct an investigation and have as profound and widespread public impact as can the national TV networks and newspapers, let alone Congress and DoJ-FBI, which can exercise subpoena, search and seizure, contempt, and penal power. Whether for business or political reasons, they would investigate the involvement of a sitting president and a sitting justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in concealment of assets and its cover-up for personal financial and political gain. C. Showing federal judges’ interference with communications of complainants about their abuse This brings to mind the name of former NSA employee and now whistleblower Edward Snowden. His latest revelations that the NSA spied on none other than German Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as on other 34 heads of state worldwide have outraged the European Union, among others. Their outrage has prompted suggestions of bringing him from Russia, where he was granted asylum, to speak before the German government on the extent of such spying and to be offered witness protection. Can you imagine how much more outraged Americans would be if they were to find out that the Federal Judiciary, whose judges sign the secret orders of surveillance of the NSA(id. >OL:5fn7) have abused their power in order to interfere with the communications of among themselves and with others of complainants about, and exposers of, federal judges’ wrongdoing?(OL:19§D) Unlike surveillance of a person's Internet use and telephone records, interference with another person's communications is a crime under American law(18 U.S.C. §2511). Just think how your and colleagues’ names would be likewise recognized worldwide if you were instrumental in exposing such criminal activity of interference precisely by the Branch of government whose duty it is to uphold our laws and whose judges engaged in such interference, not in the interest of national security, but in the crass self-interest of protecting their financial and non-financial wrongdoing? Doing so is part of the proposed plan of action. Abuse of judicial power(?>OL2:453, 608§A; *>jur:5§3); would you too abuse so much unaccountable power? (OL2:641?2)Accessorial assistance and liability Those cases are the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA cases of wrongdoing at the very top of government and among the branches; id. >OL:55. Those cases can reveal the fundamental enabling circumstances of their wrongdoing: coordination that allows the wrongdoers to pursue their own interests by allowing the others to pursue their own. Instead of performing constitutional checks and balances on each other, politicians and judges provide reciprocal before and after the fact accessorial assistance and incur the corresponding liability(jur:23fn17a; 86§4). accessories before the fact(OL:72?9; jur:171?372; Lsch:22?6)accounts, see transfer by judges between…Addresses of law and journalism schools The addresses of journalism schools can be found at , and those of law schools are . Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsPoliticians are informed annually by the Federal Judiciary itself about judges’ unaccountability under 28 U.S.C. §§604(h)(2)*, * >jur:26fn23, jur:49§a.Advertising campaign for judicial accountability and reform: tour of presentations(*<OL:197§G); multimedia public conference on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(*<jur:97§§1-2; dcc:13§§C-D)We should try to create a visible link that is explicit in identifying the interview and thereby generates name recognition and creates a ‘brand’ that can attract viewers to subsequent interviews and text files, such as the shorter articles that I write every other week. That is a basic marketing principle that we should adopt, for we are building an advertising campaign to ‘sell’ and idea and prompt ‘buying’ action on the part of the viewer: to support and join a civic movement that demands judicial accountability and reform. Amicus curie, writing an(OL:379)Analyzing citizen grand juries and impugning judicial discretion (Lsch:13) A. Citizen grand juries’ concern with private persons and public servants alike Citizen grand juries may deal with people in any status as to whom there is objective suspicion that supports probable cause to believe that they violated the law. Hence, a jury may deal with private persons and public servants, and if the latter, they may belong to any of the three branches of government. Yet, my comments mostly make reference to wrongdoing judges. This is due only to the fact that no matter the status of any person whom the jury may indict and prosecute itself or cause a state or U.S. attorney to prosecute, if judges engage in wrongdoing, then they will steer the proceedings to whatever outcome they may want, their duty to provide fair and impartial judicial process notwithstanding. If wrongdoing judges are on the bench, any effort to bring to justice either other judges or people with any other status may be an exercise in futility: The outcome of the proceedings may have been predetermined by the judge, thus rendering the work of the jury, whether a citizen grand jury or a trial jury, superfluous. Consequently, dealing effectively with wrongdoing judges must be the first order of business for advocates of citizen grand juries to achieve their key objective: To ensure that prosecutors perform their duty to investigate and prosecute all suspect private persons and public servants alike regardless of their socio-economic standing, political connections, and coverage received by the media. Judges are, as it were, the bottleneck to complete success of all juries’ intermediate achievements. Without honest judges, juries’ role is illusory. I have great respect for the commitment of advocates of citizen, grand, and petit (trial) juries to ensuring public integrity by application to all indictable people of the standard of Equal Justice Under Law. However, since in the current legal and judicial systems their work will be doomed to failure by wrongdoing judges, I wish you and your colleagues would read and take into account my comments. I wish we could join forces to address first the problems in the legal and judicial system, for example, along the lines of the strategy proposed, generally, in my study, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; , and particularly, in my article at id. >Lsch:13 and 20§IV. Annual Report of the Director of the Office of the U.S. Courts submitted to Congress[jur:34b] Annual Report on Judicial Wrongdoing in America(jur:126§3)Anya Schiffrin Tomgram: Anya Schiffrin, Who Knew We Were Living in the Golden Age of Investigative Journalism?; Who Knew We Were Living in the Golden Age of Investigative Journalism? We’re Living in a Golden Age of Investigative Journalism Anya Schiffrin - The Nation; This article originally appeared at ; Posted by: bunmiwo@ Appearance of improprietyJournalists’ participation in exposing judges’ wrongdoing is precisely what can afford you protection from judicial retaliation, for however powerful judges are, they are also the most vulnerable officers to their failure to comply with the injunction in their own Code of Conduct: to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”123a.You do not have to prove with evidence the unlawful act of a judge, only show that he or she appears to have behaved improperly: After Life magazine showed the improprieties of Justice Abe Fortas, public disapproval forced him first to withdraw his name from the nomina-tion to the chief justiceship and later on resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d). If elected, you will be able to ‘pack’(jur:13fn17a) the Federal Judiciary for the long run with nominees to judgeships and justiceships left vacant by judges forced to resign due to their “appearance of impropriety”.Appointment of bankruptcy judges (28usc§152; jur:43fn61a) “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties. Though the latter did not even amount to misdemeanors(92§d), they showed his violation of the injuction on federal judges “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a) The findings of these investigations can show that justices and judges have failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[123a] and give rise to calls for them to be impeached or to resign, as J. Abe Fortas had to on May 14, 1969[186]. They acted either as principals by doing wrong or as accessories by tolerating(88§§a-d) it. In any event, they were remiss in their individual and collective duty to safeguard judicial integrity; and disregarded in their own personal or judicial ‘wrongdoing family’ interest the key principle of our democracy: Nobody Is Above The Law. I have already enough evidence against Justice Sotomayor, before whom I argued the DeLano case, >jur:xxxv, to show that she has at least violated the injunction “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a), but no media outlet will publish it, let alone further investigate it. As a result, it is useless. They only have to show that federal judges have failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”( >jur:68fn123a). That failure cost Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas first the chief justiceship and then his office because the revelations by Life magazine of his financial improprieties caused such outrage that he had to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d). Imagine how your visibility and name recognition would rise if thanks to your effort in organizing a team of investigative journalists J. Sotomayor and even other peers of hers were faced with calls for their resignation or impeachment. Indeed, it was through the revelations by Life magazine of the financial ‘improprieties’ of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas that he was forced first to withdraw his name for the chief justiceship, and then to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d). His conduct was not even a misdemeanor; in fact, it did not offend against any law whatsoever. It was simply conduct improper for a justice. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges places federal judges under the injunction to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(id. >jur:68fn123a). Hence, in order to cause the resignation of a federal justice, never mind a lower court judge, there is no need to provide proof, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All is needed is to show “the appearance of impropriety”. The precedent for this is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. Life magazine revealed that he had engaged in financial improprieties. This caused such public outrage that Justice Fortas withdrew his name from his nomination to the chief justiceship. Nevertheless, Life magazine kept revealing more of his financial improprieties. Public outrage thus exacerbated made his hold on office untenable and Justice Fortas resigned on May 14, 1969. It should be noted with particularity that those reactions on the part of the public and J. Fortas were motivated by the revelation of financial improprieties that did not even amount to misdemeanors so that they were nowhere near crimes(jur:92§d). Arguing by implications, incapacity of pro ses to(?>OL2:459??35-38)Attack on one judge is an an attack on all judges(?>OL2:546, 569??13-16)Attkisson, Sharyl, Former CBS Reporter(jur:168fn295; OL:198?42d, 215; OL:346?131; OL2:425§A; OL2:396§3, 600?12, 633??15-16)Attorney general and district attorney, see prosecutorsaudience as juryC. Voters treated as a jury to be enlightened and made to care about the most important person: themselves Judicial reform is hardly at the top of voters’ interests. That in your “estimation…we no longer own our courts…and it is the biggest single problem facing America today” is hardly persuasive. To persuade, you have to argue the case for judicial reform, rather than state your “estimation”. Enlighten voters with information that concerns them because nobody cares so much as when they care about themselves and their friends and family. Make them realize that they are victims and stir them up to determine themselves to take action against their victimizers: “judges and lawyers and their chronies”, namely, the politicians that put them on the bench and act in connivance with them. To that end, conceive of voters as the jury and address them as if you were making the opening statement, presenting evidence, and delivering your summation. You can begin by showing your jury how they have already been harmed by judges even when the jury is not a party to any case: Judges’ decisions have precedential value that affects your rights, property, liberty, and even lives, whether it is on issues of immigration, health care, taxes, abortion, the right to bear arms, gay marriage, foreclosures, privacy rights, government regulation of business, the criminal liability of predatory bankers, etc. Judges abuse their power to decide cases because they are held unaccountable by the politicians who help them get on the bench and by the media, which fear their retaliation. As a result, they risklessly decide cases in their own personal and class interests, to the detriment of you, the jury of voters. Even when you sue or are sued and go to court, judges abuse your fundamental right to due process by disregarding the law and the facts. Here are some official statistics, statements of judges themselves, and what parties and lawyers say in hundreds of websites and blogs….[cf., >jur:21§§1-3] You would think that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ you and I, We the People could hold judges accountable and even force them to compensate us. But that is not the case no matter the degree to which their conduct is outrageous…. Auditing judicial decisions (OL2:588; jur:132§§3, 6; OL:60, 42, 115, 255 )See also the templates(OL:280, 282) accompanying the Auditing Judges article(OL:274). The latter sets forth a method for one party to find other parties that have appeared before the same wrongdoing judge as that party has in order to join forces to audit his or her rulings and decisions in all their cases in search of commonalities that reveal concrete, verifiable, and convincing patterns of wrongdoing. Such pattern evidence is more credible than the allegations of a single party, who by definition is biased toward its own interest in winning its case. Patterns of a judge’s wrongdoing can persuade journalists(OL:250) and presidential candidates(OL:292) to further investigate and expose the wrongdoing of that judge and call for nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing aimed at bringing about judicial reform that holds judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Auditing judges’ decisions and other writings in search of patterns of judges’ wrongdoing(OL:274, 280, 284, 304, 306, 308; OL2:468, 588)avoid even the appearance of impropriety (jur:68fn123a)This interference has no “national security” redeeming value whatsoever. Rather it constitutes judges’ sheer abuse of the means at their disposal to protect themselves from being exposed as having failed to comply with the unambiguous and exacting injunction in their own Code of Conduct: “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[123a]. The exposure of such “appearance” can cost a judge dearly: It caused Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to withdraw his name from the nomination to the chief justiceship and subsequently to resign on May 14 1969(jur:92§d).axiom of power (jur:81?174)Bait & switch You should have been up front when your advertised your product as "free" and say that it was only a bait and switch come-on because your program would only be of any use if one bought it. When you are insincere about your ad, you can be expected to be insincere about what you claim your product can do. You do not come through as trustworthy. Bankruptcy cases, entry into the judiciary systemIn the Federal Judiciary, 80% of all cases enter the system through its bankruptcy courts. The overwhelming majority of those cases, 95%, are personal bankruptcies as opposed to commercial ones. The overwhelming majority of personal bankruptcy filers appear pro se for the obvious reason that they are bankrupt and cannot afford attorneys’ fees. But they pay a high price anyway: They make mistakes from the start of the process, filling out the bankruptcy petition forms, and are abused throughout the process by all the insiders, beginning with the banrkruptcy trustee, the judge, the auctioneer, the accountants hired by the trustee, etc.(id. >jur:28§a)ftnt.169 bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3; jur:xxxv-xxxviii) Bankruptcy fraud scheme, how it works(jur:42fn60)the operation by judges(jur:28§a) of a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3)[60] driven by an enormous amount of corruptive money(jur:27§2; OL:188?2)Bankruptcy fraud, duty to denounce it Bankruptcy statistics (jur:28§a) (ftnts33,34,35) Bar associations(OL:300)bar associations, suing(OL:301)Benefits of wrongdoing(OL:173?93): material(jur:44fn213; 27§2), professional(jur:105fn69; 56§§e-f), and social (jur:62§g; a&p:1?2nd). Consequently, their wrongdoing is riskless. It grows worse as it becomes ever more routine, widespread, and graver. Progressively, the inhibitions about behaving badly fall away, their wrongdoing becomes common knowledge, and its material213(jur:27§2), professional69(56§§e-f), and social benefits(62§g, a&p:1?2nd) become more enticing. Naturally, the most harmful feature of ‘bad Behaviour’ in a group takes over: coordination(jur:88§§a-c) among wrongdoers. It leaves them free to go through the motions of their office while risklessly abusing their means and opportunity to pursue their motive for wrongdoing, i.e., to gain for themselves material(jur:44fn213; 27§2), professional(jur:105fn69; 56§§e-f), and social benefits(jur:62§g; a&p:1?2nd). This makes it irresistible for them to grab wrongfully material, professional, and social benefits. The analysis of the official statistics shows it: In the 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges13 have been impeached and removed14. Evidence( >ws:46§V) supports probable cause to suspect unaccountable federal judges of risklessly abusing those means in the crass self-interest of preserving their unlawful benefits by interfering with the email, phone, and mail communications Bernstein and Woodward(jur:4??10-14)Carl Bernstein and Bob WoodwardAny ambitious journalists would like to get the scoop and become this generation’s Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, the two Washington Post reporters who initiated the investigation of what became the Watergate scandal that more than two years later led to the unthinkable: the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides for political espionage, abuse of power, and campaign financing fraud(jur:4??10-14).Bloggers and social media (jur:165§b,c; 167fn193,194)business proposal(jur:119§1; OL:271, 272, 324)A business proposal centered on the issue that can dominate what in any event will ever more tightly grip national attention for the next year and a half: the primaries, the nominating conventions, the campaign, and the presidential and vice-presidential national debates. Your collective denunciation of wrongdoing judges will be a pioneering act of civic courage on behalf of We the People; it will also redound to the benefit of all of you. Through it, you can launch a series of events that attract the admiring attention of the national and even international public; creates a niche market that seeks you out as the leading provider of expert advice and advocacy services; and earns you the grateful recognition from those here and those abroad as the Peoples’ Champions of Justice(OL:201§K). Business plan(OL2:592, 560 with the plan’s table of contents, 563); pitched to capital investors(OL2:577)Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, improprieties under (jur:68fn123a)Carrot(jur:60§§f,g) and stick(jur:56§e) to enforce judges’ class loyaltyAssuming arguendo that a rogue judge is removed, he or she would simply be replaced by another judge of the same ilk. That judge would protect the system induced by his or her well above average secure salary[211] and the ‘carot’(jur:60§§f,g) of other significant benefits given for being loyal, rather than expose his or her colleagues’ wrongdoing and thereby become a pariah to all of them, who for the rest of their lifetime appointment will beat him or her with a painful ‘stick’(jur:56§e) for being an unreliable traitor.Certiorari, petition for in the Supreme Court (jur:65fn109b, 114c)chaff of justiceLet them know that politicians, to avoid judges’ retaliation(jur:23fn17a; Lsch:17§C) for investigating their wrongdoing, have allowed judges to become unaccountable and free to trample with impunity people’s rights underfoot to shatter the strictures of due process of law in search for expediency and their own benefit and dish out to the people the residue of their threshing: the chaff of justice! Champion of Justice (jur:79fn164a) Chapters of a civic movement ()Choose your battles I trust you have heard the saying, “One must choose one’s battles”. This means that one cannot take issue with every difference of opinion, but rather must concentrate on what goes to the essence of the matter at hand. circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing (OL:154§1; 186§A);These are the circumstances enabling wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary: unaccountability(jur:21§§a-d), secrecy(27§e), coordination(88§§a-c)169, and consequent risklessness(100§§3-4).The investigation of J. Sotomayor is a Trojan horse that will raise the question about, and lead to identifying, the circumstances enabling her and her peers’ wrongdoing: 1. the unaccountability that they ensure for themselves(jur:§1) and that politicians grant them; 2. the secrecy in which they hold all their deliberative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings; 3. the consequent risklessness that eliminates concern about, and need for costly and time-consuming measures to prevent, detection and punishment; and 4. coordination among judges(jur:88§§a-c) and between them and other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems169 that increases the ease, routineness, extension, and benefits(OL:173?93) of wrongdoing and allows its most harmful form because structured, ongoing, and multiparty: schemes(OL:85?2) such as the concealment of assets scheme213. So wrongdoing has become the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi.Institutional circumstances enabling wrongdoingThe unaccountability deriving from interpersonal dynamics is aggravated in the judiciary by the institutional circumstances: Judges are authorized to exercise self-discipline. This is particularly so in the Federal Judiciary, where complaints against judges must be filed with their respective chief circuit judges(jur24fn18a), who dismiss 99.82% of them(21§§a-d). They have self-granted immunity, even from corruption(26§d). The unreviewability(28§3, 46§3, 48§2) in effect of their decisions and their reasonlessness(?>OL2:452§§A-D) cover their wrongness and wrongfulness. They hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors(27e). The result is pervasive secrecy. It facilitates coordination(88§a), which rend-ers wrongdoing more secure, efficient, profitable, and apt to develop into its most complex and harmful forms: schemes(OL:85?2, 91§E). Judges’ job is to rule on the most insidious corruptor: Money, lots of it!(jur:27§-2) The risklessness of their wrongdoing renders it irresistible.Citizen boards of judicial accountability (jur:160§8; OL2:449?9, 459?45)Civic movement (164§9) A. From national outrage to a civic movement: the People’s Sunrise As you and your colleagues produce that series of presentations, you can also work toward coalescing your interlocutors into a group of investigators, information disseminators, and opinion shapers that form a Coalition for (legal, economic, social, and political) Justice. That Coalition can enable the public to engage in ‘reverse surveillance’. That is the opposite of the unlawful surveillance of scores of millions of people by the NSA revealed by Edward Snowden. Reverse surveillance is the paying of keen attention by an outraged We the People, the source of all political power and masters of all public servants, to how their servants perform their duty, that is, to exercise the power entrusted to them for the benefit of their masters, so that their performance increasingly becomes transparent and allows the People to hold the servants accountable and liable for any embezzlement of such power for their own unlawful benefit. That is how a civic movement can develop; the Tea Party is precedent therefor. It can force a fundamental reform of government by current politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not back into, office. Furthermore, it can encourage the entry into politics of persons willing to hold themselves accountable to the People as their public servants. By becoming the Builder of the Coalition for Justice, you can foster the development of a civic movement that goes far beyond being interested mainly in only lower taxes, as the Tea Party is, to being interested in a realistic, enlightened way, in making the common good shine for everybody: the People’s Sunrise. By producing the presentations and building the Coalition, you and your colleagues can make a name for yourselves. In the process, you can also earn the national recognition of a grateful People for bestowing upon them a noble as well as very concrete and practical benefit: progress in the administration to them of Equal (legal, economic, social, and political) Justice Under Law. I encourage you to read as many of the above references as you can, for “Knowledge is Power”. Civic movement (jur:164§9; OL:87§6, 123§D)Class actionC. Pragmatic considerations of a class action: very expensive and risky A class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not only highly technical –read the official comments on it(* >jur:47§79)– but also extremely expensive and fraught with risk.A class action is prosecuted on a contingency basis, that is, the lawyers earn money only if they win and the sum that they may win is never certain, much less the sum that the judge may allow them to earn…after covering considerable out-of-pocket costs. Indeed, before winning anything, class action lawyers have to define the common legal and factual characteristics of the members of the class. Then they must search for all potential members and notify them by mail of the purpose of the action, and give them the opportunity and means to opt in or out of the class. All that work can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, depending on the size of the class. In addition, the members must be registered, whether they opt in or out; the in-members may have to be mailed several notifications during the course of the action; given access to pleadings and other relevant materials; afforded the opportunity to submit comments, objections, and other papers to determine their eligibility for any recovery and the amount thereof, if any; etc. Consequently, the costs of prosecuting the action add up very quickly for the lawyers.Moreover, the lawyers must also convince the judge that they are capable of representing the legal interests of the class competently: they have certified as class action lawyers. If they judge disqualifies them, whether based on fair or biased considerations, they are out of the action and out of the money that they have invested up to then.Only people who indulge in wishful thinking can imagine a judge certifying pro ses as class action lawyers to represent the legal interests of all the members of the class even though pro ses cannot competently represent their own interests.If you can provide at least $1 million as seed money and find lawyers willing to risk their time, effort, and livelihood suing wrongdoing judges, you can sponsor the filing of a class action.Just keep in mind the lawyers who took their 2,000,000 Walmart employee class action all the way to the Supreme Court only to be told by the justices that the class was improperly constituted by members with too divergent characteristics. The action was dismissed and they had to bear the loss.Class of judgesClass of judges, similar to but more powerful than that or police Judges form a class, similar to police officers, sport teammates, corporate officers, etc. Between doing the right thing according to law for a one-time plaintiff suing a judge and doing the self-interested thing of saving a judge from indictment, never mind prosecution and conviction, with whom they will spend together years on end, they will choose the latter all the time. For a judge to do the former will amount to betraying one of his own. He would condemn himself to be treated as a pariah. If he became in turn accused of wrongdoing, the other judges would take the opportunity to bring down such an untrustworthy traitor among them. The same is applicable to state judges... Hence, a strategy to expose wrongdoing judges by suing judges before their peers betrays a failure of understanding group dynamics and a lack of strategic thinking. Wrongdoing judges must be exposed outside the courts by showing that they have abused their power to commit crimes, such as the concealment of assets –to evade taxes- that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(id. >jur:65fn107c) suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of engaging in. See the details of this strategy at id. >OL:55. Clearinghouse of complains against judges(*>jur:130?276b; ?>OL2:423?e; 444 3rd?, 450§1)Clerks as enforcers of wrongdoing or Workers of Justiceclerks of courts and of judges turned into confidential informants(OL2:468)Closing statements I look forward to hearing from you all and in light of the facts discussed at OL:19§D, will appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this email. Coalition for Justice (OL:222§1. 76)On becoming the producer and builder Coalition for justice promoter (Lsch:12§1C)Coalition for Justice, building it contacting other fellow members of the media and thereby become Builders of the Coalition for Justice(OL:73). 20. Young idealistic hardworking students(jur:129§b) can be attracted to the investigation through ‘recruiting’ presentations(Lsch:9) held at graduate schools of journalism(OL:54, Lsch:23); law(Lsch:1, 21); business(104??236-237); and Information Technology(OL:42, 60); after being offered to, and accepted by, the officers of the student classes, pertinent student associations, and the organizers of the fair of student organizations at the beginning of the academic year and of job fairs later in the year(jur:97§1). 21. Presentations can also be held at think tanks, civil rights entities, and public interest organiza-tions(jur:86§4); political meetings(OL:52, 58); and meetings of veterans(OL:90, 94). 22. These presentations can contribute to identifying the necessary talent and financial supporters for producing the proposed documentary(OL:85) on judges’ wrongdoing and judicial reform. Coalition for Justice, formed by talkshow hosts (OL:144§D)Coalition for Justice, producing it through presentations D. Making your effort count by becoming the producer of a presentation and of the 16. Strategic thinking should be applied to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the effort, money, and time of you, me, and all the many others similarly situated. To that end, I have offered to make presentations to expose judges’ financial, non-discretionary wrongdoing, and lay out a plan of action reasonably calculated to provoke the public’s reformative outrage and set in motion a process leading to judicial reform that is historic in its nature and scope. The initial presentation can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a media outlet, or a civil rights organization. 17. You and other people that you have met while suffering judges’ abuse can be instrumental in arranging for it to be held. By so doing, you can emerge as the Producer of the Coalition for Justice. coalition formers, self-improvised A. Inspiring examples of unexpected, self-improvised coalition formers There is precedent for your becoming the producer of the presentation and the Coalition for Justice. 1. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) was born of a mother who lost her daughter to a drunk driver and committed herself to preventing others from becoming victims; by din of hard work, her organization has gone national and lobbied successfully for pertinent laws. 2. Sally Regenhard, the mother of a firefighter killed at the Twin Towers, is recognized as the driving force of the movement that forced the government to hold the 9/11 Commission. 3. The Tea Party has developed in less than 10 years from people who shared a single common idea, lower taxes, into a political force to be reckoned with at the national level. Coalition for justice formed of talkshow hosts Coalition for Justice(OL:113, 142, 222§1)coalition of media outlets to hold public hearings on judges’ abuse of power, acting in their commercial and professional interest(OL2:585§1)Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges (jur:68fn123a,b) coercive investigative powers of public officers (OL:157?f, 129?9)compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to open official investigations by Congress and DoJ-FBI of, and the holding of public hearings on, judges’ wrongdoing, whose intrusive official investigative powers of subpoena to compel production of things, e.g., documents, and the appearance of people at depositions, search and seizure, contempt, indictment, and plea bargaining, will lead to even more outrageous findings that will so exacerbate the outrage as to determine the public to force politicians to legislate judicial reform(OL:157?f)Politicians and a special prosecutor wield intrusive investigative powers, i.e., to issue subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt orders; charge interviewees with obstruction of justice; interrogate under oath; plea bargain; hold public hearings; etc. Those powers will allow them to make findings of judges’ wrongdoing that will exacerbate public outrage. An outraged public will compel reform to ensure for itself honest judicial services(OL:129?9).Common goodThe common good that we pursue as a team is unambiguous and indisputable: Judges who individually and collectively as members of a judiciary render an honest service to their masters, We the People, by transparently resolving controversies between parties through the fair and impartial application of the rule of law so as to deliver Equal Justice Under Law, and are held by the People accountable, disciplinable, and jointly and severally liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.(OL:225§B)Community leader, becoming a (OL:142§§B,C)Complaints against judges filed with the Department of Justice(jur:78159, 160)Complaint filed against Judge Ninfo (jur:68fn124)See the complaint filed against U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Ninfo at jur:68fn124 in the file referred to below and which is downloadable through the links provided. See also a discussion of the official statistics on judicial complaints at jur:21§1. The article below shows why suing judges in court is an exercise in futility and why the proposed out-of-court strategy is reasonable, realistic, and plicit collegiality You knew…I bring you down!Federal judges together with other bankruptcy and legal systems insiders[169] run[60] the scheme risklessly, for in the 225 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, only 8[13] have been impeached and removed[14] from the bench. This provides the historic assurance that a federal judgeship is a safe haven for wrongdoing judges, for those who commit it and those who enable them through their complicit silence(90?202). Judges protect their complicit insiders, or they all go down together(51??103-104). Complicit silence and collegiality (Lsch:16§1. jur:62§g; jur:90§b)the collegial complicity that binds wrongdoing judges aware of their mutually dependent survival(jur:88§§a-c), whereby they become accessories before and after the fact of wrongdoing(OL:72?9; jur:171?372; Lsch:22?6); CondonationAny investigation and exposure of wrongdoing committed by judges and condoned by their peers to commit would indict their honesty and the credibility of their commitment to the fair and impartial application of the law. It would refute their proclaimed sense of institutional responsibility for the integrity of the Judiciary and of legal process. It would give rise to a It could incriminate the top politicians that vetted them, had reason to suspect and the duty to investigate, even prosecute or impeach, them upon discovering probable cause to suspect their involvement in wrongdoing, but instead nominated and confirmed them as lifetime officers with the ultimate responsibility for interpreting the Constitution and saying national law. It would be a scandal. Public outrage would demand their resignation. Their agreement, let alone their refusal, to resign and the connivance of top politicians would create an institutional and a constitutional crisis.conference on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(OL:329-343, 347)confidential informants, turning clerks of courts and of judges into(OL2:468); (*>jur:106§c) (OL:180, 217)Congress and the AG know about judges’ wrongdoing(jur:50??95a-96)Politicians are informed annually by the Federal Judiciary itself about judges’ unaccountabilityunder 28 U.S.C. §§604(h)(2)*, * >jur:26fn23, jur:49§a.Congress has known through the Annual Report (jur:50??95-97) Connecting a unique national case to a current national concern 3. At this point in time, when so many Americans believe that President Obama lied to them when he said that they would be able to keep their current health insurance under Obamacare, would it be more likely than not for a greater number of Americans to believe that the President also lied to them about the honesty of his Supreme Court Nominee, Then-Judge Sotomayor? For more details on the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story see id. > HYPERLINK "" jur:xxxv. 4. Whether one is for or against Obamacare is utterly irrelevant. What matters is how presenting the evidence that gives rise to widespread public belief that a sitting president and a sitting justice nominated by him were involved in concealment of assets and its cover-up for personal and political gain can provoke such national outrage as to cause the national public to demand further investigation of the conditions enabling such concealment and prompting such cover-up. On the motive, means, and opportunity of federal judges to engage in wrongdoing see jur:21§§1-3. 5. A key element of strategic thinking is the use of what people are already familiar with and can easily relate to the interest that one is trying to advance. That is the element behind advertisers using personalities to endorse their products. 6. The concept of strategic thinking that provides the underpinning of the proposal is discussed at Lsch:14§§b-c. C. Making your effort count by becoming the producer of a presentation and of the Coalition for Justice 7. Strategic thinking should be applied to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the effort, money, and time of you, the many others similarly situated, and me. To that end, I have offered to make presentations to expose judges’ financial, non-discretionary wrongdoing, and lay out a plan of action reasonably calculated to provoke the public’s reformative outrage and set in motion a process leading to judicial reform that is historic in its nature and scope. The initial presentation can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a media outlet, or a civil rights organization. 8. You and other people that you have met while suffering judges’ abuse can be instrumental in arranging for it to be held. By so doing, you can emerge as the Producer of the Coalition for Justice. 9. To that end, I respectfully request that you distribute as widely as possible this email, particularly to other parents and to journalists. Connivance and unaccountability (22?31) A distrustful public(OL:11) can become ever more outraged by the stream of revelations of the long investigation throughout the electoral season comprising the mid-term, primary, and presi-dential election campaigns. It can realize the problem underlying judges’ wrongdoing: conni-vance between the branches that in self-interest suspend checks and balances on judges and hold them unaccountable(22?31). Unaccountability assures judges that their wrongdoing is riskless and can be as self-beneficial as they can make it, thus providing a perverse incentive to do wrong. Connivance between politicians and judges For their part, politicians are aware that judges can doom their legislative agenda by declaring its component laws unconstitutional(jur:23fn17). To avoid such retaliation, they have in self-interest(jur:22?31) allowed judges to maintain the judicial immunity doctrine in force, and hold them unaccountable. Hence, it is not by resorting to politicians that the chances of suing judges successfully increase. Politicians are part of the problem(jur:81§1; OL:147?6). By so doing, politicians are in dereliction of their constitutional duty to exercise on behalf of the people that they represent checks and balances on the Judiciary, the undemocratic branch composed of unelected, life-tenured appointees. The politicians in the Executive in charge of the law enforcement authorities in the Department of Justice and the FBI could apply their investigative powers to pursue complaints against wrongdoing judges. Likewise, the politicians in Congress could wield their power of impeachment to ensure that judges administer their awesome power over people’s property, liberty, and lives in accordance with the rule of law. Instead, they hold judges unaccountable, thereby investing them with impunity. Connivance between the branches (OL:109?5) Such wrongdoing is committed by the very public officers and the branch of government charged with upholding and applying the law. It requires the connivance of the other two branches, which abstain in self-interest(jur:22?31) from exercising the constitutional checks and balances that would affirm a tenet of our republic: Nobody Is Above The Law. Constitution (jur:22fn12b) Constitutional convention and amendment I (jur:139fn270 >Ln:309) Contact me otherwise If you do not receive a reply from me, keep resending your response until you do. If in tone or substance you suspect that the reply you receive purportedly from me is not in keeping with what I have stated here and in my study, contact me otherwise than by email. Distribute my article instead of your local case This is the time for thinking strategically. Turn the national distrust of the President and the NSA to your advantage. Use it to induce journalists to investigate the connivance of top national politicians with federal judges. The outrage that their findings will provoke will result in ever more journalists investigating how widespread judicial wrongdoing is and how far-reaching judicial reform must be. It is then when they will be interested in investigating cases similar to yours. But not now. Work in your own interest. Contact all the journalists that have shown interest in your case and induce them to give priority to a case of national interest that can earn them a Pulitzer Prize, their portrayal in a blockbuster movie, and make a bestseller of their account of how they were instrumental in bringing about the resignation of one or more justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, of the President, of top members of Congress, etc. That’s where the juice is for them! Hence, contact them to offer them something valuable to them, not to ask anything of them. That way you will be proceeding strategically in your own interest at the right time. For that reason, you may wish to distribute the article that I emailed you or the one below as widely as possible. If you join Yahoo- and Googlegroups, and go to the Contact Us webpage of websites that complain about judges’ wrongdoing, and email the article to them, you will be able to reach more people and share with them the proposal for action, that is, to further investigate the available evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, id. >OL:55. Constitution Art. II, Sec. 4: impeachment of public officersSection. 4. jur:22fn12b The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimesand Misdemeanors.Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 112Constitutional convention (OL2:599?6i; 517§B; 636?7; jur:139fn270 >Ln:309); OL:87§D; 129§3,135); to update the current Constitution on topics not covered by it(OL2:516?8)Michigan applied for it in March 2014Constitutional rights breached by interception of communications (OL:227§A; jur:130fn268)What is more, such interception constitutes a denial of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment to “freedom of speech[,] of the press[, and] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (* >jur:130fn268).Contents-based interception of communications among and with advocates of honest judiciaries(OL2:583§3, 526?56)coordination in wrongdoing (jur:88§a)Copyright note ?2014 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved. A non-exclusive license is hereby granted for distributing and reprinting this article, provided it is distributed and reprinted in its entirety, without addition or modification and with inclusion of this copyright note; proper attribution is made to the author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.; and its link accompanies it: >OL:. ?2013 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved. A license is hereby granted for distributing and reprinting this article, provided it is distributed and reprinted in its entirety, without addition or modification and with inclusion of this copyright note; proper attribution is made to the author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.; and its link accompanies it: >Lsch:8. Corruption, wrongdoing, and abuse of discretionOne must always keep in mind that the following concepts are different and support different charges: corruption, wrongdoing, and allegedly wrongful exercise of discretionary decision-making; >jur:86§4; The nature of judicial wrongdoing, id. >jur:133§4; and jur:50§b. CPS (Child Protective Services): see personal local cases, of which there are millions of similar ones v. two unique national stories I am very sensitive to your plight and that of so many other people who contact me concerning the abuse that they have experienced at the hands of those in charge of Children Protective Services. You have identified one of the key issues at play: the money that is received for each child in the care of CPS. Money! The determination of those running CPS not to lose that money is what dooms your effort to change the system by battling it in the courtrooms, the turf of the judges, who control their rules and the outcome of cases. For that reason, I have laid out a strategy that takes the battle outside the courtroom to the public. It also forsakes any effort to represent one case of which there may be many similar ones, even literally hundreds of thousands of similar local cases. Instead, the strategy centers on two unique national cases that can outrage the national public because they involve top national public officers in wrongdoing concerning money. These cases can cause such outrage that they can force politicians to do what they have not dare do up to now: investigate judges and their judiciaries for their wrongdoing concerning their abuse of power to enrich themselves as well as disregard of the law. The investigation should first take place in the federal jurisdiction, which is the model for its state counterparts and can set the example for similar investigations in the state jurisdictions. I realize that your case and that of each of the parents similarly situated is of paramount importance to each of you respectively. But it is not supported by sound thinking: strategic thinking. Judges and CPS are never going to give up their privileges simply because you and the other parents protest; and politicians, the very ones who recommend, nominate, confirm, appoint, and endorse those who became judges, are not going to turn against their ‘men and women on the bench’ simply because you and the other parents ask them –if you even do that- to change the law to the detriment of judges and their insiders. The only way politicians can be forced to investigate judges is if the NATIONAL public is so outraged at judges’ wrongdoing that it forces them to take reformative action, lest they face defeat at the polls. Therefore, I encourage you to consider the strategy set forth below: criticizing P. Bush too We all have limited resources in terms of work capacity money, and time. We have to allocate them in the most cost-effective way in order to achieve the intended objective: to expose coordinated wrongdoing at the top of government so that such exposure may lead to substantive reform that makes officers’ performance transparent and holds them accountable and liable to We the People. To do so, it is necessary that we think strategically. We must lay out a plan of action that is realistic because it can be implemented and that is reasonably calculated to have a chance at success. Such is the one proposed in the article below and found also at >OL:76. The decisions that President Bush took were political and allegedly in the national interest. There will always be a significant number of people, even Democrats, who will support the decisions that he took. By contrast, the decisions taken by President Obama described in the article involve connivance to cover up the crime of concealment of assets by his justiceship nominee, Then-Judge Sotomayor. Such decisions have nothing to do with national interest; they were motivated by crass greed and personal interest. No politician can defend concealment of assets or its cover up. President Bush is no longer in office. Hence, he cannot be impeached by Congress. Nor can he be brought to court because no plaintiff would have standing to do so and because as a matter of policy courts do not decide political questions. By contrast, President Obama, J. Sotomayor, and other top officers are in office and can be impeached by Congress. Moreover, given the animosity against the President among Republicans and the disappointment in him among Democrats, a majority of the public can exert pressure on politicians to impeach him as well as J. Sotomayor and the other officers. That pressure will be particularly effective during the coming electoral season of the mid-term, primary, and presidential election campaigns, when politicians must appear to be sensitive to public sentiment. The two stories described in the article can provoke public outrage at President Obama, J. Sotomayor, and other top public officers. That outrage is indispensable to cause the public to demand that Congress and DoJ-FBI open official investigations of the non-political, inexcusable financial wrongdoing in which those officials are involved. Strategic thinking requires that we proceed with the wisdom contained in the saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Currently, there are not enough enemies of Former President Bush among the public and Congress. By contrast, there are enough enemies of President Obama. Consequently, I respectfully encourage you to reread the article so that you may realize that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to public integrity if you distribute it as widely as possible and contribute to organizing the presentations of the evidence of wrongdoing referred to in the two unique national stories discussed in the article. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email the article to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. Cronyism in the bankruptcy system (jur:32§§2-6) Deep Throat (jur:106§c); a judge as a confidential informer on the inside(OL:180)We can proceed as openly or discreetly as you want. If the latter, you can become this generation’s Deep Throat of Watergate fame(jur:106§c). DeLano Case course(dcc:1)a case that went from bankruptcy court to the district and circuit courts and all the way to the Supreme Court(jur:65fn109, 114c) a judicial circuit council, and the Judicial Conference of the United States(jur:65§1); Democracy, not a, only a republic Thank you for your comment on my article. I trust you have heard the saying, “One must choose one’s battles”. This means that one cannot take issue with every difference of opinion, but rather must concentrate on what goes to the essence of the matter at hand. The essence of my article is not whether the U.S. is or is not a democracy. Even if you and the rest of the nation, including me, could agree that it is not, would that change in any way whatsoever the unaccountability of federal judges and their consequent riskless wrongdoing? It would not. Such unaccountability and wrongdoing by precisely the public officers that are charged with upholding the law is the essence of the article. A description of the nature, extent, and gravity of federal judges’ individual and coordinated wrongdoing will outrage the national public. That is the essence of my study of the Federal Judiciary, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, at >jur:5§3, 21§§A-B. The findings of the proposed investigation of the two unique national President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA stories discussed in my article will likewise outrage the public(id. >jur:83§§2-3). That outrage during the coming long mid-term, primary, and presidential election campaigns can stir up the public to demand that incumbents open, and candidates call for, official investigations of those stories and commit themselves to substantial reform of the Federal Judiciary, cf. id. >jur:158§§6-8, lest voters withhold their donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support from candidates and incumbents who condone judges’ wrongdoing. That is a practical way in which voters force politicians to take action harmonious with their demands. By so doing, an outraged public can assert its power to hold all its public officers as what they are: their public servants. The precedent for this statement is what the Tea Party members have forced many politicians to do under pain of having their political careers terminated. Again, the “battle” in that precedent is not whether you or I are members of the Tea Party, but simply the fact of what Tea Party members have managed to do. Similarly, a new civic movement can force all public servants to be accountable to We the People: the People’s Sunrise civic movement. You can become one of the promoters of that movement…or would you prefer to spend your time, effort, and money discussing with me whether the U.S. is a democracy? I very much hope that you prefer that we work together to inform the public about federal judges’ wrongdoing so that the public may become outraged and take advantage of the election campaigns to set in motion a process of judicial accountability discipline and reform. If so, I respectfully encourage you to read the whole of the article, concentrating on what is its essence, and then join forces with others and me in informing the public about unaccountable judges’ wrongdoing and the call for the public to assert its power to hold them accountable and even liable to the victims of their wrongdoing. To that end, you can distribute the article as widely as possible…and thereby become an early promoter of the People’s Sunrise civic movement. two unique national stories, the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA stories, the findings will outrage the public(jur:83§§2-3)Democrats in the Senate fighting for leadership position (OL:231§3)demographic extent of judges’ wrongdoing (jur:8??25-26)Disciplinary commission; see attorney disciplinary commissiondisgruntle losersCharacterization of pro ses, whether by comparison with their counseled opposing party at trial or when they go on appealJudges dismiss disparagingly complainants against their wrongdoing as “disgruntle losers”. In addition, they take advantage of the ever growing number of people who in these hard economic times cannot afford lawyers and must appear pro se to represent themselves though they have no knowledge of the law; > jur:43?81, and the statistics at >jur:28fn35, 29fn38, 43fn64. It is what makes the difference between “disgruntled litigants” and those who engage in academic research and journalistic investigation. as losing parties who complain against judges are referred to by them and who mostly limit themselves to crying, screaming, yammering about the facts of their cases without reference to the applicable law and one who wants to be exceptional, respected, and an expert on judges’ wrongdoing Disinfectant‘the best disinfectant: the sunlight’(jur:158?350b), J. BrandeisDisseminate article as part of taking action Dear , I encourage you to distribute widely the article below because highlighting what journalists stand to gain from investigating judges’ wrongdoing and thus causing journalists to investigate them is the only way of exposing judges’ wrongdoing to the public. A public informed about judges’ wrongdoing will be outraged at them. An outraged public will be stirred up to demand that politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, investigate judges officially and in public hearings. It can compel the reform of judiciaries by making them operate transparently and establishing citizen boards that hold judges accountable, disciplinable, and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Without journalists that investigate and a public that is outraged, there will be no judicial exposure and reform. Judges are not going to expose each other. On the contrary, they protect each other, thus ensuring the continued stream of material, professional, and social benefits that flow from their participation in, or condonation of, wrongdoing as well as preventing their complicity from causing their own fall through domino effect. That is why all of us Advocates of Honest Judiciaries should help in informing the public about judges’ wrongdoing and how it affects every member of the public, directly if they are parties to lawsuits and indirectly because judges’ decisions in disregard of due process and substantive law set precedents that limit our rights and deprive We the People of our birthright: government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law so that we receive Equal Justice Under Law. To increase the dissemination reach of the article below, in addition to sharing it with those on your emailing list, you can sign up for membership in yahoogroups and googlegroups because the groups act as multipliers of the one email that you send to each of them by further redistributing it to all their members. Likewise, you can post the article and its link in the Contact Us email form of websites that deal with judicial matters, such as those that deal with complaints against judges and the courts, child protective services, divorce, probate, misconduct of prosecutors (many of whom are the former colleagues of judges), etc. Otherwise, if we limit ourselves to merely swapping emails among us, we will get nowhere. It is indispensable that all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries take action. By thus showing your commitment to honest judiciaries, informing the public, and encouraging other Advocates to join in taking similar action, you can defend everybody’s rights and eventually vindicate your own claims. As a result, you may also be nationally recognized by a grateful We the People as one of their Champions of Justice. Distribute: impeaching on financial wrongdoing, and features of reform ?Dear Mr., Thank you for your kind words about my work. Please note the basis of the strategy that I have proposed for impeaching the President, Justice Sotomayor, and other public officers: Showing that they have engaged in, or condoned in self-interest, financial wrongdoing out of crass greed consisting in concealment of assets, suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico, >jur:65fn107a,c. This is quite different from wrong or even wrongful or illegal political decisions. Moreover, I am not pursuing the impeachment myself in court, since I am very much aware that only Congress can impeach those officers. Distributing the article is better than doing nothing Dear M, Regardless of whether what is needed is reform or some more fundamental change, the fact remains that it all begins with small steps. If those who enacted the Boston Tea Party had thought that the British government was too abusive to be reformed and that the situation was hopeless and that nothing could be done about it, we would still be a colony of the King of England. My article provides solid grounds for an investigation that President Obama lied to, and thereby has harmed, the American public, which justifies calling for his resignation or impeachment. Further journalistic and official investigation of those grounds can establish the issue and enable the American public and the authorities to take appropriate action. A description of the nature, extent, and gravity of the unaccountability and wrongdoing of judges, precisely the public officers that are charged with upholding the law, will outrage the national public. That is the essence of my study of the Federal Judiciary, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, at >jur:5§3, 21§§A-B. The findings of the proposed investigation of the two unique national President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA stories discussed in my article will likewise outrage the public(id. >jur:83§§2-3). That outrage during the coming long mid-term, primary, and presidential election campaigns can stir up the public to demand that incumbents open, and candidates call for, official investigations of those stories and commit themselves to substantial reform of the Federal Judiciary, cf. id. >jur:158§§6-8, lest voters withhold their donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support from candidates and incumbents who condone judges’ wrongdoing. That is a practical way in which voters force politicians to take action harmonious with their demands. By so doing, an outraged public can assert its power to hold all its public officers as what they are: their public servants. The precedent for this statement is what the Tea Party members have forced many politicians to do under pain of having their political careers terminated. I very much hope that you will realize that rather than by doing nothing, more is accomplished by everybody, including you, making some effort to inform the public about federal judges’ wrongdoing so that the public may become outraged and take advantage of the election campaigns to set in motion a process of judicial accountability discipline and reform. If so, you can distribute the article as widely as possible, to all your colleagues, those on your emailing list, and post it on the Contact Us page of appropriate websites. Distribution of article: Short versionDear M Thank you for your reply to my article. The article below appears in my study Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, . I commend to you id. >jur:21§A, which deals with the motive, means, and opportunity of federal judges to engage in wrongdoing. I encourage you to read as much of the study as possible and share it with others, for “Knowledge is Power”. The article below proposes concrete and realistic action that you and your colleagues can take to expose wrongdoing judges and hold them accountable. The action aims at exposing coordinated wrongdoing in the national, Federal Judiciary, which is the model of its state counterparts, so that it will set the example for subsequent action to expose wrongdoing in the state judiciaries. By taking such action, you can assert a fundamental principle in ‘government of, by, and for the people’(jur:82fn172): We the People’ are the masters of all public servants, all of whom are hired to perform services in behalf of the People. As judicial public servants, judges too are accountable to their masters for their performance and liable to compensate those whom they harm among We the People. Just as the principle “Not taxation without representation” provided the basis for the people to demand reform from the King’s government over 240 years ago, the principle “We the People as masters of all public servants” provides the foundation for judicial unaccountability reform(jur:158§6-7) and the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(jur:160§8). Therefore, I respectfully submit that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to public integrity if you distribute the article as widely as possible. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email it to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. District attorney and attorney general, see prosecutorsDistrust of government by the publicThe national public distrusts the government. From the failure to find WMD in Iraq, predatory home mortgage lending, the near financial collapse and massive unemployment, to the scandals of the VA’s false medical appointments for veterans, the IRS’s discrimination against conservative political groups, the CIA’s torturous interrogation of prisoners, DoJ’s Fast and Furious sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers, and NSA’s dragnet collection of communication data of scores of millions of Americans, the public has been outraged at its public officers’ conduct. But in those instances only low level officers were involved. Some could argue that they had made political decisions in the exercise of their discretionary power and that their decisions were justified as essential to discharging their duty to safeguard national security. That is not the case of the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(OL:176§§A,B). Those stories concern the involvement of top federal offi-cers in criminal wrongdoing for their own benefit pursued in dereliction of duty and to the peo-ple’s detriment. They can outrage the national public like no other scandal up to now and pro-voke it to reform by whom and how performance of duty is controlled and discipline imposed.documentaries on Edward SnowdenCitizenFour on Edward Snowden by Laura Poitras just won the Oscar for best documentary; Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore was the largest grossing documentary up to its time.Documentary on judges’ wrongdoing (OL:85, 313; OL2:464, 536, 537)(OL:87§D) The documentary can show how the three branches of government have connived to participate in, or tolerate, judges’ trampling underfoot the rule of law to squeeze out for expediency and their benefit the strictures of due process and dish out its residue: the lees of justice. Nothing can outrage the national public as a showing thereof. No force can more strongly push for a constitutional convention than an outraged public supporting the 34 states that have called for it270>Ln:309. The public has the power to punish politicians insensitive to its mood and demands by withholding from them donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, and by issuing warnings of defeat when surveyed. The precedent for such popular conduct is the Tea Party, a civic movement that forces politicians to support it or risk having their careers terminated. Hence, provoking such outrage can bring about the convention. But before it is called, there must be exposed how unaccountable judges risklessly prey on We the People so that the latter can determine the needed amendments(Lsch:10?6). A widely distributed documentary can most effectively help a people do so who are wont to be informed through movies, TV, and computer communications. Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality, Albert Einstein(OL2:475§D)Dominate the election campaign (OL:81§E; 149?20)Downloading problems Dear Mr. Reaka and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, Thank you for your email and for your kind words for my work. You as well as other readers have let me know that they could not download my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, either through the link originally provided, namely, or the link subsequently made available, that is, However, I am able to download it by clicking on the first link. Try downloading it through these other links: or If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let me know by email. By the same token, I would be grateful if you would let me know through which link you were able to download the study. This downloading problem may be another piece of evidence of the interference with my communications in an effort to prevent advocates of honest judiciaries and me from joining forces to expose judges’ wrongdoing and their connivance with other top government officers. Interference with the communications of another party is a crime under federal law(18 U.S.C. §2511 [read ‘title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 2511’, also referred to as the Code’s Criminal Code); . It is obvious that federal judges are the ones that have the most pressing interest in preventing such joining of forces and, to that end, to interfere with my communications. That warrants the proposal of the following query for professional and citizen journalists, graduate students(see below), and others to investigate: Dregs of justice They will simply not agree to be abused by the judges hearing their cases. As several of you have put it: “I won’t take it!” What you will not take is judges, their cronies, and a judicial system that trample on your rights and the facts of your cases, squeeze the law out of due process, and dish out to you the residue at the bottom: the dregs of justice! Duty of judges to denounce wrongdoing (OL:160§B)dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests, (OL2:593??15-16; ol2:445§B, 475§D). (dcc:8?11; Lsch:14§§2-3, OL:52§C) (Lsch:20§1); people with whom advocates of honest judiciaries have harmonious interests(OL2:475§D)Dynamic Analysis of Harmonious and Conflicting Interests strategy identifies who at any given point in time is our potential ally or foe Those concepts were applied to develop the out-of-court strategy to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform; >OL:55 and OL:73It will also make applicable for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries a key principle of strategic thinking: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This means taking into account the conflicting and harmonious interests of all the parties to the situation under consideration in order to create, foster, weaken, or dissolve potential and existing alliances(OL:159?42 of the 14oct14 email). I have developed dynamic analysis of conflicting and harmonious interests, which identifies who at any given point in time is our potential ally or foe (id. >Lsch:14§2; OL:52§C, dcc:8?11) 1. This means that one must understand the relation between judges and other powerful public officers, and then proceed strategically by looking for those who can be your allies because they have interests harmonious with yours and those who can be your foes because they have interests in conflict with yours. This is the application of dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests.(id. >Lsch:14§2; dcc:8?11) This form of analysis is an academic way of applying the wisdom in the saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. 2. I am not a member of the Tea Party. However, I apply the wisdom of the aphorism, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This is part of the dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests that I apply to identify the kind of interests that relate the members of an interpersonal system, such as the judiciary, the bar, and all the judicial and non-judicial members of the bankruptcy system, and based thereon determine who at any given point in time is our potential ally or foe( >OL:8§E, OL:52§C; Lsch:14§2; dcc:8?11, dcc:17?1). 3. Dynamics of interpersonal relations(OL2:465§1)economic incentive for media outlets to investigate (jur:8??25-26) Einstein, Albert; Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality(OL2:475§D)Emails sent 14-9-5, Fri, to michael tokrichevsky1@ Re: Increasing chances of citations being read by judges, who hardly read briefs; appearing as an expert witness and consulting for you 1) and 2) Citations to my study are allowed and how to increase the chances that judges will bother to read them a. Reading briefs dispensed with by using forms that summarize them b. Barely any need to read briefs in a case weighed one third of a case c. Summary orders spare judges the need to read anything d. Grammatical and spelling mistakes dissuade from reading 3) Federal and state judges equally held unaccountable by the politicians who placed them in their judgeships 4) My willingness to be a paid expert witness and/or consultant 14-9-7, to clark@ Re: First join forces to inform & outrage the public re wrongdoing judges, remove them, then new legislation A. The high cost of a class action B. The failed strategy of suing wrongdoing judges in their own turf, the courts C. An out of court strategy to expose wrongdoing judges D. The hard work of taking in Knowledge[, which] is Power v. the ease of giving out anger and offensive unfairness 14-9-8, Mon, to Janet Phelan janetclairephelan@ Re: Contacting two experienced and prominent investigative journalists to persuade them to investigate judicial wrongdoing 14-9-8, Mon, to Bill Scheidler <billscheidler@> Re: A 3-step plan of action for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform A. Wrongdoing judges by definition cannot be expected to do the right thing when confronted with their duties under law B. Replacing judges-judging-judges with the alternative out-of-court strategy of informing and outraging We the People C. The time is now, before the elections for Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to join forces to inform and outrage the national public D. Your request that I intervene and argue your case 14-9-10, Wed, to “William Green” <americarebirthtour@>, berylwolk <berylwolk@>, jjesseepps@, Achilles Curbison <americarebirthtour@>, Andy Ostrowski <andy@>, GD HICKS <gdhicks@shaw.ca> Re: For Mr. Bill Green and America Restore Fwd: HELP IS ON THE WAY!!! September 17th AT THE LIBERTY BELL Mon, 15sep14, to Executive Offices <mspexec@> Re: Richard- in re your initiative Mon, 15sep14, to B. Scheidler <billscheidler@>, andRestoreUSA@, AHJud Re: First join forces to inform & outrage the public re wrongdoing judges. Tue, 16sep14, to Loyal Patriot <negron.edgard@> Re: GCongress> First join forces to inform & outrage the public re wrongdoing judges, re... Mon, 22sep14, to Dan Stuart <dstu@> On fighting one judge at a time v. pursuing the two unique national stories Mon, 22sep14, to William Scott <04wmscott@> On thinking strategically to give priority to the two unique stories rather than to your personal, local cases similar to thousands of others Mon, 22sep14, to Tom Clayton <tomclaytonmd@> Failing links & team formation A. Links to my files fail one after the other: by coincidence or interference? 1. How Snowden’s revelations of NSA abuse provide an explanation B. Forming a team of professionals to initiate the exposure of judges Thu, 25sep14, to Glenda Martinez <glenest03@> On guardianship abuse Sun, 28sep14, to Tom Clayton <tomclaytonmd@> Re: "Lawyers, Judges, and Journalists: The Corrupt and the Corruptors," A. Not only inform book readers of judges’ wrongdoing, but also set forth a strategy to outrage the national public at it AND stir it up to force politicians to undertake judicial wrongdoing investigation and reform 1. The powerful impact of showing the disregard by federal judges, the model of their state counterparts, of their own rules 2. Using the two unique, national stories as Trojan horses to lead to the enabling circumstances of wrongdoing and reveal wrongdoing as the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary 3. The showing of coordinate wrongdoing rather than of rogue judges justifies judicial reform 4. Boomerang analysis: turning judges’ own words against themselves B. Contacting courageous authors like Att. Surrick, their publishers, and addressees of this email to build a team of exposers Wed, 1oct14, to Juan Carrasco <juanboricua@> Re: : exposing judge’s misconduct through journalists and journalism students Members of Congress will not turn against their “men and women on the bench” 1. disseminate the article below 2. contact personally journalists 3. arrange the presentations 4. contact journalism students Prepare a handout, How and where to meet journalism students Fri, 3oct14, to William Scott, Janet Phelan, George Kinan Interest in stories for the Annual Report on Jud Unacc and Reform This is not a monitored group Not spending time and effort on certain comments Showing historic perspective in striving for judicial exposure and reform Fri, 3oct14, to J. Ira Raab <irajraab@> The immediate and concrete action that we need to take Itemized paragraph on strategy Sat, 4oct14, to Jean Haines <jhaines6@> Working as organizer of presentations and producer of the documentary The plan of action described in brief paragraphs Tue, 7oct14, to Glenda Martinez <glenest03@> Re: Organizing talkshow hosts into a media force for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform A. Letters from which to choose one for the target audience and purpose B. Turning the sorrow and understanding of a dire situation into sources of strength to become a reluctant hero C. Improvising yourself as a community leader and becoming better at it as you go D. Joining the broader effort to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform Thu, 9oct14, to Douglas Pearson <douglaspearson42@> Follow-up to Organizing talkshow hosts into a media force for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform A. If you want honest judiciaries, you too must participate in exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform B. The action that you can take to implement the out-of-court strategy to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform Thu, 9oct14, from Jorge Santana <jrsantanas@> Re: Grounds for investigating Justice Sotomayor and federal judges’ interference with their exposers’ communications Dear Mr. Santana and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, A. The need for every Advocate to take action, lest this become another useless debating society of judicial wrongdoing armchair whiners B. Objective grounds for investigating Justice Sotomayor for wrongdoing C. A technological challenge to which you can apply your computer expertise and contribute to honest judiciaries Sun, 12oct14, to kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@> Re: Follow-up to Organizing talkshow hosts into a media force for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform Re: Avoiding irrationality in trying to expose judicial wrongdoing through common type state lawsuits: an out-of-court media strategy and two unique national stories A. The need to avoid the irrational behavior of doing the same things in the expectation of obtaining a different result 1. The need to expose the circumstances enabling wrongdoing in a judiciary 2. A case similar to thousands of others does attract the necessary attention of politicians and the nation and neither does a state case 3. The indispensable investigative and information-disseminating work of the media, first attracted in its own interest to the federal, then to the state, judiciaries B. An out-of-court strategy centered on the investigation of two unique national cases that will expose the circumstances enabling judicial wrongdoing 1. The action that you can take to implement the out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform Tue, 14oct14, to kenneth ditkowsky kenditkowsky@ Re: Incapacity of pro ses to investigate wrongdoing judges; presentations at graduate schools to recruit students for investigation & attract investigative journalists A. An unsuccessful strategy in the past is rationally likely to be unsuccessful in future and calls for a different strategy 1. Operation Greylord is not precedent for the proposition that laypeople filing cases in court can expose wrongdoing pervading a judiciary B. Strategic thinking to access reporters, lawyers, and others with professional skills to form a team to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform 1. Journalists’ reluctance to investigate judges: the all-but sealed result of being sued for defamation by a judge 2. Retaliation deterrence and journalistic attraction in two unique national stories involving judges in criminal conduct 3. The opportuneness of investigating stories that will outrage voters the most and afford one party an interest in protecting the journalists 4. Organizing presentations at graduate schools and talkshows to start the investigation and attract journalists to join it 5. Why it is more effective to use the term “wrongdoing” than RICO Sun, 19oct14, to Denise Loughlin <evdelough@> Re: Denise Loughlin -Texas case – Judges I can’t help, read my article on getting Pro bono legal aid Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like brochure (jur:98§2; OL2:607?3, 611§B)Enabling circumstances of wrongdoing (OL:191?6)Encryption. Using encrypting software can raise suspicion and cause authorities to surveil Advocates13. There is no evidence that the joinedwords and spam problems are related to the browser that I am using, namely, IE rather than Edge, which is not supported by my Norton antivirus. 14. I do not want to use Tor or any encrypting or anonymizing browser for the same reason that Advocates should not use it, namely, in order not to give the authorities any grounds to suspect that we are trying to hide anything from them and that, as a result, they are justified in adopting invasive measures to surveil our emails, computers, and us. 15. We are neither terrorists nor advocates of the violent overthrow of the government. Rather, we are responsible members of We the People exercising our First Amendment rights to “freedom of speech, of the press, [and] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(* >jur:22fn12b).Kindly let me know whether you were able to download my above-mentioned study of judges through any of the links provided.enemy of my enemy is my friend, principle of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B)enforcers of wrongdoing v. Workers of Justice (jur:100?b.6)engagement, model letter(OL:383)equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, Section1(jur:22fn12b)Eric Cantor, H.R. Majority Leader (R-Virginia) (OL:196?35)Expense-paid trips (jur:146fn272)Failed approaches to holding judges accountableFailed approaches to judicial accountability are politicians supervising the very people that they put on the bench(jur:21§a); judges-judging-judges upon complaint(jur:24§§b,c) or suit(OL:158) filed in court against them; and self-disciplining judges(jur:26§d). The only viable alternative is the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(OL:201§J, 225§B).FBI vetting reports on her (jur:102?231a.4-6)Federal judges, more powerful than NSAFederal judges are far more powerful and dangerous than NSA personnel reading our emails, for they have arrogated to themselves a position to which nobody is entitled in our democracy: unaccountable Judges Above the Law. Think strategically in the context of the fast-approaching mid-term elections: The national outrage at criminal wrongdoing by the Federal Judiciary in connivance with the President and his top congressional supporters can stir up the public to demand official investigations and reform by politicians, lest they meet disaster at the polls. It can emerge as the dominating issue of the campaign because this is what would be at stake: Do We the People, the masters in government of, by, and for the People, have the right to practice ‘reverse surveillance‘ on all our public servants, such as judges are, to eliminate their wrongdoing under cover of secrecy and to hold them accountable for the work that we hired them to perform for us? Therefore, I would like for us to work together to cause the journalistic investigation of these queries as detailed at id. >OL:66. To that end, you and your readers may disseminate this email widely. Federal Judiciary, as the safe haven of wrongdoers(OL:2§C)Federal Judiciary-NSA (OL:344)I proposed to them that we pursue a journalistic query connected to Snowden’s revelations about NSA’s abuse of its surveillance authority. It is summarized thus (in its own context it is at id. >OL:55): To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which nationwide handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11?9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –whose requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped[7] by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– 1) to conceal assets –a crime[10] under U.S. law, unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them to secret inland and offshore(OL:1) accounts to evade taxes and launder money of its illegal origin, and 2) to protect wrongdoing judges by interfering with the communications –also a crime(OL:20??11-12)– of complainants(OL:19§D)? (See why The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico suspected Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets, id. >jur:65fn107a; the estimate of the amount concealed is at fn107c.) The Federal Judiciary-NSA journalistic story can provoke a scandal more outrageous to more people than the scandal arisen through Snowden’s revelations: The judges of the Federal Judiciary, a national jurisdiction, wield power that affects not only the right of privacy, as the NSA scandal mainly does, but also every other right as well as the property, liberty, and life of everybody in this country. The scandal would only be aggravated if it were exposed that President Obama has covered for wrongdoing judges to avoid their retaliation[17], i.e., their holding Obamacare and other actions of his unconstitutional. Thereby he has compounded the wrongdoing and allowed those judges to harm the people with impunity. Federal judges are unelected, life-appointed, and pervasively secret since they hold all their meetings behind closed doors, never stand before a press conference, and are exempted by the other two branches of constitutional checks and balances so that they are in effect unimpeachable and irremovable(jur:21§§1-3). Yet, they say the last word on what we can and cannot do on the all-important issues of Obamacare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, election campaign contributions, equal pay, bankruptcy rights, taxation, etc. Do you also want them breaking criminal laws for their own financial and self-protection benefit? Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11?9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstampedOL:5fn7 by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crimeOL:5fn10, unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(OL:1), and to cover up the judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crime(OL:20??11-12)– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them? (See the statistical analysis supporting the interference suspicionOL:19§Dfn2.) This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(OL:101§C). Can you imagine the national scandal and recognition of your public service if thanks to your persuasion of potential investigators to investigate the above query, they found out and revealed that the Federal Judiciary commits the crime of communications interference to protect Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and other federal judges from being exposed as concealers of assets to evade taxes and launder money or as participants in other forms of wrongdoing(OL:127?4)? The scandal would be more intense than that provoked by the revelations by Edward Snowden of NSA’s surveillance excesses. This is so because such excesses are likely to be held not a crime under any specific provision of federal law. By contrast, interference with the communication of another is crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511. As such, it cannot be authorized by even a federal judge’s rubberstamping an NSA’s secret request for a secret order of surveillance. A federal judge who fails to apply a law in order to protect himself or his peers only incriminates himself in abuse of power by solving a conflict of interests in his favor, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, accessorial participation before and after the fact, etc. Consequently, I respectfully propose that you and your colleagues join forces with me in approaching journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) to invite them to a private meeting or a press conference at which to lay out to them: 1. the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:§§A-B); 2. a series of investigative activities(OL:115); and 3. the material and moral rewards(OL:3§F) that they can earn from investigating the above query as well as the related President Obama-Justice Sotomayor query(OL:100§A.i). Fee, charging for expertise in court or as a consultant Your request that I intervene and argue your case 14. I am willing to intervene and argue your case. But I trust you and your candidacy supporters, as business persons, realize that I cannot possibly be expected to do so for free, which includes, among other things, all the research, the preparation for oral argument, the summary of the argument that I submit to the judges so that they have my main points in writing for them to consult when they are deliberating in chambers, transportation-hotel-meals-communication costs, and my time and professional expertise. 15. Given the very large number of people who ask for my help for free, it is impossible for me to oblige since I would end up working pro bono all the time. 16. In so far as you may think that if I argue your case, the judges are going to change their minds, I submit to you and your supporters by way of full disclosure my study of the Federal Judiciary. 17. By contrast, my work as consultant to your candidacy and campaign is more promising. Indeed, I have outlined my consultancy work at OL:112. 18. To the extent that you and your supporters would want to have some evidence of my capacity to argue a case, I invite all of you to watch the interview with me by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at . First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; . First Amendment (jur:130fn268)First Amendment right “peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”[268]Flood of lawsuits, upon revealing judges’ wrongdoing (OL:256§1)A judge who breaks the law in self-benefit and to the detriment of others cannot be reasonably expected to have respected the law so much as to have applied it conscientiously to ensure a fair and impartial process in any cases, including those unconnected to the lawbreaking in question.A judge who breaks the law in self-benefit and to the detriment of others cannot be reasonably expected to have applied the law conscientiously to ensure a fair and impartial process in any cases, including those unconnected to the lawbreaking in question.Taking the offensive, flood of lawsuits, delay your case Any investigation and exposure of the wrongdoing that judges tolerated their peers committing, never mind that they committed themselves, would indict their honesty. It would impair the credibility of their commitment to the impartial application of the law. It would refute their proclaimed sense of institutional responsibility for the integrity of the Judiciary and of legal process. It would give rise to a flood of motions to review their decisions for bias and conflict of interests. It could incriminate the top politicians that vetted those judges, had probable cause to suspect their involvement in wrongdoing, but instead nominated and confirmed them as lifetime officers with the ultimate responsibility for interpreting the Constitution and saying national law. It would be a scandal. Public outrage would demand their resignation. Their agreement, let alone their refusal, to resign and the connivance of top politicians would create an institutional and a constitutional crisis. Thus, exposing J. Sotomayor’s wrongdoing can expose coordinated wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and create conditions requiring judicial accountability reform. Hence the importance of the investigation. It can start in CA2(jur:106§c) and move on to law firms and financial institutions (jur:103?232b); the D.A.’s office in Manhattan, NY City160a, and the NY State Attorney General’s Office160b; property registries(jur:102??230a, 108?244); a disciplinary committee161; on to Rochester115b,159d, Albany160c; the District of Columbia64,111, and beyond(jur:102?230). Imagine the paroxysm of distrust and outrage resulting from finding quid pro quo connivance between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary, with the latter –e.g., through the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. §§1801-18115) or by complaisant judges granting defective applications for search and seizure warrants– allowing the Executive to snoop on the communications of Americans in the interest of national security, while the Executive allowed judges to interfere with such communications in self-interest, e.g., to continue filing meaningless financial disclosure reports(104?236). The subsequent official investigation by Congress could bring about the discredit of federal judges in the eyes of Americans and the rest of the world. It could clog federal courts with a flood of motions, followed by appeals, to recuse, and to review rulings and judgments entered by, judges shown to have done wrong or only under suspicion of wrongdoing. This could delay any trial of you, Mr. Assange, Anonymous members, and other whistleblowers for years. If such trial were held in the U.S. at all, any condemnatory judgment might not be recognized internationally. Thus, the exposure of federal judges’ wrong-doing is a preemptive move born of strategic thinking and in the interest of all those who, like you and the others, want to expose public servants’ abuse and secrecy, and hold them accountable. This common sense principle applies in every judicial wrongdoing situation: A judge who breaks the law in self-benefit and to the detriment of others cannot be reasonably expected to have respected the law so much as to have applied it conscientiously to ensure a fair and impartial process in any cases, including those unconnected to the lawbreaking in question.Motions to vacate or revisit rulings and decisions, and reopen cases with a view to retry them where one or more wrongdoing judges were on the case.c. lawyers filing scores of thousands(jur:28§3) of motions to vacate and motions to review decisions in which wrongdoing judges took part; since their filings will be a matter of public record, the review of them will reveal allegations of all sorts of wrongs done by those judges and allow the detection of patterns of individual and coordinated wrongdoing that will shake the Federal Judiciary to its foundations and lay bare the outrageous abuse committed in hundreds of thousands of cases involving hundreds of thousands or millions(jur:8fn4,5) of parties and related people(OL:85§3). Today, those allegations would not be made for fear of retaliation, but if made, it would be in secretly filed and processed complaints that would have a 99.82% chance of being dismissed without any investigation(jur:24§§b-c). forcing politicians to investigate judges and reform the judiciary (OL:123?17)An outraged public will force politicians to investigate judges and hold them accountable or it will do to them what Virginia voters did to Rep. Cantor if they show insensitivity to its mood and dismiss its demands. The public has the power to withhold donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, and issue unfavorable opinions on surveys and votes on election day, unless it has already made their campaigns so unviable as to force them to drop out of the race. It is for you and the rest of us, advocates of honest judiciaries, to promote the conscious use of that power.formation of a team (OL:109§A)formation of a team, through presentations (OL:150)formation of a team, to inform and outrage (OL:137§B)forming a media coalition(OL:308; Lsch:12§C)Forming a team (OL:109) Forms, use of to dispense with reading briefsA. Judges dispense with reading briefs by using forms that summarize them For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requires every motion to carry attached to it as its top page the Motion Information Statement form. It is fundamentally a snapshot on one side of one sheet of paper of the whole motion. More importantly, it is a means to spare the judges’ having to read the motion at all. T-1080 Motion Information Statement to avoid reading by circling DENIED or GRANTED; . CA2 Local Rule 27 requires this form to accompany each motion as its top page. The movant must “Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought”…because the judges cannot bother to flip to the last page of the motion to read it there(jur:44fn69 >?3). The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court has a similar form, to wit, Form A - Request for Appellate Division Intervention - Civil, and Form B - Additional Appeal Information. These forms cover the whole appeal, not just a motion; . B. Barely any need to read briefs in pro se cases, which are weighed one third of a case Federal courts assign one third of the weight of a case to any case filed by a pro se. The importance of this weighing is explained in my study thus: That weight is given a pro se case at filing time, that is, not after a judge has read the brief and knows what she is called upon to deal with65c, but rather when the in-take clerk receives the filing sheet, sees that the filer is unrepresented, and takes in the same filing fee as that paid by a multinational company that, like Exxon in the Exxon Valdez Alaska oil spill case, can tie up the courts for 20 years. The experience of “[t]he Federal Judiciary[’s] techniques for assigning weights to cases since 1946”, id., shows that right then and there judges discount the importance that they will attribute to that pro se case and, consequently, the time that they will dedicate to solving it. (jur:43?81) C. Summary orders spare judges the need to read anything Moreover, federal circuit courts dispose of circa 75% of all appeals by summary order(cf. jur:44fn66). The importance of this official statistic is that summary orders “may be cited, but have no precedential authority”, id., for they are reasonless decisions, whose only operative word is “affirmed” or “denied”. This explains why the overwhelming majority of summary orders merely state that the decision on appeal is “affirmed”, for a denial would require the judges to read the briefs, identify the reversible error, and write a decision that indicates how to avoid the repeat of that error on remand. All that work would of course defeat the expediency objective of a summary order: to sweep off the judges’ desk appeals that they are not interested in. A summary order is a workload-reducing device. It disregards the merits of the appeal and the contractual right of the appellant to have her appeal decided by judges who have read the briefs and applied the law as the adjudicatory service that judges must provide in exchange for the filing fee that they took from the appellant . Therefore, summary orders are fiats of raw star-chamber power whereby judges institutionalize their disregard for the central principle of due process: to give notice and opportunity to be heard, whether by listening to oral argument in court or reading written statements in briefs and motions. By disposing of appeals with one-operative-word-orders without having to read their briefs, judges trample upon the principle underlying their duty as administrators of justice: “Justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done; Ex parte McCarthy”, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923). Cf. “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice"; Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie et al., 475 U.S. 813; 106 S. Ct. 1580; 89 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1986).(id. >jur:44fn71) fundamental changes in the administration of justice (OL:179?14)fundraising, purposes(*>OL2:560, 577)gang mentality(?>OL2:569??13-16; 541 2nd-3rd ??)Glut of unemployed lawyers(jur:76fn152c >Ln:164-175 Lawyers’ predicament is only compounded by the glut of unemployed lawyers nationwide and an excessive number of law schools that every year keep graduating yet more new lawyers into an economy that does not need them and has no jobs to offer them. I tell you this so that you can put yourself in the place of lawyers and understand why they cannot afford to spend days, never mind weeks, doing legal research and writing and arguing motions for free. How will they pay their bills? Even worse, the good Samaritan principle applies: If a lawyer who takes a case pro bono botches it through negligence or incompentence, he is liable to a malpractice suit. A lawyer, particularly a responsible one with a sense of duty, cannot offer his services for free only to tender sloppy, substandard performance. Moreover, if he appears in court for a pro bono party, he comes under the jurisdiction of the court. The judge can order that he, as an officer of the court, keep representing the party, the latter’s inability to pay his attorney’s fees notwithstanding. The judge can do so for the benefit of affording the party needed legal assistance. But she can also do so to teach the lawyer a lesson: He should not burden the judge’s already heavy workload by representing otherwise pro se parties. Indeed, in the Federal Judiciary pro se cases are weighed as a third of a case(jur:43?81), whereas a represented case demands more attention and care from the judge. The judge can provide a pro se sloppy, substandard adjudicative service even though the pro se has paid a filing fee, and she can get away with it. After all, nobody in the Federal Judiciary can ‘fire’ an irresponsible, incompetent judge; only Congress can remove her through the practically never used impeachment process(jur:21§1). And not even Congress can violate the constitutional provision under Art. III, Sec. 1. against reducing the salary of a federal judge. Risklessly, a federal judge can give a pro se case a third of the needed attention and care. A lawyer cannot. Understanding lawyers’ reluctance to offer pro bono services is like understanding anything else: The devil is in the detail. Empathy is required. good Behaviour (jur:22fn12)government of, by, and for the people [jur:81fn172]Grand juries (Lsch:13)graphical representation of statistics(jur:9-16)Grassroots support D. Public outrage: not to grow grassroots in your support, but to develop a civic movement in defense of We the People…whom you lead in Congress Grassroots support for you cannot be grown with the anecdote of your personal experience at the hands of free speech-disregarding judges who retaliate against their exposers. “To win on a judicial reform platform with…effort from across the country”, you need an issue with national appeal that provokes national outrage(jur:83§§2-3). National outrage is provoked by making the public realize how unaccountable judges are, how they abuse their resulting risklessness to engage in wrongdoing in their own personal and class interest, and how much they harm the public. National outrage at judges’ wrongdoing is what will make it possible to avoid the exercise in futility of trying to sue wrongdoing judges in court, where their peers will see to it that the case is dismissed or that the judges are exonerated. An outraged public will force politicians to investigate judges and hold them accountable, or it will do to them what Virginia voters did to Rep. Cantor. The public’s power to do so will only keep developing during the long electoral season of the mid-term, primaries, and 2016 presidential election campaigns. It is for you and the rest of us, advocates of honest judiciaries, to promote the development of that power. Greenwald, Glenn on Snowden’s list of NSA victims Thank you for distributing the news that Reporter Glenn Greenwald, who used to work at The Guardian, is going to release Mr. Snowden’s list of NSA victims. Ms. Robb and Marr Arhata and Re: Proposal to Reporter G. Greenwald and The Guardian of two stories & documentary that put NSA’s abuse and its victims in context Dear Actual and Potential NSA Victims, Several sources report that Reporter Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Snowden story while at The Guardian, is going to release Mr. Snowden’s list of NSA victims. That list can contribute to exposing NSA’s and other government officers’ abuse of power by violating citizens’ privacy rights; and help to establish whether they have also interfered with the communications –which is a crime(OL:5fn10)*- of complainants about judges’ self-beneficial wrongdoing, as described below and in my study of the Federal Judiciary, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; id.>jur:5§3 and jur:21§§A-B. * NSA’s and the Federal Judiciary’s interference with communications would be even more outrageous than any other Snowden leak up to now because performed, not ‘in the interest of national security’, but rather in the crass self-interest of the judges’ further benefiting from their wrongdoing, although judges are duty-bound to demonstrate their respect for the law by abiding by it(jur:68fn123a). Therefore, you would render a great service to all actual and potential NSA victims, that is, to We the People, if you would use your best efforts to expose judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with other top officers and, to that end, ensure that the below email reaches Mr. Greenwald and The Guardian, and distribute it as widely as possible; and otherwise contribute(OL:73) to persuading other journalists and media outlets to realize the proposed investigation and documentary. Greenwald, Glenn, Journalist(OL:21) My request is supported by solid, recent precedent: Edward Snowden(OL:17) contacted Journalist Laura Poitras(OL:35) in connection with the journalistic handling of his NSA document leakage; and she put him in touch with Journalist Glenn Greenwald(OL:21) of The Guardian of London(OL:22), which last April 14 won a Pulitzer Prize for its public service in bringing out his documents and story. You are a retired journalist, but you can still determine yourself to… Guardian of London, The(OL:22)Guardianship abuse GUARDIANSHIPS Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors, Report of theU.S. Government Accountability Office to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S.Senate; GAO-10-1046; September 2010; ; and the same vein, see my letter at and the newspaper article:Guardianship Agency Costs Elderly Woman Dearly; Senate Investigation Finds Millions AllegedlySquandered or Stolen by Court Appointed Guardians, Sharyl Attkisson, CBS; 23dec10; and interest, collaboration on (§C)Harry Markopolous (OL:258?18)Historical impossibles (OL:§E; jur:xlv§G) recent examples (Lsch:12?13) Circumstances that inflicted much pain and injustice on many people for thousands of years, like slavery, health care and education only for the rich, the right to vote reserved for males owning property, etc.(OL:§E; jur:xlv§G), were changed for the better by people who just would not give up trying to. There are very recent and encouraging examples of the same(Lsch:12?13). Before anybody dismisses this proposal out of hand without examining it with professional due diligence, let them compare it with other instances of ‘historical impossibles’ that became treasured parts of our reality because some people would not give up fighting for what they held to be right and necessary(OL:8§E; Lsch:12?13; jur:164§9). They should be a powerful source of inspiration. How a bankruptcy fraud scheme works (jur:42fn60)If you bring me down, I’ll take you with me! (*>jur:51?103; OL:265§1, 348?138, 360§3)Impact of judges’ wrongdoing on everyday life (OL:122?14) the harmful impact of judges’ wrongdoing on people’s rights, property, liberty, and everyday lives(OL:122?14) Impeached federal judges Whereas 2,292 federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices, were in office on September 30, 2014[*>jur:22fn13], in the 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8![jur:22fn14]. Such historic assurance of irremovability in practice has given federal judges the sense that they are unaccountable and can act with impunity. As a result, throughout their lifetime appointment they abuse their power to engage risklessly in individual and coordinated wrongdoing(jur:5§3). Impeachment for financial wrongdoing v. political decision, & strategy The strategy for impeaching the President, Justice Sotomayor, and other public officers is based on showing that they have engaged in, or condoned in self-interest, financial wrongdoing out of crass greed consisting in concealment of assets, suspected of Then-Judge Sotomayor by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico, >jur:65fn107a,c. This is quite different from trying to impeach a public officer for wrong or even wrongful or illegal political decisions. A political decision will always find supporters in Congress. But it is difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would like to be portrayed by a challenging candidate for his or her seat as having excused the concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money committed by a president or any other public officer. Moreover, the proposal here is not for individuals to try to impeach the president by suing him in court, since it is indisputable that only Congress can impeach him and the other public officers mentioned above. implications, incapacity of pro ses to argue by(?>OL2:459??35-38)Improprieties Indeed, public outrage at judges’ financial wrongdoing can be so intense as to cause their resignation or impeachment. This is reasonable and precedented: Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had engaged in financial improprieties, though the latter did not even amount to misdemeanors(92§d). Improprieties under Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges(jur:68fn123a)Indispensable access to the media (OL:332§f)Inform and outrage strategy (OL2:604§C; OL:135, 219, 292, 351§D, 75§C)Inform and outrage through wrongdoing exposure first, then propose judicial reform legislation (OL:135)Information Technology development of my website: (jurlInformation Technology expertise and case management network of the Federal Judiciary (Lsch:11?9b.ii; OL:192§B)Ingratiate himself with (OL:176§A)initial presentation to expose judges’ wrongdoing The above describes in brief(jur:83§§2-3) the strategy to cause a series of events to lead from the current situation to legislated judicial reform. Implementing the strategy begins with a presentation by Dr. Cordero of statistics, reports, and documents pointing to judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(Lsch:9§A). It can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a civil rights organization, or a national radio or TV talk show(Lsch:10§B). The presentation can provide the occasion for students, professors, civil rights advocates, and journalists to heed the call to join a multidisciplinary team of professionals to further investigate(jur:102§4) and expose(jur:97§§1-2) federal judges’ wrongdoing. This team can possess the necessary professional skills(jur:128§4) to become the core of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture to expose federal judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform(jur:119§1). The initial presentation can be followed by a tour of presentations that can include subsequent findings of the team. Those presentations can have a snowball effect. initial presentation, approaching contacts to produce itApproaching contacts to produce the This shows that forming a Coalition for Justice is realistic. It does not require you to be a professional community organizer. It only requires you to be a determined person motivated by an inspiring cause in the public interest: To make significant progress in applying a foundational principle of our republic, namely, ‘In government, not of men, but by the rule of law, Nobody is Above The Law; rather, all are subject to Equal Justice Under Law’. That is a noble ideal. Contributing to its realization can inspire you as well as all those whom you can invite to join the Coalition and the team. For all this to occur, a producer needs to stage the initial presentation. However, it should be clear that I am not offering either employment, payment for services, or reimbursement of expenses. There is no reasonable expectation that the implementation of this strategy for exposing judges’ wrongdoing, reforming the judiciary, and giving rise to the People’s Sunrise civic movement will generate monetary gains. At present, its likely gain is a meaningful moral reward: to be recognized nationally, perhaps for a generation or longer, as a Champion of Justice.(OL:3§6) Therefore, let Dr. Cordero know the extent to which you together with your contacts in academe, the media, and civil rights organizations can produce the initial presentation of judicial unaccountability and legislated reform advocacy. Share with him your views of producing with those contacts the Coalition for Justice to stage the subsequent presentations. A succinct introduction to the presentation is at Lsch:1. A more detailed version of this article is at Lsch:9. Injury in fact caused by judges’ wrongdoing (jur:42§6)Insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems (jur:81fn169)Integrity and independence of the judiciary, duty of judges to uphold them imposed by Canon 1(jur:57?119)Interception of communications (OL2:582§C; 583?3, 581, 476, 425, 405§§B-C, 395; OL:19fn2 >?>ws:58§7, cf. >ws:51§C; OL:227§A, 344, 371) ? is more, such interception constitutes a denial of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment to “freedom of speech[,] of the press[, and] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (* >jur:130fn268).Interception of communications, a crime 18 U.S.C. [Federal Criminal Code, part of the U.S. Code] §2511 (OL:5a/fn13); interception of communications of critics of judges(OL2:425§A, 633§D, 582§C)Interest of others, key importance to advance(jur:xxxix, xliii)International Consortium of Investigative Journalist2.The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Followed the money!Likewise consider making an effort to get the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists headquartered in Washington D.C. to apply their unequalled experience in Follow the money! investigations to tracking down the concealed assets of Justice Sotomayor and peers of hers (described below). The Investigative Journalists conducted a massive investigation of a network of 120000 offshore companies and trusts in 170 countries managing between $21-32 trillion in private financial assets on behalf of VIPs including top government officers and the wealthy. Its investigation named Offshore Leaks was so revealing that it persuaded the most industrialized nations to sign at their following G-8 summit an agreement to put an end to bank secrecy and dismantle tax heavens.Now the Investigative Journalists have published the findings of their investigation involving scores of journalists of how the largest companies in the world have engaged in an elaborate web of shady transactions to escape taxes with the help of the fiscal authorities of Luxembourg during the prime ministership of the person who just last November 1 became the president of the European CommissionJean Claude Junker. It is a scandal that has forced President Junker to defend himself before the European Parliament.See Billions Slash From Tax Bill: Luxembourg Leaks: Global Companies’ Secrets Exposed: The landlocked European duchy is a “magical fairyland” for brand-name businesses seeking to dramatically reduce tax bills; . 3. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and their Follow the money! expertiseIn the same vein consider bringing to the attention of the Newsday journalists as well as contacting directly the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists headquartered in Washington D.C. to induce them to apply their unequalled experience in Follow the money! investigations to track down the concealed assets of Justice Sotomayor and peers of hers. The Investigative Journalists conducted a massive investigation of a network of offshore financial institutions concealing trillions of dollars in some 120000 offshore accounts for the benefit of heads of states the wealthy and the super wealthy. Its investigation named Offshore Leaks was so revealing that it persuaded the most industrialized nations to sign at their following G-8 summit an agreement to put an end to bank secrecy and dismantle tax heavens(* > HYPERLINK "" OL:12)Now the Consortium has published the result of its investigation of how the largest companies in the world have engaged in an elaborate web of transactions to escape taxes with the help of the fiscal authorities of Luxembourg during the prime ministership of the person who just last November 1 became the president of the European Commission Jean Claude Junker. In the same vein consider investing your resources in an effort to get the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists headquartered in Washington D.C. to apply their unequalled experience in Follow the money! investigations to tracking down the concealed assets of Justice Sotomayor and peers of hers. The Consortium conducted a massive investigation of a network of offshore financial institutions concealing trillions of dollars in some 120000 offshore financial institutions for the benefit of heads of states the wealthy and the super wealthy. Its investigation named Offshore Leaks was so revealing that it persuaded the 8 most industrialized nations to sign an agreement to put an end to bank secrecy and dismantle tax paradises. See id. > HYPERLINK "" OL:12.Now the Consortium has published the result of its investigation of how the largest companies in the world engaged in an elaborate web of transactions to escape taxes with the help of the fiscal authorities of Luxembourg during the prime ministership of the person who just last November 1 became the president of the European Commission Jean Carl Junker. The questions that many government officials are asking aloud are:What did he know about his former government involvement in causing their respective countries the loss of billions of dollars in taxes and when did he know it?Can he can survive the scandal?See Billions Slash From Tax Bill: Luxembourg Leaks: Global Companies’ Secrets Exposed: The landlocked European duchy is a “magical fairyland” for brand-name businesses seeking to dramatically reduce tax bills; . Intrusive investigative powers (OL:87§5, 109?4, 129?9) Investigation plan (OL:66, 100§B, 113§C, 116§A, 265)Investigation, pinpointed (OL:92§F)Investigative activities(OL:116§A) for academic(OL:113§C) and professional settings(OL:119)Irrationality, avoiding(OL:154)join forces as detectives in field research to get information on judges’ improprieties and illegal activities(OL2:468)Joinedwords(OL:344§A)Joining forces(OL:374) and dividing labor(OL:227)Journalists, attracted to presentations to join the investigation (OL:152§D)Journalists, exposing judges’ unaccountability and wrongdoing (OL:224, 250) Journalists, letters to (between OL:21 and OL:45, and OL:88, 100, 176-189, 215, 223) Journalism, letters to students(*>Lsch:1,2) and school deans(*>Lsch:23)Journalists, watchdog mission (OL:140§1)Journalists’ interest (jur:xliv§§B,E-F; OL:111)Journalists’ investigation that leads to official investigation of judicial wrongdoing(OL:177)Judge as Deep Throat(OL:180, 217)Judges and conniving politicians That outrage will stir up the public to demand that politicians officially investigate judges and those with whom they connive to do wrong, that is, those politicians who recommend, endorse, appoint, campaign for, and donate to, benefit from, and cover for, those who become judges. Judges held unaccountable by politicians (jur:22?31)Judges impeached and removed (jur:22fn14)That is the situation of the life-tenured judges of the Federal Judiciary, who wield power over our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives. In the last 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges –2,131 were in office on 30sep11[13]– impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§a) It follows that once a person is confirmed to a federal judgeship, he or she can do whatever they want in reliance on the historical record that they will suffer no adverse consequence and will certainly not lose their job.Judges judging judges (jur:68fn124-125; jur:51?103; OL:265§1, 348?138)If you let them take me down, I bring you with me! (jur:51?103) Trying to expose judges’ wrongdoing through a strategy involving judges-judging-judges is a failed strategy(jur:68fn124-125). It only reveals that those implementing it lack understanding of how the judges of a judiciary work on the principle, “Today I protect you, tomorrow you protect me” Judges, areas in which they wield power(OL:267§4;Judges, class of Judges form a class. Between doing the right thing according to law for a one-time plaintiff suing a judge and doing the self-interested thing of saving a judge from prosecution, with whom they will spend together years on end, they will choose the latte. To do the former would amount to betraying one of his own and be treated as a pariah. A strategy to expose wrongdoing judges by suing them before their peers betrays a failure of understanding group dynamics and a lack of strategic thinking. Wrongdoing judges must be exposed outside the courts by showing that they have abused their power to commit crimes. See the details of this strategy at id. >OL:55. Judges, investigation of J. Sotomayor and other judges (jur:102§a)Judges, most powerful public officers (OL:234?4, 267§4)The main reason for not having made even a nano millimeter of progress in holding judges accountable, not to mention disciplining them, is that we, advocates of honest judiciaries, work in isolation. Each of us pursues in court our own little, personal, local case against the judge presiding over our case, while myopically failing to realize that behind that judge all his or her peers have closed ranks: the class of the most powerful public officers in America, the life-tenured, mighty judges of the Federal Judiciary, with power over our property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives; each one capable of declaring unconstitutional any law that 545 members of Congress and the President of the United States, elected by over 110 million voters, have drafted, debated even for years, and enacted; and held unaccountable by politicians even when one of their laws(jur:24fn18a) is abrogated in effect by the judges dismissing with impunity 99.82% (jur:10, 11) of complains filed against their peers(jur:21§1) and up to 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals(jur:24fn19).Judges, suing them(OL:158)Judges’ benefits from doing wrong(OL:173?93)Judges’ powers, sources of(OL2:505)Judges’ shout: Don’t you ever mess with us! (jur:22§31; OL:266?13)judges’ unaccountability(OL:265) and wrongdoing(OL:254?3) Judges’ wrongdoing, more egregious than politicians’ (xxxix§§A-C)Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(jur:24fn18a)Judicial Conference of the United States(jur:65§1)Judicial immunity Judicial immunity is a doctrine that judges have concocted for self-protection(* >jur:26§d) and the politicians in dereliction of their constitutional duty to exercise on behalf of the people that they represent checks and balances on the Judiciary, the undemocratic branch composed of unelected, life-tenured appointees, have in self-interest(jur:23fn17a; 22?31) allowed them to maintain. Judicial power, see powers of judgesJudicial reform (158§§6-8judicial reform(jur:xlv§G) that includes holding judges accountable, disciplinable, and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(158§§6-8). Judicial reform, key featuresSuch developments can determine the public to force politicians to undertake judicial reform (158§§6-8) that provides for:a. the transparency of judges’ performance and the Judiciary’s operation by requiring their meetings to be held in public, as are the sessions and hearings of Congress, many meetings of the president’s cabinet as well as of the departments and agencies of the Executive, all of which frequently hold press conferences; after all, "Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done", Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923);b. judges’ accountability, discipline, and liability to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing by establishing citizen boards of judicial oversight.Judicial retaliation (Lsch:17§C) judicial retaliation against the media(jur:xx§3)Judicial salaries (jur:104fn211)this statement of the Late Chief Justice Rehnquist, endorsed by C.J. Roberts(jur:27fn30): "the single greatest problem facing the Judicial Branch today: inadequacy of judicial salaries”. (jur:27§2)‘National security’ has nothing to do with it; crass greed is its only motive: Concealing assets is the judges’ self-help solution to "the single greatest problem facing the Judicial Branch today: inadequacy of judicial salaries”, as stated by Former Chief Jus-tice Rehnquist and repeated by C. J. Roberts(jur:27fn30). Assets are concealed, e.g., by electronic transfer to offshore accounts(OL:2), to evade taxes and launder money of its illegal origin so that it can be brought back to be used openly in legitimate activities. Those are crimesOL:5fn10. When committed by a justice, who earns four times the average household income211, those crimes exacerbate the outrage of the national public, a significant segment of whom is struggling financially to survive.(OL:76§B)Judicial salaries (jur:27§2 and fn30; OL:76§B) judicial unaccountabilityleading to corruption (OL:265)judicial wrongdoing(OL:154?3)Judicial wrongdoing: nature and kinds The more (parenthetical), [bracketed], and blue text references in my articles and emails you read, the more you will realize that judges look after their own, regardless of whether they were nominated and confirmed mostly by Republican or Democrat politicians. They form a class and cover up each other’s active or passive wrongdoing under the same black robe of complicity. They are all Judges Above the Law; see jur: 50§b, 88§§a-c, and 133§4. Jury, voters treated as (OL:122§C)Justice Abe Fortas Resigned on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties(jur:92§d). Those President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA stories have the reasonable potential of developing into a Watergate-like scandal. This is particularly so during the cut-throat competition between Republicans and Democrats as they campaign for the choice prize: the White House. Likewise, it was a series of articles in Life magazine about the financial improprieties of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas that caused him first to withdraw his name for the chief justiceship and subsequently to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).Justice must be seen to be done[jur:44fn71]Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (OL:149?20), 144dJustice Sotomayor as member of the Judicial Council of the 2nd Circuit (jur:24fn20, §b), Justice Sotomayor, chronology of her judgeship (jur:102?231a.4-6)Justice Sotomayor, grounds for investigating her (OL:194§§1,2)A. Objective grounds for investigating Justice Sotomayor for wrongdoing The solid basis for investigating J. Sotomayor is the following: 1. the articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(* >jur:65fn107a; §§1,2); 2. the financial statements that she filed under oath with the Senate Committee on Judicial Nominations(* >jur:65fn107b,c); 3. her performance in, and subsequent handling of, the DeLano case(* >jur:65fn109); 4. her handling of complaints of misconduct against her peers when she was a member of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit(jur:24fn20, §b); 5. her condonation and cover-up of the bankruptcy fraud scheme run by federal bankruptcy judges with the support of circuit judges, who are the ones who appoint(28usc§152; jur:43fn61a) them for a term of 14 years(jur:68§3); 6. her statutory duty to denounce bankruptcy fraud(18U.S.C. §3057a); 7. her ethical duty to safeguard the integrity of the Judiciary, as required under Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges(jur:68fn123a,b); 8. the collegial complicity that binds wrongdoing judges aware of their mutually dependent survival(jur:88§§a-c), whereby they become accessories before and after the fact of wrongdoing(OL:72?9; jur:171?372; Lsch:22?6); 9. J. Sotomayor is and has been a recipient of the material(213, 27§2), professional(69, 56§§e-f), and social benefits(62§g, a&p:1?2nd) that judges derive from covering up for each other; 10. her breach of her oath of office(28U.S.C.§453; jur:53fn90) ‘to administer equal justice to the rich in judicial connections and the poor in chances to receive Equal Justice Under Law’. Justice Sotomayor, is the subject of at least three FBI vetting reports on her (jur:102?231a.4-6)Kids for cashCf. The Youth Law Center helped exposed the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges sent juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and gave the judges kickbacks. It reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against the jails. [In letter to Christine Helmick]Knowledge is power “Knowledge is power.” download the study of the Federal Judiciary, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting*; and read the analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements. Knowledge is Power. Become a knowledgeable advocate of honest judiciaries who can help inform We the People on the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and the harm that it causes them. Then consider how you can arrange the presentations discussed in §B of the article that I emailed you before so as to interest journalists and graduate students at journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools to initiate the investigation of the two unique national stories(id. >OL:127) capable of outraging the People. Law professors’ submission to Congress re Supreme Court In February 2009, Duke University law professor Paul D. Carrington and 33 other law professors and lawyers representing a wide area of the political spectrum wrote a letter to congressional leaders proposing ways of reforming the powers of the Supreme Court, including the removal of their life-appointment and the power to decide which cases to hear.(jur:48fn81c) Congress did not even hold hearings on it.law research advice for pro bono requestersYou can go to a public library or the law library of a law school, a court, a bar association, or a public defender organization to do law research there, either with some free guidance from the librarian or with the help of a law student who charges an hourly fee or a fixed fee for a research project. Particularly adept at law research are law students who are members of law review or moot court. To contact them, ask the librarian or the dean of students or go to the law student lounge. To find the law schools accredited by the American Bar Association near your area go to is up to your initiative and resourcefulness to find out whether by calling the law school and getting through it in touch with the student officers of moot court, law review, the student class, or a subject-related law clinic –a class where students deal with real cases under the supervision of a professor– you can contract a second or third year law student to engage in law research for you. See generally my advice to requesters of pro bono legal assistance(OL:131).law students founding their own law firms to expose judges (OL:338?e)lawyers disciplinary commissions (jur:78fn161a; jur:viii/fn25)Lees or chaff of justice an audience of outraged pro ses and related people(OL:85§A) waiting for the opportunity to tell their stories of judges, their cronies, and a judicial system that trample on people’s rights and the facts of their cases, squeeze the law out of due process, and let them have the residue: the lees of justice! The documentary can show how the three branches of government have connived to participate in, or tolerate, judges’ trampling underfoot the rule of law to squeeze out for expediency and their benefit the strictures of due process and dish out its residue: the lees of justice! legal help, strategy to receiving pro bono legal helpA.: giving a valuable story 1. The following statement of general applicability will provide you with ideas on how to obtain pro bono assistance from lawyers. 2. In so doing, you should keep very present in your mind that nobody is interested in your case. People have enough with their own problems. They are most interested in solving the problems that affect them now or can affect them in the near future. Therefore, whenever you approach anybody in an effort to solve your problem, your emphasis should be on how they will benefit from taking on your case. 3. The principle here is quite elementary: If you want people to do something for you, you need to show that you are willing to do something for them too. This means that you need to show sensibility to their situation, be diplomatic, and think strategically. 4. This is particularly so when you are asking for professional services for free. Hence, you should do your homework by finding out in advance what their problems are and figuring out how they would come closer to solving them by dealing with your case. Do not approach them in the role of a beggar; deal with them as a businessperson laying out a win-win proposal. You are offering them an opportunity to make headlines by exposing a significant societal, legal, journalistic, or economic problem. 5. Do some research to find statistics, newspaper clips, law review articles, etc., describing how frequent the problem appears, how many people it affects, what economic impact it has, etc. This is a lot of work. It is the kind of work that will impress the people that you are approaching, will enhance your credibility in their eyes and highlight the merits of your case, and make them pay attention because it is in their interest to do so. 6. Dress up when you go there to approach them. You are a professional and a businessperson, not Joe on the Corner panhandling for free services. Legal news(jur:76fn152c >Ln:) >jur:76fn152c >Ln:. Legal research and law students’ assistance A. Conduct professional research in professional law books To engage in legal research, go to a law library and start your research on “private or citizen prosecutors” and similar or related terms in American Jurisprudence 2nd; see . check the exhaustively researched articles in: 1. American Law Reports (ALR) on state law, ; and 2. what federal judges have written in American Law Reports, Federal (ALR Fed); . Continue your research in law encyclopedias and digests, e.g.: a state law encyclopedia: Carmody-Wait, 2d, Cyclopedia of New York Practice with Forms, ; the encyclopedia on federal procedure: Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright & Miller—Civil Only subset—Excluding Criminal, ; Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright and Miller—Criminal subset only, . a state case law digest: West's? New York Digest, 4th (Key Number Digest?), ; and federal case law digests: West's? Federal Practice Digest?, 4th and 5th (Key Number Digest?), ; and West's? United States Supreme Court Digest (Key Number Digest?), . Legislated judicial reform imposing non-discretionary duties Meaningful judicial reform needs to be undertaken through legislation(jur:158§§6-8) that imposes new non-discretionary duties on judges. Imposing such duties is quite different from allowing judges to adopt voluntary measures to change their way of doing business given that their interest lies in doing wrong as they have up to now and covering up their past wrongdoing. The necessary reformative legislation must mandate judges’ accountability; transparency of their activities as judges and as administrators of their judiciary; discipline imposed on them, not by their peers, but through citizen boards of judicial accountability; and joint and several liability of judges and their judiciaries to compensate their victims. Such reform will be historic in its nature and scope. The public outrage necessary to force politicians to undertake it can give rise to a civic movement that asserts that in government of, by, and for the people, We the People are masters of the government and of all our public servants, whom we are entitled to hold accountable. Hence, the reform can constitute the emergence of a new We the People-government relation(jur:164§9): the People’s Sunrise. The People’s Sunrise civic movement can emerge in the context of the federal government, extend to its state counterparts, spread abroad, as so many other American political, cultural, and social developments have. Legislated, non-discretionary, judicial reform (OL:129§3)legislative drafting(jur:158§§6-8) Legislators, the need to investigate their background(OL:356)Lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, (OL:123?17)LinkedIn invitation Thank you for viewing my profile. I would like you to review my proposal to join a multidisciplinary academic and business team to expose judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. LoPucki on large bankruptcies(jur:29??46-47)MADD (OL:142§B; Lsch:12§C; jur:164§9)making a documentary(OL:85, 313)Masters of all public servants (OL:78§F)The People would recognize that they are the masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’. As such, the People are entitled to practice ‘reverse surveillance’ on all public officers as their servants hired to perform services in the People’s behalf. Thereby they can obtain enlightening information to render their servants’ performance transparent and not only hold them, including judges (jur:160§8), accountable, but also liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing: That is the People’s Sunrise civic movement(id. >OL:29). Math of perfunctoriness(OL2:546??4-6, 608§A)Media coalition, see coalition of media outletsMedia’s role in exposing judges’ wrongdoing (OL:90§§C-D)Mess with us not! (jur:22?31)17aDon’t you ever mess with us! (cf. jur:23fn17a; Lsch:17§C for subtle but devastating forms of judicial retaliation) Millennial impossibles (jur:xlv§G)I draw the strength to persist from an article where I compare our common cause of judges’ wrongdoing exposure and judicial reform to that of people who fought against ‘millennial impossibles’, described at id. >jur:xlv§G.millennial injustice changed by women (OL:145§2)Millions of cases filed every year millions(jur:8fn4.5); see also Related parties(OL:85§3) Models for the states judiciaries and judgesThe models of the state judges and judiciaries are their federal counterparts, whose federal rules of procedure and evidence they have adopted the, and whose interpretation of the minimum protections afforded by, and due process requirements of, the U.S. Constitution they must comply with in order for state court decisions or application of a state law to survive review on appeal to a federal court or filed there on diversity of jurisdiction. the reason for starting the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing with that in the Federal Judiciary is that it and its judges are the model of their state counterparts. For instances, the federal rules of procedure and of evidence have been adapted and adopted in the states and are applied in their courts.The knowledge to be acquired concerns the Federal Judiciary. This is so because it is the only national and the most prestigious and influential judiciary, serving as the model for its state counterparts. For instance, the federal rules of procedure and of evidence have been adopted and adapted by the state judiciaries into their own rules. Federal judges say what the U.S. Constitution provides and thereby establish the minimum requirements and protections which state judges must ensure that their respective constitutions and laws comply with and afford. Therefore, if wrongdoing by federal judges is exposed effectively so that their Judiciary is reformed, it will set the precedent and generate the necessary public pressure for state judges’ wrongdoing to be exposed and their judiciaries to be reformed.The proposal is supported by the official sourcesii that this author consulted and analyzed to write his study(jur:1) of that Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts and likely to experience first what will befall to them subsequently.Dear Mr. Clayton…1. The powerful impact of showing the disregard by federal judges, the model of their state counterparts, of their own rules6. Strategic thinking(Lsch:14§§2-3, OL:52§C; jur:xliv?C) points to the need to start by exposing wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary, the only national jurisdiction, which affects all Americans in all states and, consequently, interests the national public.7. The Federal Judiciary is the model of its states counterparts. In fact, the federal rules of civil and criminal procedure as well as of evidence are basically copied word for word in the equivalent rules of the states. There is a good reason for this. Those federal rules were:a. drafted by committees chaired by federal judges;b. they submitted amended and new rules to the federal Judicial Conference, which includes all the chief judges of the federal circuits and is chaired by the chief justice of the Supreme Court;c. the Conference forwarded them to the Supreme Court; andd. the Supreme Court forwarded them to Congress, which could have modified them, but customarily has taken no action so that the proposed amended and new rules have become effective by default on December 1 of the year in question.8. Therefore, those federal rules are presumed to have been deemed by the top federal judges in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, which sets the minimum due process requirements with which all state rules and laws must comply. By the states adopting those federal rules, they provide themselves reliable assurance that their court’s procedural and evidentiary actions consistent with those rules and all cases adjudicated thereunder will be found constitutionally sound (although the law applied may still be found unconstitutional). 9. Therefore, if it were shown that federal judges routinely disregard their own rules as part of their wrongdoing, the national public would be outraged at their hypocrisy, abuse of power, and betrayal of public trust. It would render more credible the claim that federal judges set the example for state judges to administer justice in disregard of the rule of law and in an arbitrary, self-serving, and ad hoc manner.10. To show such conduct on the part of federal judges my study proposes a plan of action to interest professional and citizen journalists in investigating the two unique national stories of President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA(OL:100).11. Those stories will expose the most pernicious and pervasive forms of wrongdoing: coordinated wrongdoing among federal judges and connivance between them and politicians in the Executive and Congress and even in the Department of Justice and the FBI.Money, the most insidious corruptor(jur:27§2; OL2:603)Mounting public outrage Judges’ financial wrongdoing, e.g., concealment of assets and evasion of taxes, which are crimes, is not susceptible to dismissal as an expression of judicial discretion, whereas our individual, personal case is. Judges have engaged in financial wrongdoing in reliance on their unaccountability and the secrecy that cloaks their operations; id. >jur:Lsch:2§A. A continuous stream of media revelations over a prolonged period of time of the extent, nature, and gravity of judges’ financial wrongdoing is necessary to provoke national outrage and to keep intensifying into a national scandal that generates a Watergate-like, id. >jur:4??10-14, generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing. Such public outrage should force DoJ-FBI, Congress, and state authorities to conduct their own official investigations. These authorities’ exercise of their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers should produce yet more outrageous findings about judges’ wrongdoing. Mounting public outrage is necessary to force politicians to undertake substantive judicial reform based on legislation, not on voluntary changes made by judges, whose interest is in surviving by maintaining the status quo. Politicians will undertake such legislated judicial reform when they are convinced by an outraged public that either they do so or they are voted either out of, or not into, office. This is a realistic prospect, for it is based on the precedent of the Tea Party to cause politicians to support its program or face the end of their political careers. Multidisciplinary academic and business venture(*>jur:119§1; ?>OL2:563)multimedia public conference on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(*<jur:97§§1-2; dcc:13§§C-D)Mutually interdependent survival (jur:51?103)You knew…I bring you down!Federal judges together with other bankruptcy and legal systems insiders[169] run[60] the scheme risklessly, for in the 225 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, only 8[13] have been impeached and removed[14] from the bench. This provides the historic assurance that a federal judgeship is a safe haven for wrongdoing judges, for those who commit it and those who enable them through their complicit silence(90?202). Judges protect their complicit insiders, or they all go down together(51??103-104). If you let them take me down, I bring you with me! (jur:51?103) Networking to presidential candidates (OL2:416§B, 419§A)How you can network your way to any and all of the presidential campaigns to put me in touch with the respective chief of staff or the strategic planning officer so that I may offer to make a presentation, either at a video conference or in person, on how it is in the interest of their respective presidential candidate to stand apart from the overcrowded field of now 22 candidates by voicing the complaints and thus becoming the leader of the huge(see infra) untapped voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems, particularly the victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest working with friends (OL2:418§D)Networking with politicians and journalists to expose judges' wrongdoing (OL:231)Newsday (OL:176, 214); article on Suffolk judges’ corruption (OL:246fn5)Newsday Editor Deborah Henley and Reporters Sandra Peddie and Will Van Sant, reported in their article “Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner and associates at least $600,000 of foreclosure work”, published 4oct145, that they had audited thousands of judicial documents to discover judges in Suffolk County lavishing money on their judicial race supporters; and that on the basis of it, the Chief Administrative Judge had opened an independent investigation. (* >OL:246§D) >??§§In that vein, consider approaching the following journalists and their assigning editor to encourage them to investigate those two stories and thereby maximize the benefit of the considerable experience that they must have gained during their extensive investigation of a system of coordinated wrongdoing run by judges in Long Island, New York.They reviewed thousands of court and corporate documents and interviewed numerous people before writing a story full of personal and corporate names dates figures of amounts of money in play and other verifiable information. So much so that instead of attracting a suit for defamation it has been significant enough to have caused the chief judge of the Suffolk Supreme Court to order an internal investigation of the matter.Sandra Peddie and Will Van Sant sandra.peddie@ will.vansant@The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600000 of foreclosure work; Saturday 4oct14; massive research conducted by Newsday Journalists Sandra Peddie and Will Van Sant and its authorization by Editor Deborah Henley for their story “The Insiders: Suffolk judges violated rules while awarding Oheka Castle owner at least $600000 of foreclosure work” published on Saturday 4oct14; reviewed thousands of court and corporate documents and interviewed numerous people before writing a story full of personal and corporate names dates figures of amounts of money in play and other verifiable information. So much so that instead of attracting a suit for defamation it has been significant enough to have caused the chief judge of the Suffolk Supreme Court to order an internal investigation of the matter.Niche market and law practice on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(OL:257§2)Ninfo, J., complaint against him (jur:68fn124)No phone calls, instead writing and readingA. The superior method for careful consideration: writing and reading I agree with you wholeheartedly that “addressing these foundational-issues does seem to be a task worthy of careful-consideration”. That is why the better method of giving “careful-consideration” to this issue is to put our views in writing and to read carefully what we have written. Phone conversations degenerate into phone chats. They allow people to indulge in expressing ideas that have not been carefully considered; to compete for points by blurting ideas that one would not advance, let alone, defend in writing; and to begin the chat with no precise objective and end it with no concrete proposal. Moreover, the only purpose of exchanging ideas is to attain the objective of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and achieve judicial reform. To that end, thoughtfully strategy must be devise that can be implemented because it is practicable under current conditions and is feasible because it is likely to be successful. From that perspective, writing is the indispensable means through which a judiciary can be challenged, Congress or state legislatures can be petitioned to take action, and people can be persuaded to assemble in support of such petition. Each of those that we want to heed our summons to assemble cannot possibly be accessed individually on the phone. Hence, the effort that we make in carefully considering the issue and then carefully putting our ideas in writing and carefully reading them will allow the refinement of a document that can subsequently be shared with judiciaries, legislators, and other potential supporters. When the means of accessing people at this point in time is the Internet, writing is a cost-effective minimizer of effort and multiplier of impact. Non-partisan I am non-partisan. My objective is allow We the People, the masters in government of, by, and for the people, to hold all their judicial public servants, which is what judges are, accountable, for today they are unaccountable and engage risklessly in wrongdoing(jur:21§§A-B), and lead to judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8). I think strategically by applying dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14 §§b-c). You, your fellow leaders and activists, and I have harmonious interests. The rationale for our joint pursuit of them is expressed by the aphorism: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Not on my emailing list Dear M, You are not on my emailing list. Rather, you are on the list of a group to which you and I subscribe. You received my article just as you receive everything that is emailed to that group. NSA, does anything it can do technically, disregarding law and values (OL:76?3); investigation of NSA’s participation in intercepting communications among and with advocates of honest judiciaries(OL2:525§H)The NSA is an agency of the Executive, gives President Obama the daily national security briefing, and its budget has been almost doubled by him. Its secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(OL:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After its unlawful surveillance was revealed by Edward Snowden, the President undertook to curb its power because ‘not everything that one can do technologically one should do’(jur:23fn16a>Ln:293), thus implying that NSA had done anything if technically possible even if unlawful or unethical. Oath of office of judges (28usc453; jur:53fn90)Obamacare, as a signature legislature that judges could have declared unconstitutional in retaliation for being investigated(OL2:417?3); cf. jur:23fn17b)Offer to Present a Proposal for Investigative Journalism The need in the public interest and the leads for an exposé of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless and coordinated wrongdoing Official investigations the findings can so outrage(jur:83§§2-3) the public as to stir it up to demand of law enforcement and political authorities that they: 1. conduct official investigations of, using their powers, unavailable to journalists, to hold public hearings; detain, interrogate, and depose under oath; issue indictments and orders of subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt; and engage in plea bargaining; and 2. undertake reform to ensure judicial transparency, discipline, and liability(Lsch:10?6), setting in motion a change in the People-government paradigm(OL:29). Official investigationsSuch findings can lead to the impeachment or resignation of justices ?such as Justice Abe Fortas, who resigned on May 14, 1969, after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties(92§d)? and top politicians –such as President Nixon, who resigned on August 8, 1972, due to his participation in the Watergate scandal, which sent to prison all his White House aides(4??10-14).out-of-court(OL:129§1 219, 224, 236), inform and outrage(OL:129§2) strategy(ol:248, 250, 319; OL2:449§B, 461§1)out-of-court, inform-and-outrage strategy(Ol2:583§D, 593§3) (OL:129§C; 174§G; 236) (jur:122fn256; OL:135, 219, 224, 236, 248, 250, 319)Outrage strategy, pursued through a national case (OL:96§C)outrage, generating demand for updating news 34. The public outrage provoked by the presentations will generate demand for news that dig deeper into such wrongdoing and attract an ever growing audience, thus creating the market incentive for ever more journalists and media outlets to join the investigation in order to offer such news. Outrage, to develop civic movement (OL:123§D; OL:461§1)Outraged public, ousting politicians (OL:139§1, 219§a)Pattern of oddities in communications critical of judges (OL:19§Dfn2; OL2:395, 405, 425) that raise probable cause to believe that there has been interception pattern of racketeering activity, 18 U.S.C. §1961(5) (jur:111fn249)Patterns of judicial wrongdoingAs managing editors and publishers, you are in a position to publish my Auditing Judges article (hereunder and at * >OL:274) to invite any party who believes that the judge in his or her case has committed wrongdoing to apply the method described therein to find other parties before that same judge so that the parties can meet to jointly audit the judge’s rulings and decisions in all their cases in search of commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing. Such patterns constitute evidence far more convincing, reliable, and capable of rendering disciplinary action unavoidable than any single party’s allegations of judicial wrongdoing.* Pavia & Harcourtthe high end boutique law firm of Pavia & Harcourt205People’s Sunrise civil movement(OL:201§J, 73, 29); Lsch:2; jur:164§9)Perfunctory treatment of appeals (jur:44fn66b)personal story turned into a proposal for exposing judges’ wrongdoing(OL:138, 321)Personal v. unique national case (OL:138, 321)A. Thinking strategically to be cost-effective: another personal local case v. unique national case 1. In order to achieve our objective of meaningful judicial reform, it is necessary to proceed strategically. 2. What do you think is more likely to cause a critical and reformative review of the federal and state judicial systems?: a. the exposition of one federal or state judge who abuses his judicial discretion and disregards the law, which occurs in thousands of other cases, against whom our complaints have brought about absolutely no positive result, let alone any progress in judges’ accountability and discipline; or b. the exposition of the unique case of involvement of a Justice of the Supreme Court, J. Sotomayor, in concealment of assets, as suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(id. >jur:65fn107a-c) –which is a crime and, as such, cannot be explained away as the exercise of judicial discretion–; and c. the exposition of its cover-up by the sitting president who nominated her and who wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning for another woman and the first Latina for the Supreme Court and from whom he expected in exchange support for his key personal and political interest: the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act, that is, Obamacare?” On this subject, see my article at >OL:55: Do the President’s lies for the personal and political gain of passing and implementing Obamacare warrant calls for his resignation or impeachment? The novel strategy of pursuing two unique national cases out of court through a journalistic investigation whose findings can outrage the national public and stir it up to force politicians to officially investigate wrongdoing judges v. pursuing one of thousands of similar personal cases in court, the judges’ turf, where judges risklessly disregard the law and the fact, deny due process, rule capriciously Consequently, I have laid out a strategy that takes the battle outside the courtroom to the public. It also forsakes any effort to represent one case of which there may be many similar ones. It contrasts with irrational behavior, which Einstein defined as doing the same thing time and again while expecting a different result. Trying to expose judges’ wrongdoing by filing cases that must be adjudicated before their peers is an example of irrational behavior. There is no doubt that for each litigant, his or her case is the most important in the world. However, any case of judicial abuse of which there are many similar ones will fail to attract the attention of those who are indispensable to implement the strategy: journalists, media outlets, and the national public. Putting one’s case in the backburner for the sake of taking on judges effectively is proof of sound thinking: strategic thinking(id. >Lsch:14§§2-3, OL:52§C; jur:xliv?C). Judges are never going to give up their self-interested wrongdoing simply because you and the parties to the many other similar cases protest and ask them to. Likewise, politicians, the very ones who recommend, nominate, confirm, appoint, and endorse those who became judges, are not going to turn against their ‘men and women on the bench’ simply because you and the other parties ask them –if you even do that- to change the law to the detriment of judges. The only way politicians can be forced to investigate judges is if the NATIONAL public is so outraged at judges’ wrongdoing that it forces politicians to conduct official investigations of judges’ wrongdoing and undertake reform of their judiciaries, lest they be punished for their indifference or connivance by the public withholding their donations, volunteered work, and word of mouth support, thus forcing them either to drop out of the race or face defeat at the polls. The coming long electoral season consisting of the mid-term, primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns will give the national public the occasion to compel incumbents and candidates to choose whether to cover up for judges or stand up in defense of We the People. Therefore, the strategy proposed to you and the other parties centers on the two unique national cases described below(also at OL:100): the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story. Can you reasonably expect your personal story attract as much attention of the national public? Those two stories can outrage the national public because they involve top national public officers in wrongdoing concerning money as opposed to matters that judges can explain away by claiming that they involve their exercise of discretionary judgment. Financial wrongdoing, such as concealment of assets to evade taxes or launder money, cannot be explained away. It is the product of criminal behavior. No politician will want to appear to be defending it. The two unique national cases can so outrage the national public that the latter can force politicians to do what they have not dare do up to now: investigate judges and their judiciaries for both abuse of power to enrich themselves and disregard of the law. Such wrongdoing can outrage the national public and cause it to demand more news on judges’ wrongdoing. That can provide the necessary market incentive for ever more journalists to jump on the investigative bandwagon, lest their audience abandon them for the competitors that are satisfying such demand. The investigation of the two unique, national stories should first take place in the federal jurisdiction, which is the model for its state counterparts and can set the example for similar investigations in the state jurisdictions. I trust the above illustrates what strategic thinking is and how it applies dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests, that is, who is motivated by an interest that can advance ours and thus, is our potential ally, and who has an interest in conflict with ours, and thus, is our potential foe.(id. >Lsch:14§2; dcc:8?11) This form of thinking can be applied to choose the case that can advance our ultimate interest the most: a local, personal case similar to many v. a unique, national case. Knowledge is Power. Thus, I encourage you to read as many references indicated by the blue text as possible. Such text represents active internal hyperlinks, which will facilitate your jumping to the corresponding passage or footnote to check it, by downloading the file at >85. Pervasiveness of judicial wrongdoing Plan of action to inform and outrage the people B. The proposal for outraging the public at judges’ wrongdoing How to outrage the public through the widespread dissemination of the already available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A-B) and cause the further investigation of its many leads(jur:97§D) is the purpose of the pursuit by professional and citizen journalists of the following two unique national stories, discussed in more detail at OL:100: i. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story & the Follow the money! investigation ii. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation Indeed, the federal judge to be the first one to be exposed for engaging in the wrongdoing of concealment of assets is U.S. Justice Sotomayor, who when nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court was suspected thereof by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico. The details of those three top media outlets’ suspicion, of the sources of information on Justice Sotomayor, and of the participation of journalists are laid out in my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; . Those details are summarized below and at id. >OL:100. Powers of the authorities to investigate Their more intrusive powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and contempt orders, and indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea bargain, hold public hearings, etc., will allow them to make findings that will further outrage the public. PR agency/publicist representing the investigation Both the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor case and the Federal Judiciary-NSA case(OL:55) can achieve what the overwhelming majority of cases of judges’ wrongdoing cannot: to outrage the national public. The avid demand of such public for updating news on these top officers’ outrageous conduct can provide what the other cases cannot: a business incentive for the media to offer such news by investing in the costly investigation of Federal Judiciary wrongdoers and recouping its investment by selling advertisement. A savvy PR agency/publicist firm can turn such national public’s avidness for news into money, e.g., by booking interviews with the investigators cum ‘compulsive catacombers digging for the skeletons buried by the wrongdoers’, placing articles, negotiating a book deal, etc. The initial investigators will spark the national outrage that will subsequently warrant review of tens of thousands of other cases…by the losing parties and their lawyers who appeared before judges shown to have done wrong or to have failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). They will flood the courts with motions, followed by appeals, to recuse, and to review the rulings and judgments issued by judges tainted by wrongdoing. Again, a savvy PR agency/publicist will know how to capitalize on the visibility and name recognition of those initial investigators; and how to use them to expand and escalate the investigation into the first-ever, Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary, the top politicians with whom it connives, and their state counterparts. Such investigation can be maintained on the headlines for years by serialized articles offering the latest findings of wrongdoing and voicing public clamor for the firing, resignation, and impeachment of top officers. Therefore, one can reasonably foresee that people will contact the PR agency/publicist to try to persuade or hire the investigators to investigate their cases and bring them to public attention. An entrepreneurial PR agency/publicist can group victims of judges’ wrongdoing as a class and bring it to law firms to be represented in class actions of a hitherto unknown type: an action against the misaction of judges. Since the judges presiding over such cases protect their own at all cost, such cases are likely to be abusively dismissed by judges invoking the doctrine that they concocted for their own protection and in contradiction with the fundamental principle of our democracy: Nobody is Above the Law. Hence, it will be the task of the imaginative entrepreneurial PR agency/publicist, urged with the unyielding support of the even more outraged victims of judges to bring the case before Congress in support of a special law for the compensation of such victims. Those who never give up, always find new ways to push forward. In the process, they make a name for themselves…which in itself is a marketable commodity and may even make a lot of money. Plan of action (Lsch:11??9-11; OL:66, 141§D, 157§1, 228§?)plan of action as of 9oct14 B. The action that you can take to implement the out-of-court strategy to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform The out-of-court strategy for judicial exposure and reform is based on my study of the Federal Judiciary titled study of that Judiciary titled Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. The strategy can be implemented through a plan of action that sets forth the concrete, realistic, and feasible action that you and all other Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, such as me, can take. In brief: 1. Contact talkshow hosts to arrange for me to appear in their shows to make presentations of the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing and the plan of action to expose it to the national public and bring about judicial reform. The interview with me by Mr. Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, thereon can be used as a promotional tool. You and hosts can watch it at: . and Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue - 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity. 2. facilitate through those presentations to talkshow hosts and their audience contacting professional and citizen journalists to encourage them to further investigate the two unique national stories of President Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA(* >OL:100). Their investigation can 3. launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing guided by a proven query rephrased thus: What did President Obama and the Supreme Court justices know about Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(* >jur:65fn107a,c)– with the complicity of the other justices, judges, and staff of the Federal Judiciary, and when did they know it? 4. stir up an outraged national public to force politicians campaigning in the mid-term, primary, and presidential elections, when they are most responsive to the public’s mood and demands, to take a stand on judicial wrongdoing and reform, and thus 5. compel the official investigation by Congress and the Department of Justice and the FBI of, and the holding of public hearings on, judges’ wrongdoing, and force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to 6. legislate judicial reform that requires the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the model of their state counterparts, to operate transparently and on an open door basis; and establishes citizen boards empowered to conduct public proceedings for holding judges accountable, disciplinable, and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing. I encourage you to join forces so that thanks to your novel and imaginative organizing work, you can turn talkshow hosts into a media force to be reckoned with for its effective impact on the national public and on behalf of its rights, such as its fundamental right to honest judiciaries. If you do so, you can be recognized by a grateful nation as one of We the People’s Champions of Justice. plan of action to redress grievance (OL:141§D)Plan of action, see 3-step Poitras, Laura, Documentarist(OL:35)Politician as defender of victims of wrongdoing judges (OL:112)Politicians fear becoming judges enemies(OL:356§1)Politicians protecting their judges (OL:191??3,4, OL:265§2)3. federal judges know that the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed them to the bench will in their own personal(jur:22?31) and political17a interest hold them unaccountable. In fact, politicians allow judges to hold all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never to appear before a press conference(jur:27§e). 4. Likewise, politicians let judges decide up to 91% of appeals to the federal circuit courts in reasonless summary orders or decisions so “perfunctory”68, ashamed of public scrutiny, and contemptuous of a system of law based on precedent that the judges themselves mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43?82), and issue practically all of them unsigned. Secrecy invites wrongdoing by providing wrongdoers a hideout where to coordinate it confidentially; such pervasive secrecy renders wrongdoing inevitable by assuring wrongdoers that it is undetectable and, thus, riskless. Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm and thereafter hold “their judges” unaccountable(OL:191??3,4)Politicians, approach with a proposal in their interest (OL2:416)Pool of victims of wrongdoing judgesThe market of dissatisfied users of our judicial system is huge given that:1. more than 100 million people are directly involved in the more than 50 million new lawsuits filed every year(jur:8fn4, 5) in U.S. state and federal courts. They are added to the2. scores of millions of parties to cases pending in court; 3. even more millions of parties who deem that their cases were decided wrongly or wrongfully; and4. plus the even greater number of people directly or indirectly connected with those parties and thereby affected by their cases, e.g., friends and family, employees and employers, creditors and debtors, shareholders, service providers, such as restaurants, hotels, etc. –the Walmart class action involved two million plaintiffs, all of them disappointed when the Supreme Court decided against them–(OL:85§3).Position on other issues: we take none:The common good that we pursue as a team is unambiguous and indisputable: Judges who individually and collectively as members of a judiciary render an honest service to their masters, We the People, by transparently resolving controversies between parties through the fair and impartial application of the rule of law so as to deliver Equal Justice Under Law, and are held by the People accountable, disciplinable, and jointly and severally liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.(OL:225§B)As we strive to advance that common good, we hold true to our belief that every member of We the People, regardless of their religion, political affiliation, race, and position on the many issues in public debate, will benefit from honest judiciaries and accountable judges. Consequently, we are a non-denominational and non-partisan team. We never take a position on any issue other than that of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform; let alone try to convert anybody to our personal and private position on those other issues. We do not want and cannot afford to alienate anybody who would be willing to join our team or support us, but for our position on other issues. Whatever progress we manage to make jointly toward that common good will redound to the benefit of everybody, even our team members and supporters who have opposite views on every other issues.Positive and negatives aspects of the advocacyThe changes proposed upon analyzing the circumstances enabling wrongdoing will allow advocates of honest judiciaries to demonstrate that their advocacy is not limited to denouncing the judiciary’s negative aspects of wrongdoing, but also generates positive contents, i.e., concrete, realistic, and feasible reformative proposals, the product of imaginative minds with their eyes turned up to what is not yet in being even as they take into account the facts in which their feet are firmly grounded.potential advisors : Bev.cooperscorner@; Ken Ditkowsky: elder physical and financial abuse powers of judges(OL:267§4; OL2:505§§A-B, 449?10); people’s rights and duties affected by their power(cf. OL2:516?8c)powers of the boards of judicial accountability: to publicly receive and investigate complaints against judges and their and the courts’ clerks by exercising power to subpoena documents, to summon witnesses and put them under oath; to hold in contempt; to issue search and seizure subpoenas; to seek indictments; but not power to prosecute?Pragmatism rather then partisanship (OL2:424, 445)Presentation >outrage >reform Presentation with statistics(Lsch:2) Presentations (OL: presentation on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform (OL:197§G audience and places, OL:201 PowerPoint slides, OL:350 downloadable sample, OL:352 outline)Presentation to presidential candidates (OL2:451§§D,E)130§4; Lsch:2)to present(Lsch:2) to:a. journalists(OL:88; 150) at private meetings and press conferences; b. students and professors(jur:128§4) at schools of journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23), law(Lsch:1, 21), business(jur:104??236-237), and IT(OL:42, 60); c. public interest entities(OL:86§4); d. political meetings(OL:48, 51); etc., Presentations venues(Lsch:9; OL:197§a, 73§A) 1. schools(jur:129§b) of: a. journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23), b. law(Lsch:1, 21), c. business(jur:104??236-237), and d. Information Technology(OL:42, 60); 2. public interest entities(jur:86§4); 3. political meetings(OL:51, 58); etc. The letter below lays out for advocates of honest judiciaries like you a 3-step plan of action for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. Presentations, to attract journalists to join the investigation (OL:152§D)presentations, to form a team (OL:150)Presentations, venue of and letters to request them 18. Likely investigators can be interested in participating in the investigation at presentations of the available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(21§§A-B); the above-described unique national stories(OL:100); a realistic, feasible plan of investigation(OL:66) together with the additional investigative activities described infra; and judicial reform(jur:158§6-8). 19. Journalists can be addressed at private meetings, press conferences(jur:97§1), media outlets(OL: 88), and during appearances at talkshows. The talkshow hosts can be encourage to become instrumental in organizing those presentations by Presentations, venues c. arrange presentations of the available(jur:§§21A-B) evidence of judges’ wrongdoing, two unique national cases(OL:100) and a documentary(OL:85) to expose it, and judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8), to be held by us at: 1) graduate schools of: a) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23, 24) b) law(Lsch:1, 21) c) business(jur:104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a); and d) Information Technology(OL:42, 60); 2) public interest entities(jur:86§4; Lsch:7); 3) private and public meetings with political leaders and activists(OL:51, 58); 4) private meetings(jur:ii) with journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) and press conferences(jur:97§1); 22. The presentations are to be made to professionals(128§4) and graduate students(129§b), such as: a. journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) invited to private meetings(jur:ii) or press conferences(jur:97§1); b. graduate schools of: 1) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23, 24) 2) law(Lsch:1, 21) 3) business(jur:119§1, 104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a); and 4) Information Technology(OL:42, 60; jur:131§b); c. public interest entities(jur:86§4; Lsch:7); d. private meetings with political leaders and activists and public political rallies and townhall meetings(OL:51, 58); etc. of the evidence already available of judges’ wrongdoing(21§§1-3) two unique national stories(OL:100) and a documentary(OL:85) to expose coordinated wrongdoing ; the proposed library and field investigation(OL:66, 115); a program of judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) 10. The presentations are to be made to professionals(128§4) and graduate students(129§b), such as: a. journalists and media outlets(OL:22, 26, 88) invited to private meetings or press conferences(jur:97§1); b. graduate schools of: 1) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23) 2) law(Lsch:1, 21) and 3) business (jur:119§1, 104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a) 4) Information Technology(OL:42, 60; jur:131§b); c. public interest entities(jur:86§4; Lsch:7); d. private meetings with political leaders and activists and public political rallies and townhall meetings(OL:51, 58); etc. 11. Swapping emails among us will get us nowhere. Thus, are we willing to join forces and, if so, work actively, not just provide each other moral support, to implement the alternative strategy? 12. Timing is of the essence: The public should be informed and outraged before the mid-term election; the invaluable help of graduate students and others should be sought now, at the beginning of the academic year. 13. How can you contribute to arranging the proposed presentations? President Obama, political and personal interest in nominating J. Sotomayor Obama (OL:67?6, 79§B)pro bono legal assistance, places where to obtain it10. Google the names of the local universities and go to the entries of their respective law school. Search for the different law clinics that they have. Law clinics are part of their curriculum. They offer hands-on, learning-by-doing education to students under the supervision of law professors. Clinics get their clients from the public, mostly from low-income people to whom they charge nothing –offering their services ‘pro bono’; otherwise, they charge only a modest fee. Ask for, and read, the description of each law clinic and what their academic and public service interests are. Tailor your presentation accordingly. Contact those that sound reasonably bearing on your subject (for instance, the Bankruptcy Law Clinic would not be interested in your child support case, but the Domestic Law Clinic would). Cf. 11. Contact the local bar association and ask for the pro bono legal services that they or their members offer. 12. Your city may offer pro bono legal assistance. Call city hall and find out. 13. Charitable organizations may have a list of law service providers to people with modest financial means. 14. The office of the public defender for criminal cases may have information about pro bono programs for civil cases. 15. Try to interest investigative journalists in your case because it is in THEIR professional interest: The case concerns a problem of great interest to a large sector of their audience; a scoop would enhance their professional standing; they could win a Pulitzer Prize as X did with his Y Story. See a long list of material and moral rewards for journalists at >OL:3§6. 16. As a general principle, dangle a realistic reward in front of the eyes of the people you are trying to convince to take your case; otherwise, open your wallet and show that you have money to pay their normal fees. 17. The evidence that journalists dig up may be available to you and help your case enormously, not to mention that the publication of their reportage may influence in your favor the pool of potential jurors. 18. Consequently, go to the websites of journalism schools and find out about classes that investigate real cases; they are similar to law school clinics. Talk to the dean of academic affairs. A graduate journalism student might take your case as the subject matter of the required thesis for his academic degree. Cf. 19. Your presentation to a journalism professor, her class, or individual students must be as structured, well focused, and succinct as that to lawyers. 20. Would you read a newspaper article or watch a TV news reportage that did not tell you in the first sentence what the news is all about by answering “the six Ws”: What? When? Who? Where? How? It is by providing that information right at the outset of their news articles that journalists try to convince you that their piece affects or should interest you and your friends and family so that you should read on or keep watching to find more details and the answer to the analytical and usually the most interesting question, “the six W”: Why? 21. In addition to the Internet, libraries are a great source of community information. The local public library or even a university library may operate an information desk where you can ask about sources of pro bono legal assistance. Some libraries can be accessed through the Internet. pro bono legal assistance, quality of presentation shows value one puts on itD. Your effort shows how much you value and deserve their assistance 22. Putting in practice the above advice takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and commitment. But if you are not willing to make such investment in your own case, why should you expect anybody to be sufficiently interested in your case as to give you their time, effort, and commitment and do so for free? 23. Pro bono services are the lawyers market. This means that there are literally millions of people with legal problems but without money to pay for the needed services. The lawyers that offer their valuable assistance for free can pick and choose those that are also interesting to them from their professional or personal perspective, that is, those cases help them advance their own interest: They have an agenda and your case allows them to pursue it. 24. Who do you think will impress more favorably those who offer legal assistance pro bono: The one who does all this enormous amount of work to offer a well-organized, brief, and enticing case, or the one who goes there with a never-ending sob story and a box of Kleenex? Pro Bono requests (OL:131)I hope you realize that I cannot possibly drop my work to rush to the assistance of all the people that ask me to work for them for free. Who will pay my bills? I also tell you that I cannot help you as well as all the other people who contact me to ask that I help them pro bono. It is neither reasonable nor fair to expect that I work for free for them for months; and I certainly cannot afford it. Who is going to pay my bills? What merits do they have to ask that a professional give them tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of services?This is particularly so of people like you who do not state what jurisdiction they are in. You do not appear to be in the U.S. Are you in England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, etc.? I do not even have access to a subscription to a legal research database on the law, cases, and treatises on your jurisdiction necessary to do that kind of research. For the immense majority of people who, much unlike you, recognize no such patriotic duty to counter the trend toward blatant disregard of the rule of law by the judiciary and are only interested in their own personal, local case and in solving it with my pro bono help, I wrote a detailed description of how they can seek pro bono legal assistance at id. >OL:131.My attorney’s fee is $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance. You can work with other people to raise my fees or you can work to cause them to join forces to help our common cause. A series of concrete, realistic, and feasible tasks included in that work is set forth at id. >OL:115 and OL:119. In any event, my fee is $350 per hour with a retainer paid in advance of $7,500. You asked me to work for you free at an enormous cost to me in terms of the money that I could have earned by working for paying-clients. Now I am going to ask something that will cost you nothing and that will benefit all the people who are victimized by arrogant, arbitrary, and law-disregarding judges: Kindly read the article below and distribute it as widely as possible? How do you react when asked to do something for free for the common good? Pro bono work, lawyers cannot afford to provide it A. Why lawyers can hardly afford to work pro bono You are right in pointing out the difficulty in gaining access to the courts due to the unaffordability of its costs. As far as that is partly due to high attorneys’ fees, it should be noted that lawyers do not avoid working for free because they are necessarily greedy or uncaring. The fact is that too many people are still in a dire economic situation. Many more have learned how quickly they can lose their jobs for changes in the economy that they have no control over. The future is very uncertain. Spending money is a decision that can only be taken after careful reflexion. As a result, ever more people do not hire attorneys to represent them in court. They appear pro se. For instance, in the federal circuit courts circa 48.6% of all appeals are by pro ses. This translates into ever fewer clients for lawyers, who still have fixed overhead expenses. Lawyers need to spend all the time they have on paying clients just to make sure that they stay in business. >jur:28fn35, 29fn38, 43fn64, fnts 35, 38, 64. NOTE: It is preferable to make available to readers the above link or to post or make available through the Cloud the file downloaded through it. Thereby they will be able to read my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; id. The study’s currently 540 pages have thousands of active (parenthetical) and superscript blue text cross-referential links and bookmarks that greatly facilitate internal navigation. As a result, it is as if readers had downloaded a website and kept it on their computers for easy access at anytime, even when not online. The file has a link to download its latest version, for I very frequently correct, update, and add to, it. By contrast, I do not direct readers to my website for the reasons stated at id. >OL:102§A. Pro bono, not capable of providing Kindly be advised that I cannot afford to assist for free the many people that contact me by email, mail, and phone requesting my advice. Since it is obvious that you cannot be the first person that has ever found herself in your situation, you need to do legal research to find out how other people have fared who contested such situation. I cannot spend time and effort reading documents related to individual cases that I cannot represent or that I can represent but not pro bono (for free). Of those, I receive more than I can possibly read. I do not have the means to deal with state judicial wrongdoing. Only if a document contributes to exposing federal judges’ wrongdoing and does so in a verifiable way, am I interested in reading it. See >jur:106§c and OL:100. Pro se case weighting1. Justice is blind, but judges see the incompetence of pro se pleadingsIn the Federal Judiciary, pro se cases are weighted as a third of a case(* >jur:43fn65a >page 40). By comparison, “a death-penalty habeas corpus case is assigned a weight of 12.89”(jur:43?81). There is already a corpse and a living person on his or her way to becoming one. It is because of the type of case and, thus, what is at stake, that it is so weighted. As a result of such weighting, a pro se case is given some 39 times less attention than a death penalty case regardless of the pro se case’s nature, what is at stake in it, and whether the complaint was written by joe the plumber or Johnnie Cochran. It is so weighted because in the Case Information Sheet you had to check off “pro se”. Your pain and suffering and all your complaints about judges’ wrongdoing do not figure in that weighing.Consequently, when a federal judge sees a complaint written by a pro se, she gives it the perfunctory attention that the official weighing of the case enables her to give it. The weighing works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because upon your filing of your case in the In-take Office it was considered already not worth a case, not even half a case, but merely a third of it, the judge will do a quick job of disposing of it as worthless. Would you rely on Jane Schmock, who cannot even balance her checkbook, to run a regression on the sales data of last year to determine the sales trend of five products and decide which one should receive the bulk of your advertisement budget? A federal district judge is not only enabled to quickly dispose of a pro se case by the case weighing system. A federal judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship” (jur36fn57). Hence, the judge is also expected not to waste her time with a pro se case that is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if so, without any notion of the elements of the cause that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he needed to introduce to prove each of them. Thus, ignoring how to state a case, the pro se is likely to launch in his opening paragraph a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better, especially since she knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say, which does not lay out arguments of law, but rather is an intonation of articles of faith and cries of pain of merely an intuitive sense of justice denied? Pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for their statements. On appeal, those statements should concern the law. Instead, pro ses mostly reargue what they know and are comfortable discussing: the facts. A pro se brief is a rambling tale of a legal death foretold.See the Template below, which provides a useful example of how to argue procedural elements of your appeal. You can adapt it using the procedural rules of your jurisdiction. Those rules are patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.Pro se statistics (jur:28fn35, 29fn38, 43fn64) (jur:28fn35, 38, 64)For the official statistics on pro se litigants in the federal courts, the model for their state counterparts, see the footnotes at jur:28fn35, 29fn38, 43fn64, and corresponding text in my study of the Federal Judiciary titled Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. Pro se, way to obtain pro bono help (OL:131)pro ses, incapacity to argue by implications(?>OL2:459??35-38)Pro ses should assume that lawyers learned something at law schoolIf you are going to appear pro se, do your homework to learn what you have to do to perform like a lawyer. Lawyers went to graduate, law school for three years after the four years of college. Reasonably assume that they learned something that judges expect to see in their briefs and when they appear for oral argument. Do not wing it! The casual writing on the back of a napkin is not the shorter version of a brief. Do not improvise yourself as a lawyer before judges. Compose your brief by doing thorough legal research and writing, and rewriting, and revising, and reviewing, and checking and double-checking its content, grammar, and format. Practice your oral argument alone and before other people; otherwise, hire a lawyer or do not bother to file your brief or appear to orally argue it. Instead, use your effort, time, and money to give your case a decent burial in a Kleenex box and light candles for your way ahead without it. It was Dead on Arrival. To keep your appeal alive at oral argument, study the template below and adapt it to your casePro ses, learning from law review studentsB. Learning with the assistance of law review students However, the best advice that I can give you is to dress up, go to a local law school, and ask at the reception where you can meet with the officers of law review. Those are the students that publish the school law journal. They and the other members are sado-masoquist, irreverent 2nd and 3rd year students that take pleasure in criticizing Supreme Court justices’ decisions. They can do a find chop chop job on whatever you write and in the process will teach you as much as you need to learn to write a serious piece of scholarship. Let them know that you want to hire one or two of them to help you with your research and legal writing for so many hours a week as you can afford. Normally, there is a going rate for that kind of work. Probable cause to believe that clerical mistakes were intentionalOL:19fn2 >ws:76§71. Evidence of what clerks do as the judges’ enforcers of wrongdoing and what they are allowed to do by judges who cover up for them, which reveals a non-coincidental, intentional pattern of coordinated wrongdoing and disregard for the law, the rules, and litigants’ rightsProbable cause to believe that there is interception of email accountsOL:19fn2 >ws:58§7. Four email accounts held with different Internet Service Providers stopped receiving emails the day after mass mailing an article on the evidence of Then-Justice Nominee Judge Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and cover-up of the bankruptcy fraud schemeproducer of the presentation and of the Coalition for Justice You can become the producer of the presentation. To that end, you can contact the deans and student leaders at those schools and the officers of other suitable venues and arrange for media coverage. Together with them, you can begin to form the Coalition for Justice. Its role will be to hold presentations, conferences, interviews, and place articles with publishers, etc., so as to distribute nationally the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing contained in Dr. Cordero’s study and the findings of the multidisciplinary team of professionals. Both the Coalition and the team are necessary for implementing the strategy of provoking such intense national outrage at judges’ wrongdoing that the public forces politicians to undertake judicial reform. Its provocation is essential to the strategy. The presentation of judicial wrongdoing is the first step toward provoking such national outrage. The Coalition can also establish local chapters and student organizations engaged in judicial unaccountability reporting. Thereby it will contribute to establishing such reporting as a news and publishing field and to grow the People’s Sunrise civic movement. Profile of journalist most likely to investigate judges (jur:xlvi§§H-I) Profile of likely investigator (jur:xlvi§§H-I)There is no need to contact the top investigative journalist in the state. On the contrary, he or she is unlikely to be willing to risk his or her established career by taking on life-tenured federal judges. By contrast, rookie journalists want to make a name and become this generation’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, who were rookies when they began investigating on June 17, 1972, what developed into the Watergate Scandal that eventually brought about the resignation of President Nixon. Hence, review the profile of the likely journalist that you should try to contact, which is at id. > jur:xlvi§§H-I. You may find that or those journalists during a presentation at a journalism school, as proposed at OL:73. In this context, the recipient most likely to take action would be a journalist or a student of journalism. Hence, I draw your attention to the profile of the student most likely to undertake that investigation, at id. > HYPERLINK "" jur:xliii§H. Indeed, the teaching method used at American journalism schools is “learning by doing”. That means that from the start of their master’s degree course, journalism students go out, research interesting subject matters, and then turn in their reports to their professors for correction and evaluation. You would be taking valuable action if you approached the professors and students of your local journalism school or program –it could be called “Program in mass communication”- and persuaded one student or a team of students to undertake that investigation. I suggest that you make the approach in a highly professional way as a matter of public interest that transcends any personal view of the President or Justice Sotomayor. What is at stake here is public integrity and the right to hold all public servants, such as judges are, accountable for the performance of the service that they have been hired to perform on behalf of the public by those who in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ are their masters: We the People. As for samples of letters addressed to professional school students, professors, and directors of centers, etc., see id. >Lsch:1, 5-8. Those letters are succinct, on one side of one page, because that is the most they will read; but they have many blue text references for additional information. profile of the journalists As to the profile of the journalists likely to investigate the two unique national stories referred to in the article below, namely, the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA stories, see id. >jur:xlvi§§H-I. Profile of the journalists investigating the two stories (jur:xlvi§H)Proposal to Snowden interviewers I make available to you below a letter that I sent to the first ARD interviewer of Snowden, American-German Reporter John Go?tz, who interviewed Snowden in Moscow last year together with German Parliament Representative Hans-Christian Str?bele, to whom I also wrote; see >OL:39, 40. Prosecutors, district attorney and attorney general (OL2:461§B; OL:380§B; Lsch:17§C)public advocacy through the organization(dcc:31-38 week by week organization) and holding of a highly publicized interactive multimedia public presentation(OL:97§1) on judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform Public integrity, what it takesCourage and commitment to public integrity as well as the concomitant willingness to pay a price It is hard. It requires a lot of thinking. It requires refined interpersonal skills and the ability to read people’s feelings and reactions as well as the ability to read documents between lines. It takes a lot of walking, and driving, and talking. It makes a lot of sweating inevitable. Publishing my articles and becoming a promoter of the Coalition of JusticeMoreover, I respectfully submit to your consideration that given your status as a member of the media and your contact to other members, you can: 1. be instrumental in having your colleagues publish the available evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and 2. stage and have them stage presentations by me of such evidence at: a. radio and TV talkshows, b. journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, and c. public interest organizations, 3. Thanks to your and your colleagues’ effort to inform the American public of how federal judges’ abuse their power and the secrecy of their Judiciary, you can 4. provoke such NATIONAL outrage as to 5. cause the public to demand that politicians open official investigations of judges’ wrongdoing. 6. Through the use of their power to issue subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt orders, bring penal charges, and hold nationwide televised public hearings, Congress and DoJ-FBI can make even more outrageous findings on the pervasiveness of judges’ riskless wrongdoing: They have coordinated it among themselves and between themselves and insiders of the legal system so extensively to practice it so routinely and more profitably as to have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi. 7. The thus heightened outrage can further determine the NATIONAL public to force politicians to legislate judicial reform. 8. That is a particularly realistic scenario given the American public’s current distrust of the government and the fast-approaching mid-term election campaign. 9. Thanks to your foresight and focused action, you can rally so many of your colleagues and stage so many presentations as to set in motion a process that ends up launching the first-ever, Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through the two stories described in my previous email, namely: a. The President Obama-U.S. Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation, and b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation. 11. As a result of your civil courage and business savvy, you can become the Producer of the Coalition of Justice, as described at >Lsch:12§C. Publishing my articles on your website You are welcome to publish on your website the articles with pages numbered OL:# and Lsch:#. The main study, titled Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, with page numbered jur:1-jur:174, cannot be published, but it can be downloaded through the link . Query guiding the investigationWhat did President Obama and the Supreme Court justices knowabout Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) of concealing assets, which is done to hide the assets’ illegal origin and evade taxes on them, and constitutes a crime(OL:5fn10),and enabled by the complicity of other judges(jur:66§§2-3), justices(jur:71§4), and staff of the Federal Judiciary(jur:30§1) as well as conniving politicians(jur:77§§5-6) –and when did they know it?ii. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation What did the President knowabout his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, being involved in both concealing assets –which The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[jur:65fn107a] suspected her of doing, and which is done to commit the crimes[OL:5fn10] of tax evasion[jur:65fn107c] and money laundering– and abusing the Federal Judiciary’s and/or the NSA’s computer network –see story ii. infra–; but did the President cover it up and lie to the American public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and if so, when did he know it?ii. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigationTo what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(`)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(OL:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crime(OL:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(OL:1), and to cover up the judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crime(OL:5a.fn13)– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them; and if so, since when?(OL:69§C) (See the statistical analysis supporting probable cause to believe that there has been communications interference(OL:19§Dfn2.))Reading, introductory I suggest that you read the first three introductory pages after the title page containing a preface, an abstract, and a summary of the parts of the study. Click on as many (parenthetical) and superscript blue text references as possible, whereby you will effortlessly call up to the screen sections§ and paragraphs? as well as foot- and endnotes, respectively, providing supportive and additional information found in most cases in official statistics, reports, judicial decisions, and statements of the federal courts or their judges. Knowledge is Power. Reading, introductoryI would like to suggest that you start with OL:55, OL:66, and OL:76. Reciprocally (or mutually) interdependent survival(OL2:466?11; 468§A)reciprocally assured unaccountability resulting from mutually interdependent survival(?>OL2:466?11; 468§A)redress of grievance, plan of action for (OL:141§D)Reform, principles(OL:130?13): Today, a public outraged by the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing can assert its right to impose new ‘terms of employment’ on all its public servants, beginning with judges. To inform itself on their use of the power, not parted with on their behalf, but only entrusted to them to render the services, the public can practice “reverse surveillance”(OL:29) on them to know for what to hold them accountable. Four new employment terms(Lsch:10?6) will constitute the foundation of mandatory, non-discretionary reform: TRANSPARENCY of individual and institutional performance based on open-door meetings; and the establishment of independent citizen boards of judicial ACCOUNTABILITY –through publicly filed and investigated complaints– and DISCIPLINE –by imposing fines, demotion to lesser duties, and LIABILITY to compensate their wrongdoing victims–(160§8).reforming the judiciary (jur:158§§6-8, OL:225§B, Lsch:10?6)Related parties to litigants (OL:85§A) ?3. Every year 50 million new cases are filed in the state and federal courts4,5. To them must be added scores of millions of pending cases. Given that every case involves at least two opposing parties, at least 100 million persons and entities go and are brought to court annually. In fact, many more do so because a party can be composed of more than one person or entity; it can even be composed of a class of hundreds of thousands of persons similarly situated. To the parties must be added all those persons and entities who are more or less directly affected by their litigation. These include friends, relatives, employees, buyers, suppliers, investors, creditors, debtors, shareholders, landlords, tenants, even the store on the corner, who may see its business diminished because a party and others affected by it can no longer afford to patronize its store, etc. Republican were informed about J. Sotomayor (jur:69fn132)Research and development in Information Technology(OL2:588; jur:132§2-10, OL;42, 60)researchers(OL:194§E, 115)retaliation by abuse of power(OL:267§4)Retaliation by judges (jur:23fn17a; Lsch:17§C; 150§§A,B)retaliation by judges against journalists(OL:150)Retaliation by judges, deterrence by number of journalists investigating them (OL:151§B)Retaliation by judges, fear of as deterrent to investigate them(OL:83§B)Retaliation by judges, protection from it by politicians pursuing their own interest (OL:151§C)Retaliation focused on journalists and politicians, not on advocates (OL:294§C)reverse surveillance (OL:73; Lsch:2)reverse surveillance(Lsch:2), the People’s Sunrise (OL:29) (OL:109?6) An outraged public can assert its status in ‘government of, by, and for the people’172: It is the master of all public officers, who are its hired public servants, including judicial public servants. The public is entitled to practice “reverse surveillance”(Lsch:2) on the servants –as opposed to the mass surveillance over the public by NSA with judges’ rubberstampingOL:5fn7 approval– to obtain the necessary enlightening information about their performance to hold them accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their ‘malperformance’ and wrongdoing(160§8). RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provisions at 18 U.S.C. §1961 et. seq. (jur:111fn249)Rights and duties affected by judges’ exercise of decision-making power(cf. OL2:516?8c)role playing to understanding and discovering wrongdoing schemes(OL:85?2, 91§E, 359§F; dcc:1)Safe haven for wrongdoersThe Federal Judiciary has become the safe haven of wrongdoers(OL:2§C)Scandal, arising from revelation of judges’ wrongdoing Can you imagine the national scandal and recognition of your public service if thanks to your persuasion of potential investigators to investigate the above query, they found out and revealed that the Federal Judiciary commits the crime of communications interference to protect Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and other federal judges from being exposed as concealers of assets to evade taxes and launder money or as participants in other forms of wrongdoing(OL:127?4)? The scandal would be more intense than that provoked by the revelations by Edward Snowden of NSA’s surveillance excesses. This is so because such excesses are likely to be held not a crime under any specific provision of federal law. By contrast, interference with the communication of another is crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511. As such, it cannot be authorized by even a federal judge’s rubberstamping an NSA’s secret request for a secret order of surveillance. A federal judge who fails to apply a law in order to protect himself or his peers only incriminates himself in abuse of power by solving a conflict of interests in his favor, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, accessorial participation before and after the fact, etc. Schemes The enabling circumstances of wrongdoing may have developed into schemes, that is, systems of interpersonal relations and procedures that function organically and are coordinated and run by judges to commit the wrongdoing in a more secure, effective, and beneficial manner. Schemes are the most harmful form of coordinated judicial wrongdoing. Some of their schemes are: 1. the judicial wrongdoing complaint dismissal scheme that systematically dismisses 99.82% of complaints against federal judges and denies up to 100% of motions to review such dismissals(jur24§b); 2. the docket clearing scheme(jur:43§1) that disposes of 75% of appeals to the federal circuit courts with just one operative word, which overwhelmingly is “affirmed”, since a denial would require explaining to the lower court what the error was to prevent it from erring again on remand, thus defeating the workload-dumping objective; the latter is further pursued by expediently disposing of up to an additional 16% of appeals with reasoning so “perfunctory”[jur:44fn68] that the judges themselves mark the decisions ?not for publication? and ?not precedential?; all of which allows the arbitrary, biased, ad hoc exercise of raw judicial power[69]; 3. the en banc motions denial scheme that systematically protects each judge’s wrong and wrongful decisions from review by all the judges of the court(jur:45§2), whereby ever graver wrongdoing is encouraged by an explicit or implicit ‘live and let live’ agreement that it will be covered up and riskless; 4 the financial disclosure reports scheme(jur:104??236,237), which allows judges to file with other judges annual mandatory[107d] reports on their financial affairs that are meaningless, implausible, and pro forma[213], thus enabling their concealment of assets[107a] to evade taxes and launder money of its illegal origin[107c]; and 5. the bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), the most elaborate and profitable scheme since it is the main source of assets(jur27§2) to conceal and involves non-members of the judiciary[jur:81fn169]. Would you trust judges who show such dishonesty and contempt for the law and due process by participating in those schemes or covering them up with their silence not to disregard your rights or take advantage of you when deciding a case affecting you as a litigant or as a member of ‘the land within the judges’ jurisdiction’ ?; after all, their wrongdoing is riskless and covered up reciprocally. Schemes (OL:85?2, 91§E)(jur:43§1; jur:65fn107a-c, 105fn213; jur:66§§2-3)their docket clearing scheme(jur:43§1); their concealment of assets scheme(jur:65fn107a-c, 105fn213); and their bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:68§§2-3)Coordination has allowed judges to develop the most harmful form of wrongdoing, i.e., schemes, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[jur:65fn107a-c, 105fn213], and a docket clearing scheme(jur:43§1). Coordination has made wrongdoing so widespread and routine that it is the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(49§4).Schemes, list of 1. the systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers and up to 100% denial year after year of motions to review(jur:24§b); 2. the systematic denial of motions en banc to protect each other’s wrong and wrongful decisions from review(jur:45§2); 3. the pro forma[213] filing of annual financial disclosure reports(jur:104??236,237) enabling concealment of assets[107a] to evade taxes and launder money of its illegal origin[107c]; and 4. the most elaborate and beneficial scheme since it is the main source of assets(jur:27§2) to conceal, the bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3). The secret, safe operation of those schemes is ensured by the judges’ mutually dependent survival: No judge can allow any other judge to be taken down, for fear that the latter may cut a deal in plea bargain by offering testimony incriminating his or her peers.Schemes, most harmful form of wrongdoing developed through coordinationCoordination has allowed judges to develop the most harmful form of wrongdoing, i.e., schemes, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[107ac, 213], and a docket clearing scheme(43§1). Coordination has made wrongdoing so widespread and routine that it is the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(49§4). Schemes, organically functioning fraud (jur:52?104): It has produced organically functioning fraud schemes, whether it is the systematic dismissal of complaints against their peers and up to 100% denial year after year of motions to review(jur24§b); the systematic denial of motions en banc to protect each other’s wrong and wrongful decisions from review(jur45§2; the pro forma213 filing of annual financial disclosure reports(jur:104??236,237) enabling concealment of assets107a to evade taxes and launder money of its illegal origin107c; and the most elaborate and beneficial scheme since it is the main source of assets(jur27§2) to conceal, the bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3). The safe operation of these schemes is ensured by the judges’ mutually dependent survival, which has changed the character of their institution: the Federal Judiciary has become, not the bastion of justice, but rather the safe haven for wrongdoers. That status has developed from the nature of judicial wrongdoing(jur:133§4), where its practitioners judge their peers so that they can elevate themselves and become convinced by the facts that they are Judges Above the Law89. scoop (OL:97§1)searching for patterns of judges’ wrongdoing, see auditing judgesSecrecySecrecy invites wrongdoing by providing wrongdoers a hideout where to coordinate it confidentially; such pervasive secrecy renders wrongdoing inevitable by assuring wrongdoers that it is undetectable and, thus, riskless.Pervasive secrecy, where wrongdoing festers, away from ‘the best disinfectant: the sunlight’(jur:158?350b) of operating transparency.Self-help solution to inadequate judicial salaries (OL:188?2)self-policing judges-judging-judges mechanism, Inherent ineffectiveness of the The U.S. Constitution12b provides in Article II, Section 4,: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.(OL:73) This provision treats all civil officers, such as federal judges are, equally. Yet, in self-interest, judges have conjured up the doctrine of judicial immunity to arrogate to themselves a unique status among civil officers: Judges Above the Law. Judges before whom other judges stand as defendants will protect their peers, who may have been their colleagues and friends for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or more years, by disregarding the facts and the law, making rules as they go, and steering the case to a predetermined outcome. By so doing, they protect themselves too, for the defendant judges may know even more about the wrongdoing of the judging judges than the plaintiff knows about that of defendant’s. The judging judges need only think of the defendants to hear them shout threateningly, “If you let the plaintiff bring me down, I’ll take you with me!”(50§ b) In a criminal case, this threat can be executed in an ominous and inconspicuous way: The defendant judges may cut a plea bargain deal with the prosecutor whereby in exchange for leniency they agree to give testimony or only information incriminating in the same or their own wrongdoing the judging judges or their friends, who may be a ‘bigger fish’ and better trophy for the prosecutor. Hence, the judges-judging-judges mechanism of judicial self-policing is inherently ineffective to safeguard judicial integrity. Nor can it provide victims of judges’ wrongdoing redress for their grievances125b. The victims must resort to an alternative means of exposure and compensation outside the courtrooms, the judges’ turf. That means is research and investigation that results in public exposure showing that judges violated the injunction in their own Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges: “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”123a. That standard of exposure is low and easy to meet, for it does not require evidence of wrongdoing, never mind proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A showing of impropriety that impairs the appearance of honesty, abidance by the law in his professional and personal life, fairness and impartiality, etc., is enough so to detract from the public trust necessary to administer justice as to force the judge to resign. That is what happened to Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas after Life magazine revealed his financial improprieties, which were not even misdemeanors, let alone crimes: First he had to withdraw his name from the nomination for the chief justiceship and then to resign on May 14, 1969(92§d). Publicly exposing judges’ wrongdoing is not easy at all. For one thing, journalists and media outlets fear the power of judges to retaliate in subtle but devastating ways(Lsch:17§C). Federal judges are enormously powerful. Life-tenured, they have a very long individual and institutional memory during which to hold a grudge against those who dare investigate and expose them. They wield power to say what the law is. Bills that Congress passes and presidents enact into law are only blotches of black ink on white paper until the judges interpret them in light of their own reading of the bills’ black letter, congressional intent, the laws already on the books, the Constitution, the facts of the case, and public policy. Then judges say what the law means in practice. By so doing, they say what the law of the land is. Judges also have the power to predetermine the outcome of the case and reach it by contorting the law or simply disregard the law by issuing an arbitrary, reasonless summary order or a decision so “perfunctory” that they themselves mark “not precedential” and “not for publication”. Around 90% of appeals to the federal circuit courts are disposed through such fiats of raw judicial power. Hence, they say what rights people have and do not have. They also have the power to apply the law to take from, and give to, people property, liberty, and lives. Seminar, course, apprenticeship, externship(OL:272)Sense of entitlementLife-tenured judges who can do anything without fear of adverse consequences or even having to explain themselves develop a sense of entitlement to do everything while losing a sense of legal and ethical limits to what they can or should do. Together with other court insiders169, they exploit and protect their privilege. So is human nature.separate but equal powers doctrine(OL:130?12)The ‘separate but equal powers’ doctrine is drawn also by self-serving, tortuous implication from the Constitution’s dedicating a separate article to each of the three branches of government…as it does regarding other subjects dealt with in other sections. Such separation does not mean that its drafters, let alone We the People –its first three words– wanted to separate the Judiciary from every control, whether exercised directly by the people or through its representatives, and empower judges to apply to themselves the principle “The King can do no wrong”. The People rejected that principle through the American Revolution to adopt a republican form of ‘government, not of men, but by the rule of law’(OL:5fn6). As the sovereign source of political power, they became the masters who hired all public officers as their public servants, including judicial ones, to render the People needed services performed honestly and be held accountable by them in application of a new principle: ‘government of, by, and for the people’172.Series of eventsMoreover, I respectfully submit to your consideration that given your status as a member of the media and your contact to other members, you can: 1. be instrumental in having your colleagues publish the available evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing and 2. stage and have them stage presentations by me of such evidence at: a. radio and TV talkshows, b. journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, and c. public interest organizations, 3. Thanks to your and your colleagues’ effort to inform the American public of how federal judges’ abuse their power and the secrecy of their Judiciary, you can 4. provoke such NATIONAL outrage as to 5. cause the public to demand that politicians open official investigations of judges’ wrongdoing. 6. Through the use of their power to issue subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt orders, bring penal charges, and hold nationwide televised public hearings, Congress and DoJ-FBI can make even more outrageous findings on the pervasiveness of judges’ riskless wrongdoing: They have coordinated it among themselves and between themselves and insiders of the legal system so extensively to practice it so routinely and more profitably as to have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi. 7. The thus heightened outrage can further determine the NATIONAL public to force politicians to legislate judicial reform. 8. That is a particularly realistic scenario given the American public’s current distrust of the government and the fast-approaching mid-term election campaign. 9. Thanks to your foresight and focused action, you can rally so many of your colleagues and stage so many presentations as to set in motion a process that ends up launching the first-ever, Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through the two stories described in my previous email, namely: a. The President Obama-U.S. Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation, and b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation. 10. As a result of your civil courage and business savvy, you can become the Producer of the Coalition of Justice, as described at >Lsch:12§C. series of events leading to judicial reformMy strategy for impeachment is based on a series of events beginning with: a series of presentations of revealing participation in, or condonation of, financial wrongdoing: concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money; >public outrage >public demands related news >market incentive, i.e., sell advertisement accompanying the news, for media to investigate >media makes outrageous findings >greater public outrage and interest in related news >ever more journalists join the investigative bandwagon >Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage, particularly during the mid-term election campaign, the primaries, and the 2016 presidential election campaign >official investigations by Congress and DoJ-FBI >outraged public forces politicians to impeach and undertake judicial reform providing for: transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability to compensate victims. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to reread the article so that you may realize that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to public integrity if you distribute it as widely as possible and contribute to the organization of the presentations. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email it to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. series of events leading to judicial reformThe proposed strategy leading to impeachment is based on a series of events beginning with: a series of presentations revealing participation in, or condonation of, the financial crime(id. >OL:5fn10) of concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money as well as other forms of non-political wrongdoing(jur:3§5) committed by the officers to be impeached; >public outrage >the public demands related news >the media is furnished with a market incentive to investigate, i.e., sell advertisement accompanying the news, >the media makes findings of more outrageous wrongdoing >greater public outrage and interest in related news >ever more journalists join the investigative bandwagon >so emerges a Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage, particularly during the mid-term election campaign, the primaries, and the 2016 presidential election campaign, when politicians are more sensitive to public sentiment >official investigations by Congress and DoJ-FBI >an outraged public forces politicians to impeach and undertake judicial reform providing for: Transparency of government operations, accountability, discipline, and liability of public officers to compensate their victims. Please consider this: What do you think contributes more to removing the President from office, your not distributing the article because you already determined that he is not a legitimate president and cannot be impeached, or rather distributing the article because it provides a professionally composed argument of how to impeach the President on grounds that he engaged in wrongdoing that may constitute ‘high crimes or misdemeanors’? Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to reread the article so that you may realize that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to public integrity if you distribute it as widely as possible and contribute to the organization of the presentations. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email the article to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. Sharyl Attkisson, see Attkisson, Sharyl Former CBS Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has sued the Obama administration on a claim that it hacked into its work and home computers to find out about her investigations that embarrassed the government, in particular the DoJ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers295, and the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other American officers at Benghazi by Islamic militantsjur:139fn270>Ln:331-344.Snowden, Edward(OL:17) Social media, its role in the strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform (jur:xlvii§I; jur:167?368)Sotomayor, Sonia, Supreme Court Justice, as circuit judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit(jur:65§§§1-3; jur:xxxv); as member of the Judicial Council of the 2nd Circuit(jur:24fn20)Statistics of the federal and state courts [10c-d, 19a,b] statistics on judicial wrongdoing exposure and their interpretation(jur:21§§1-3; OL2:452)Statistics, duty of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to lay annually before Congress(28 USC §604(d)(3); (h)(2); jur:26fn23a)storytelling (cw:1)Crafting your legal statement: a story valuable to the listener 7. Prepare a concise statement of your case and a well-organized binder with your evidence. 8. Absolutely do not say, “My case is a long story”. That is off-putting. Right there you are letting your listeners know that they are in for a rambling babble that will make no sense, bore them, and waste their time. It is up to you to summarize your case to its essential elements, those that are most likely to fill with interesting and/or shocking details the short attention span of your listeners. Do not waste your opportunity with nonsense, trivia, and everyday details. Focus on what is essential and determined the course or outcome of your case. Focusing on the essential takes a lot of homework on your part. Spend your time so that you do not waste that of your listeners. 9. Once you know what you want to tell your listeners, you can practice how to present your case. You will be making a presentation. Do not wing it! Engage in rehearsal after rehearsal of a 5-minute presentation of your case where you highlight why your case will be beneficial either for the name of the institution concerned or for the students, professors, or lawyers involved (see below). a. The theme of your presentation is “Why it is in your academic, professional, journalistic, subsequent economic or other interest to take this case pro bono”. structure of your presentation, to pro bono legal assistance providers 1) Opening sentence: What the case deals with [the category of your legal problem and how it affects people generally], stated in 10 to 15 SECONDS. 2) Explanatory statement: a) State the facts: how, when, by whom the problem arose, and where the main characters and property (if applicable) are located. b) Why there is a problem: what are the interests in conflicts, that is, you have an interest that is opposed to somebody else’s interest. That is the essence of a legal controversy: conflict interests. See >Lsch:14§§b,c. c) If you know, what legal right or claim you are asserting; or at least why you think that you should be able to do what you want to do to advance your interest or should not have to do what the other person or entity is requiring you to do but that would be detrimental to your interest. This takes 3.5 to 4 minutes. 3) Closing statement a) What you want your listeners to do and how they or their institution will advance their interests by so doing: What is in it for them if they help you? State this in a 45 seconds to 1 minutes. See >OL:3§6. b) Do not defeat yourself from the opening statement by babbling about how distraught you are, what a horrible person the opposing party is, how much commiseration you need from others, and on and on with more rambling of irrelevant matters, nonsense, and issue-clouding emotions. Lawyers discount sad stories as exaggerated, self-serving, and irrelevant since they do not in themselves present a legal claim that they can help to resolve. Give them the facts, only the facts. If he or she takes your case and has to address a jury, then he or she will make the story in a professional way. c) Once more: Do not wing it! Do not improvise. PRACTICE YOUR 5 MINUTES PRESENTATION. Deliver your presentation to your friends and ask them whether they understood your case, what they did not understand, what they needed you to say for them to figure out what your case is all about, how it affects them what you want them to do, etc. Ask them to be harsh with you. The professionals that you want to persuade to take your case will be even harsher with you and in the first couple of minutes will tune out of your presentation if it is merely a jumble of incomplete sentences and ideas sputtered by fits and starts. 4) Questions and answers a) After your finish your 5 minutes presentation, invite questions from your listeners. Answer them to the point. This is not the moment for you to indulge in unfocused and irrelevant rambling and thereby dissipate all the attention that you attracted with your well rehearsed and to the point presentation. b) Continue to be disciplined and in control of yourself. Anticipate questions and prepare precise and accurate answers to be delivered in 30 seconds or less. Answering a question is not an opening for latching on to another story. ‘Keep on script’ and make the count by relating it to the essential elements of your case. c) Hence, you need to pay close attention to what the question asks so that you can provide the answer to that particular question. Center on what the questioner wants to know, not on what you want to say to unburden your troubled soul. You are in the Q&A phase of the presentation, not on the couch of your psychologist. You want your questioner to provide you with legal help, not with a lobotomy. strategic action (OL:343; OL2:416)strategic thinking (OL2:635, 593?15; jur:xliv§C) (OL:8§E, 150; Lsch:14§3, 20§1); dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests & strategic thinking, OL2:593??15-16; Lsch:14§§2-3; its principle of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”(OL2:445§B); as an alternative to suing judges in court(OL2:475§D); and dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(OL:52§C)Lsch:20§1 need for media & public, OL:8§E historical) A. Thinking strategically to be cost-effective: another personal local case v. unique national case 1. In order to achieve our objective of meaningful judicial reform, it is necessary to proceed strategically. 2. What do you think is more likely to cause a critical and reformative review of the federal and state judicial systems?: a. the exposition of one federal or state judge who abuses his judicial discretion and disregards the law, which occurs in thousands of other cases, against whom our complaints have brought about absolutely no positive result, let alone any progress in judges’ accountability and discipline; or b. the exposition of the unique case of involvement of a Justice of the Supreme Court, J. Sotomayor, in concealment of assets, as suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(id. >jur:65fn107a-c) –which is a crime and, as such, cannot be explained away as the exercise of judicial discretion–; and c. the exposition of its cover-up by the sitting president who nominated her and who wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning for another woman and the first Latina for the Supreme Court and from whom he expected in exchange support for his key personal and political interest: the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act, that is, Obamacare?” On this subject, see my article at >OL:55: Do the President’s lies for the personal and political gain of passing and implementing Obamacare warrant calls for his resignation or impeachment? Strategic thinking: personal cases v. a unique national case Making a choice aimed at a cost-effective allocation of limited resources and guided by the enlightened consideration of what advances other people’s interests A. Analysis of judges’ wrongdoing and proposal on a shared objective This article analyzes the situation in which millions of people, most likely including you, find themselves who are at the mercy of judges and their abettors. I submit that they, you, and I share a common objective, namely, the exposition of judges’ wrongdoing so as to achieve meaningful judicial reform. I will make a proposal for you to take action on behalf of yourself and all of them. That proposal allows you to use your distressing but valuable experience with the judicial and legal systems to become a Producer of the Coalition for Justice and of the presentation that can initiate it by exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. B. Judges’ unaccountability and secrecy leads to their riskless wrongdoing Judges engage in wrongdoing because they are held by politicians and the media unaccountable and have cloaked all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings in secrecy, which they protect by holding no press conferences( >Lsch:2§A). Consequently, they do wrong risklessly. That is the thesis of my study Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(id. >jur:1). 1. Objective financial v. subjective abuse of discretion wrongdoing 1. Judges’ wrongdoing includes financial wrongdoing, e.g., concealment of assets, which is undertaken to either evade taxes or launder money of its illegal provenance, both of which are crimes(OL:5fn10). Financial wrongdoing is an objective act. By contrast, judges’ abuse of judicial discretion, which is frequently the grounds for litigants, such as you, to complain against judges, is largely a subjective concept within broad bounds of what is reasonable. 2. Complaints about abuse of discretion can easily be dismissed by the judges’ peers who want to give one of their own the benefit of the doubt in the expectation that they will repay them with the dismissal of any complaint raised against them in future. Far from judges incriminating each other, they will protect each other. 3. Complaints about individual judges’ conduct that can be deemed discretionary only lead to the myopic, selfish, and unproductive waste of our effort, money, and time that perpetuates their unaccountability and wrongdoing: Such complaints are doomed to fail: 99.82% of complaints against federal judges are dismissed without any investigation(jur:24§§b-c). 4. Unlike abuse of discretion, financial wrongdoing cannot easily be dismissed without the dismisser running the risk of becoming an accessory after the fact, for instance, by covering up the commission of a crime. 2. Provoking in the national public ‘reformative outrage’ at federal judges’ financial wrongdoing 5. A continuous stream of media revelations over a prolonged period of time of the extent, nature, and gravity of judges’ financial wrongdoing is necessary to provoke national outrage and to keep intensifying into a national scandal that generates a Watergate-like(jur:4??10-14) generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing. 6. Such public outrage should force DoJ-FBI, Congress, and state authorities to conduct their own official investigations. These authorities’ exercise of their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers should produce yet more outrageous findings about judges’ wrongdoing. 7. Mounting public outrage is a key element of the strategy(jur:83§§2-3). A public provoked into ‘reformative outrage’ can force politicians to undertake meaningful judicial reform based on legislation imposing non-discretionary duties on judges. This is the opposite of allowing judges to adopt voluntary changes to their way of conducting judicial business, for their interest lies in, first, not being incriminated through exposure, and second, benefitting from their wrongdoing as they have up to now. 3. An outraged public forcing politicians to reform the judiciaries 8. It is contrary to politicians’ interest to reform any judiciary, for they are the ones who recommended, nominated, confirmed, appointed, and contributed to the election of, judges in the expectation that the judges at the very least would uphold the constitutionality of their legislative agenda(jur:23fn17a). However, politicians have a higher interest: to be voted into, or remain in, office. 9. Therefore, they will undertake meaningful legislated judicial reform only if they are convinced by an outraged public that must do so or risk being voted out of, or not into, office. This is a realistic prospect, for it is based on the precedent set by the Tea Party, which has caused politicians to support its program or suffer defeat at the polls. C. Thinking strategically to be cost-effective: another personal local case v. unique national case 10. In order to achieve our objective of meaningful judicial reform, it is necessary to proceed strategically. 11. What do you think is more likely to cause a critical and reformative review of the federal and state judicial systems?: the exposition of one federal or state judge who abuses his judicial discretion and disregards the law, which occurs in thousands of other cases, against whom our complaints have brought about absolutely no positive result, let alone any progress in judges’ accountability and discipline; or the exposition of the unique case of involvement of a Justice of the Supreme Court, J. Sotomayor, in concealment of assets, as suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(id. >jur:65fn107a-c) –which is a crime and, as such, cannot be explained away as the exercise of judicial discretion–; and the exposition of its cover-up by the sitting president who nominated her and who wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning for another woman and the first Latina for the Supreme Court and from whom he expected in exchange support for his key personal and political interest: the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act, that is, Obamacare?” On this subject, see my article, Do the President’s lies for the personal and political gain of passing and implementing Obamacare warrant calls for his resignation or impeachment? The request that he release the FBI vetting report on his justiceship nominee J. Sotomayo(id. >OL:63) D. Unique national case, connected to a current national concernD. The request that he release the FBI vetting report on his justiceship nominee J. Sotomayor(id. >OL:63) 1. Connecting a unique national case to a current national concern 12. At this point in time, when so many Americans believe that President Obama lied to them when he said that they would be able to keep their current health insurance under Obamacare, would it be more likely than not for a greater number of Americans to believe that the President also lied to them about the honesty of his Supreme Court Nominee, Then-Judge Sotomayor? For more details on the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story(id. > HYPERLINK "" jur:xxxv). 13. Whether one is for or against Obamacare is utterly irrelevant. What matters is how presenting the evidence that gives rise to widespread public belief that a sitting president and a sitting justice nominated by him were involved in concealment of assets and its cover-up for personal and political gain can provoke such national outrage as to cause the national public to demand further investigation of the conditions enabling such concealment and prompting such cover-up. 14. A key element of strategic thinking is the use of what people are already familiar with and can easily relate to the interest that one is trying to advance. That is the element behind advertisers using personalities to endorse their products. 15. The concept of strategic thinking that provides the underpinning of the proposal is discussed at Lsch:14§§b-c.E. Making your effort count by becoming the producer of a presentation and of the Coalition for Justice 19. Strategic thinking should be applied to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the effort, money, and time of you, me, and all the many others similarly situated. To that end, I have offered to make presentations to expose judges’ financial, non-discretionary wrongdoing, and lay out a plan of action reasonably calculated to provoke the public’s reformative outrage and set in motion a process leading to judicial reform that is historic in its nature and scope. The initial presentation can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a media outlet, or a civil rights organization. 20. You and other people that you have met while suffering judges’ abuse can be instrumental in arranging for it to be held. By so doing, you can emerge as the Producer of the Coalition for Justice. Strategy for presidential candidatesa. one or even more justices of the Supreme Court, such as Then-Judge Sotomayor, suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c) of concealment of assets; and all the more so in connection with the vetting of the replacement that the President must soon nominate for Justice Ginsburg, who already announced her retirement for this summer; andb. one or more of the top senators, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), vying for position now that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will not run again for reelection and has recommended that Sen. Schumer succeed him in office. Sen. Schumer, who led Nominee Sotomayor through her confirmation process(jur:78§6), and other top senators who want to become minority leader, are vulnerable to revelations of their knowledge of nominees’ wrongdoing gained through their access to the FBI vetting reports showing that the nominees had or were engaged in wrongdoing(jur:66§§2-4; 105fn213). Yet, they disregarded those reports and either vouched for the integrity of the nominees and confirmed them or kept silent in expectation of reciprocity when it was their turn to have their nominees confirmed.strategy of informing and outraging the national public to expose judges’ wrongdoing(OL2:461§G; OL:292) In addition, I concentrate my efforts on having a national impact by(OL:292) informing the national public through the media, driven by their own commercial and competition interests(OL:319), about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3; 65§§1-3) and so outraging the public as to stir it up to demand that, in general, incumbent politicians hold, and in particular, presidential candidates call for, nationally televised public hearings that unavoidably lead politicians to undertake judicial reform for fear that the public may take out its outrage on them at the polls. The hearings would be akin to those held by the Senate Watergate Committee, which led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974(jur:4??10-14), and the 9/11 Commission, which was convened at the relentless demand of the victims’ relatives. This constitutes my out-of-court, inform and outrage strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform(OL:190), a concrete, realistic, and feasible one resulting from strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; OL:52§C; OL:8§E; jur:xliv?C) and the application to any situation of dynamic analysis of all the parties’ harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2; dcc:8?11; dcc:17?1).Judges engage in wrongdoing due to their unaccountability and the pervasive secrecy in which they have cloaked their performance. This is what Dr. Cordero’s study shows, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, . The means, motive, and opportunity of judges’ wrongdoing are described at id.>jur:21§§1-3. They can be exposed, but not by a personal case similar to thousands of other cases involving judicial discretion, which gives judges the benefit of the doubt and allows the dismissal of those cases. By contrast, a unique and outrageous case involving a judge in self-beneficial financial wrongdoing is not so dismissable. On the contrary, it would prompt further investigation of the enabling circumstances and extent of such wrongdoing. Such is the case originating in articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a-c), suspecting of concealment of assets –a crime, under 18 USC §2511– Then-Judge Sotomayor, the first justiceship nominee of President Obama and now a justice of the Supreme Court. It is described at jur:xxxv. The further investigation of J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets reveals judicial wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and coordinated(jur:65§§1-3) as to constitute the judges’ institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4). The exposure of federal justices’ and judges’ financial wrongdoing can provoke such intense public outrage as to convince the media that there is a news and publishing market for judicial unaccountability reporting. This can provide the business rationale for launching a Watergate-like generalized media investigation.(jur:100§3) Its findings can so exacerbate the outrage as to cause the public to demand official investigations by the authorities, such as Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts. Thanks to their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers, they can conduct more extensive and invasive investigations that can produce yet more outrageous findings. These can stir up the public to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake historic judicial reform. Voters can force politicians to do what they would otherwise not do at all; the Tea Party is there to prove it. strategy of outrage (OL:96§C)strategy of outrage, pursued through a national case (OL:129§C)Strategy, based on self-interest, public outrage, and citizen oversight(jur:xxxix)Strategy, long outline of stepsOur current steps are to: 1. join forces with professionals with necessary skill sets(id. >jur:124§4); 2. further develop a platform for bipartisan candidates committed to exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform; and 3. prepare an all-important series of presentations of the two unique national stories(OL:100) to: a. journalists at meetings or press conferences(jur:97§1); b. students(jur:129§b) due to their potentially significant contribution to the proposed investigation(OL:66), at schools of: 1) journalism(OL:54; Lsch:23), 2) law(id. >Lsch:1, 21), 3) business(jur:104??236-237; 65fn107c; 105fn213a), and 4) Information Technology(OL:42, 60); c. professionals at public interest organizations(jur:86§4), and d. political leaders and activists at political meetings(OL:52, 58). We can thereby beginning the implementation of the strategy, that is: presentations of the two unique national stories >public outrage >commercial incentive for media to investigate >outrageous findings >greater public outrage and interest in related news >Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage and demand for >official investigations >use of more intrusive official investigative powers that makes more outrageous findings >outraged public forces politicians to legislate judicial reform providing for: transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability to compensate victims(Lsch:10§6), >implementation of the strategy at state level. Therefore, I encourage you to read the article at id. >OL:100, reproduced below, and as many of its references as possible and to contact me to discuss how we can join forces. Strategy, longer outline of stepsB. Replacing judges-judging-judges with the alternative out-of-court strategy of informing and outraging We the People 7. That is precisely why my alternative strategy is to: a. cause journalists to investigate the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA stories : b. outrage the national public during the long electoral season comprising the mid-term, primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns, c. stir up an outraged public to force politicians -lest it withhold from them its donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, and endorsement on voting intention surveys, thus causing their campaigns to be unviable so that they must drop out of the race or face defeat at the polls- to d. investigate officially wrongdoing judges by using their more intrusive investigative powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and contempt orders, and indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea bargain, hold public hearings, etc., whereby the politicians will be able to e. make findings that will further outrage the public; f. cause the public to compel politicians to undertake meaningful judicial reform just as the Tea Party has compelled politicians to conduct themselves in ways that were unthinkable only 10 years ago; and g. promote the development of an outraged public into a Tea Party-like civic movement that forces the adoption of a new We the People-government relation encompassing citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(id. >jur:160§8): the People’s Sunrise civic movement(id. >OL:29). Strategy, need for itYou need a strategy to map out where you are and where you want to go; otherwise, you may end up elsewhere…or just keep turning in circles. Cf. >jur:83§§2-3 and jur:xxix. E. My request to you 26. You can read plenty about judges and how they deal with lawyers and the law in my study Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. 27. It concerns federal judges, whose Federal Judiciary is the model of the state judiciaries. If federal judges’ wrongdoing is exposed, the process of exposing that of state judges will be set in motion. 28. To download the file containing it, click on this link , and begin with the articles at pages Lsch:2, 9, 13. 29. You will learn from those articles that an effort is being made for the presentation of the evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing to be held at a law, journalism, business, and Information Technology school. If you have contacts at any such school, please let me know. 30. Moreover, you can contribute to that effort by sharing the article below as widely as possible and by encouraging all others to redistribute it likewise. How do you react when a person asks you to do something for free for him, particularly after he has done something valuable for you, as I have herein? Strategy, out of court(OL:236)A case against a wrongdoing judge may need to be kept procedurally alive in court by abiding by all the deadlines even if one is fully aware that there is no realistic expectation that judges will hold one of their own liable(id. >OL:158). Hence, see the proposed out-of-court strategy for exposing the riskless wrongdoing of unaccountable judges and advocating judicial reform(OL:236). The strategy centers on causing media members, such as investigative journalists and talkshow hosts, to pursue in their own personal and professional interest the two unique national stories of President Obama-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA. The information about judicial wrongdoing thus provided to the national public will so outrage it as to stir it up to force politicians campaigning in the primaries and the presidential election campaign to take a stand on it and open official investigations of judicial wrongdoing and hold nationally televised hearings thereon. Thanks to their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers, the official investigators, e.g., Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice, its FBI, and their state counterparts, will expose even more outrageous information. That will turn the issue of judges’ wrongdoing into a decisive one of the presidential campaign and election, and lead to judicial reform.Dr. Cordero offers to make presentations to you, your colleagues, and guests of this out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.(OL:197§G)This strategy is part of Dr. Cordero’s study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, titled:Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting* or or or or these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:Google Chrome: Mozilla-Firefox: that file, all (parenthetical) and superscript blue text cross-references are active internal hyperlinks, which considerably facilitate bringing up to the screen the corresponding supporting or additional information. That recommends downloading that file and reading therein the text below at the >page# referred to.The prefixes of the page numbers, e.g., jur:Arabic numeral, jur:Roman numeral, ggl:#, OL:#, Lsch:#, etc., represent the different parts of the study. See the bookmark pane on the left of the file.Strategy, outline of events leading to impeachment The proposed strategy leading to impeachment is based on a series of events beginning with: a series of presentations revealing participation in, or condonation of, the financial crime(id. >OL:5fn10) of concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money as well as other forms of non-political wrongdoing(jur:3§5) committed by the officers to be impeached; >public outrage >the public demands related news >the media is furnished with a market incentive to investigate, i.e., sell advertisement accompanying the news, >the media makes findings of more outrageous wrongdoing >greater public outrage and interest in related news >ever more journalists join the investigative bandwagon >so emerges a Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage, particularly during the mid-term election campaign, the primaries, and the 2016 presidential election campaign, when politicians are more sensitive to public sentiment >official investigations by Congress and DoJ-FBI >an outraged public forces politicians to impeach and undertake judicial reform providing for: Transparency of government operations, accountability, discipline, and liability of public officers to compensate their victims. Please consider this: What do you think contributes more to removing the President from office, your not distributing the article because you already determined that he is not a legitimate president and cannot be impeached, or rather distributing the article because it provides a professionally composed argument of how to impeach the President on grounds that he engaged in wrongdoing that may constitute ‘high crimes or misdemeanors’? Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to reread the article so that you may realize that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to public integrity if you distribute it as widely as possible and contribute to the organization of the presentations. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email the article to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. Strategy, presentation, and promoter to implement the strategy(OL:56§C): to launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation driven by the profit motive(OL:74§§B-D) and moral rewards(OL: 3§F) of judges’ wrongdoing whose findings so outrage the national public as to stir it up force Congress, DoJ-FBI, a special counsel, and their state counterparts to undertake the first-ever official investigation of the Federal Judiciary and judicial reform. A. The strategy for exposing judges’ wrongdoing Judges engage in wrongdoing due to their unaccountability and the pervasive secrecy in which they have cloaked their performance. This is what Dr. Cordero’s study shows, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, . The means, motive, and opportunity of judges’ wrongdoing are described at id.>jur:21§§1-3. They can be exposed, but not by a personal case similar to thousands of other cases involving judicial discretion, which gives judges the benefit of the doubt and allows the dismissal of those cases. By contrast, a unique and outrageous case involving a judge in self-beneficial financial wrongdoing is not so dismissable. On the contrary, it would prompt further investigation of the enabling circumstances and extent of such wrongdoing. Such is the case originating in articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a-c), suspecting of concealment of assets –a crime, under 18 USC §2511– Then-Judge Sotomayor, the first justiceship nominee of President Obama and now a justice of the Supreme Court. It is described at jur:xxxv. The further investigation of J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets reveals judicial wrongdoing to be so routine, widespread, and coordinated(jur:65§§1-3) as to constitute the judges’ institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4). The exposure of federal justices’ and judges’ financial wrongdoing can provoke such intense public outrage as to convince the media that there is a news and publishing market for judicial unaccountability reporting. This can provide the business rationale for launching a Watergate-like generalized media investigation.(jur:100§3) Its findings can so exacerbate the outrage as to cause the public to demand official investigations by the authorities, such as Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts. Thanks to their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers, they can conduct more extensive and invasive investigations that can produce yet more outrageous findings. These can stir up the public to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake historic judicial reform. Voters can force politicians to do what they would otherwise not do at all; the Tea Party is there to prove it. B. Legislated judicial reform imposing non-discretionary duties Meaningful judicial reform needs to be undertaken through legislation(jur:158§§6-8) that imposes new non-discretionary duties on judges. Imposing such duties is quite different from allowing judges to adopt voluntary measures to change their way of doing business given that their interest lies in doing wrong as they have up to now and covering up their past wrongdoing. The necessary reformative legislation must mandate judges’ accountability; transparency of their activities as judges and as administrators of their judiciary; discipline imposed on them, not by their peers, but through citizen boards of judicial accountability; and joint and several liability of judges and their judiciaries to compensate their victims. Such reform will be historic in its nature and scope. The public outrage necessary to force politicians to undertake it can give rise to a civic movement that asserts that in government of, by, and for the people, We the People are masters of the government and of all our public servants, whom we are entitled to hold accountable. Hence, the reform can constitute the emergence of a new We the People-government relation(jur:164§9): the People’s Sunrise. The People’s Sunrise civic movement can emerge in the context of the federal government, extend to its state counterparts, spread abroad, as so many other American political, cultural, and social developments have. C. The initial presentation to expose judges’ wrongdoing The above describes in brief(jur:83§§2-3) the strategy to cause a series of events to lead from the current situation to legislated judicial reform. Implementing the strategy begins with a presentation by Dr. Cordero of statistics, reports, and documents pointing to judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(Lsch:9§A). It can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a civil rights organization, or a national radio or TV talk show(Lsch:10§B). The presentation can provide the occasion for students, professors, civil rights advocates, and journalists to heed the call to join a multidisciplinary team of professionals to further investigate(jur:102§4) and expose(jur:97§§1-2) federal judges’ wrongdoing. This team can possess the necessary professional skills(jur:128§4) to become the core of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture to expose federal judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform(jur:119§1). The initial presentation can be followed by a tour of presentations that can include subsequent findings of the team. Those presentations can have a snowball effect. D. The producer of the presentation and of the Coalition for Justice You can become the producer of the presentation. To that end, you can contact the deans and student leaders at those schools and the officers of other suitable venues and arrange for media coverage. Together with them, you can begin to form the Coalition for Justice. Its role will be to hold presentations, conferences, interviews, and place articles with publishers, etc., so as to distribute nationally the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing contained in Dr. Cordero’s study and the findings of the multidisciplinary team of professionals. Both the Coalition and the team are necessary for implementing the strategy of provoking such intense national outrage at judges’ wrongdoing that the public forces politicians to undertake judicial reform. Its provocation is essential to the strategy. The presentation of judicial wrongdoing is the first step toward provoking such national outrage. The Coalition can also establish local chapters and student organizations engaged in judicial unaccountability reporting. Thereby it will contribute to establishing such reporting as a news and publishing field and to grow the People’s Sunrise civic movement. E. Inspiring examples of unexpected, self-improvised coalition formers There is precedent for your becoming the producer of the presentation and the Coalition for Justice. 1. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) was born of a mother who lost her daughter to a drunk driver and committed herself to preventing others from becoming victims; by din of hard work, her organization has gone national and lobbied successfully for pertinent laws. 2. Sally Regenhard, the mother of a firefighter killed at the Twin Towers, is recognized as the driving force of the movement that forced the government to hold the 9/11 Commission. 3. The Tea Party has developed in less than 10 years from people who shared a single common idea, lower taxes, into a political force to be reckoned with at the national level. F. Approaching contacts to produce the initial presentation This shows that forming a Coalition for Justice is realistic. It does not require you to be a professional community organizer. It only requires you to be a determined person motivated by an inspiring cause in the public interest: To make significant progress in applying a foundational principle of our republic, namely, ‘In government, not of men, but by the rule of law, Nobody is Above The Law; rather, all are subject to Equal Justice Under Law’. That is a noble ideal. Contributing to its realization can inspire you as well as all those whom you can invite to join the Coalition and the team. For all this to occur, a producer needs to stage the initial presentation. However, it should be clear that I am not offering either employment, payment for services, or reimbursement of expenses. There is no reasonable expectation that the implementation of this strategy for exposing judges’ wrongdoing, reforming the judiciary, and giving rise to the People’s Sunrise civic movement will generate monetary gains. At present, its likely gain is a meaningful moral reward: to be recognized nationally, perhaps for a generation or longer, as a Champion of Justice.(OL:3§6) Therefore, let Dr. Cordero know the extent to which you together with your contacts in academe, the media, and civil rights organizations can produce the initial presentation of judicial unaccountability and legislated reform advocacy. Share with him your views of producing with those contacts the Coalition for Justice to stage the subsequent presentations. A succinct introduction to the presentation is at Lsch:1. A more detailed version of this article is at Lsch:9. Strategy, rationale, contacting journalists and PACs A. The rationale of the strategy for exposing judges’ wrongdoing It is important to understand the rationale of the strategy that I have proposed, which is discussed in the letter that I copied you on today and stated at id. >OL:83§B: What interest do journalists and media outlets have whose advancement could motivate them to risk judges’ retaliation? 13. For any professionally ambitious journalist and outlet that is aware of the key role that the media play in a democracy as watchdog on behalf of the people, that interest is, in addition to winning a Pulitzer Prize, to be this generation’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post Reporters who were instrumental in exposing the Watergate Scandal that caused the resignation of President Nixon in 1974 and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(4??10-14). 14. The interest now at stake is even more motivating: to bring down not only a sitting president, but also a sitting Supreme Court justice nominated by him(OL:55) and even other justices(92§d) and judges after exposing their participation in, or condonation of, wrongdoing that is so routine, widespread, and coordinated(86§4) among themselves and with others[169] as to constitute their institutionalized modus operandi(49§4). 15. The journalists and media outlet that can set in motion the process leading to these top national officers’ resignation or impeachment will have a secure place in history; be studied in all journalism schools; and have a real chance to write a bestseller and be played by list A actors in a blockbuster movie. Bernstein and Woodward’s All the President’s Men[3] is the precedent therefor. B. Contacting journalists to implement the strategy So I would like to suggest that you discuss it with your colleagues and determine what access you have to journalists that would allow you to interest them in investigating the two unique national stories stated at OL:55. Please note that there is no need to contact the top investigative journalist in the state. On the contrary, new ones that want to make a name may be precisely the modern day equivalent of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, who were rookies when they began investigating on June 17, 1972, what developed into the Watergate Scandal. Hence, review the profile of the likely journalist that you should try to contact, which is at id. > jur:xlvi§§H-I. You may find that or those journalists during a presentation at a journalism school, as proposed at OL:73. C. Contacting Republican PACs Likewise, in application of the saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, it is important to find out what access your group has to Republican entities, such as PACs, that would be interested in presenting those two unique national stories at OL:55 to the journalists that cover their activities or to whom they have access. We should not miss the opportunity of the mid-term election campaign to interest journalists and PACs to investigate those stories. Such investigation is the strategic first step to a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary, which is the model for its states counterparts, and whose investigation will set the example for the subsequent investigations of the state judiciaries. D. Introduction to similar groups intent on exposing judges’ wrongdoing After your group has discussed the proposals above, I would like to suggest that you discuss your situation with two other groups that are likewise trying to reform their respective state judiciaries and who have asked me for advice: Clean the Bench Arizona, headed by Mrs. Christine Porter <clport@>, and the Michigan Conservative Political Action Conference, Headed by Mr. Norman Hughes <micpac.hughes@>. Unless we join together to implement a realistic plan based on strategic thinking, rather on doing more of the same that has proven a failure time and again, namely, to sue judges in court or to influence the selection of judges by politicians, we will make no progress whatsoever. Hence, see my letter to Mr. Hughes at OL:58§§A-B, and my email to Mrs. Porter reproduced below. Strategy, alternative to judges-judging-judges Mon, 8sep14 Dear Mr. Scheidler, Strategy, series of eventsThe proposed strategy leading to impeachment is based on a series of events beginning with: a series of presentations revealing participation in, or condonation of, the financial crime(id. >OL:5fn10) of concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money as well as other forms of non-political wrongdoing(id. >jur:3§5) committed by the officers to be impeached; >public outrage >the public demands related news >the media is furnished with a market incentive to investigate, i.e., sell advertisement accompanying the news, >the media makes findings of more outrageous wrongdoing >greater public outrage and interest in related news >ever more journalists join the investigative bandwagon >so emerges a Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage, particularly during the mid-term election campaign, the primaries, and the 2016 presidential election campaign, when politicians are more sensitive to public sentiment >official investigations by Congress and DoJ-FBI >an outraged public forces politicians to impeach and undertake judicial reform providing for: Transparency of government operations, accountability, discipline, and liability of public officers to compensate their victims. Please consider this: What do you think contributes more to the intended objective of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform: 1. your not distributing my article because you do not know whether at the time or elsewhere I denounced the wrongdoing of other officers; or rather 2. your distributing the article because it provides a professionally devised strategy that in light of current events and the public’s reaction to them is reasonably calculated to attain the intended objective? Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to reread the article so that you may realize that you will be rendering a great service to your fellow citizens as well as to judicial integrity if you distribute it as widely as possible and contribute to the organization of the presentations of the evidence of judges’ wrongdoing and the need for judicial reform. You can reach more people if you subscribe to Yahoo- and Googlegroups and email the article to them and if you post it through the Contact Us webpage of other appropriate websites. Strategy, short outline of steps >incentive for media to investigate >outrageous findings >greater public outrage and interest in related news >Watergate-like generalized media investigation >ever more intense public outrage >official investigations >outraged public forces politicians to legislate judicial reform providing for: transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability to compensate victims. Strategy: first exposure, then reformThis strategy of first exposing the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing will provide its advocates with the justification for undertaking reform and deprive politicians and law enforcement authorities of any pretense to avoid reform, lest they be identified as beneficiaries of judicial wrongdoing, and thus, as part of the problem that needs to be solved through their removal from office and the determination of their liability for their complicity with the judges’ wrongdoing.(OL:129?7)This calls for the adoption of an extrajudicial strategy(jur:xxix) for exposing judges’ wrong-doing. It is not centered on exposing one wrongdoing judge after the other through suits doomed to be dismissed or lost. Rather, it focuses on exposing a whole judiciary that does wrong due to its insidiously corruptive coordination of wrongdoing. Rogue judges only warrant their removal from the bench; coordinated judicial wrongdoing requires the judiciary’s reform as an institution.Strategy: long article setting forth Dear Mr. Martin, I would like to thank you for reposting my article "Determining when a lie told by the President constitutes an impeachable ‘high crime or misdemeanor’. My objective is not just to inform, but also to impel readers to take concrete and feasible action that has a reasonable chance to be cost-effective. You, as a media member, can do even more: You can become the Producer of the Coalition for Justice, particularly in the context of the fast-approaching mid-term election campaign, as described at >Lsch:12§C. To that end, you can contact(id. >OL:54), other media members, and: 1. be instrumental in having them publish the available evidence of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing(id. >Lsch:1) and 2. stage and have them stage presentations by me of such evidence at: a. radio and TV talkshows, b. journalism, law, business, and Information Technology schools, and c. public interest organizations. 3. Thanks to your and your colleagues’ effort to inform the American public of how federal judges’ abuse their power and the secrecy of their Judiciary, you can 4. provoke such NATIONAL outrage as to 5. cause the public to demand that politicians open official investigations of judges’ wrongdoing. 6. Through the use of their power to issue subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt orders, bring penal charges, and hold nationwide televised public hearings, Congress and DoJ-FBI can make even more outrageous findings on the of pervasiveness judges’ riskless wrongdoing under their policy of all-meetings behind closed doors: They have coordinated wrongdoing among themselves and between themselves and insiders of the legal system so extensively to practice it so routinely and more profitably as to have turned wrongdoing into the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi. 7. The thus heightened outrage can further determine the NATIONAL public to force politicians to legislate judicial reform. 8. That is a particularly realistic scenario given the American public’s current distrust of the government and the fast-approaching mid-term election campaign, which render politicians all the more sensitive to the public’s concerns, lest they be chastised at the polls for ignoring them. 9. Thanks to your foresight and focused action, you can rally so many of your colleagues and stage so many presentations by me and eventually others as to set in motion a process that ends up launching the first-ever, Watergate-like(jur:4??10-14) generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing through the two stories described in the article below, namely: a. The President Obama-U.S. Justice Sotomayor story of concealment of assets and the Follow the money! investigation, and b. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story of communications interference and electronic funds transfers and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation. 10. As a result of your civil courage and business savvy, you can become the Producer of the Coalition of Justice as well as a pioneer of the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(id. >jur:119§1). For the proposed detailed steps of the investigations, see id. >OL:66. I encourage you to read as many of the references of those articles as you can, for “Knowledge is Power”. I look forward to hearing from you. Stream of news and articles needed (OL:139??7-8) Students for the team of professionals(jur:128§4)Students, recruited for the investigation as part of a course, seminar, apprenticeship, externship, internship(OL:113§C, 115)Subjective, discretionary decision-making v. objective, criminal wrongdoing (OL:180§§1,2)objective, criminal wrongdoing determined beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to decision-making on tax and other matters requiring the exercise of judicial discretion and where the standards of preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence allow a measure of subjective assessment of the facts and the law so that even fair-minded and impartial people can reach conflicting decisionsSuffolk judges’ corruption (OL:246fn5)Suing judges, failed ways: (OL:284; 301) Dear, On a strategy that provides a reasonable alternative to the exercise in futility of trying to expose wrongdoing judges by calling on judges to turn on their peers, colleagues, and friends, see my study of the Federal Judiciary at Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting; >jur:xxix. Hence, suing judges through lawsuits is a manifestation of Einstein’s aphorism: “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”. It is so because it disregards a fundamental law of the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. The press release provides a realistic plan for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform that begins with ‘recruiting presentations’ of the evidence thereof at graduate schools of law, journalism, business, and Information Technology; see id. >OL:112. You and likeminded people who have access to these schools can arrange for me to make such presentations there. If you do so, as proposed at id. >OL:73, you can become the Builder of a Coalition for Justice. Suing judges, test case in state courts (OL:240, 296, 298; cf. 244a)Summary orders Sunlight‘the best disinfectant: the sunlight’(jur:158?350b)Supreme Court annual filings and cases decided6. A federal district judge is not only enabled to quickly dispose of a pro se case by the case weighing system. A federal judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship” (jur36fn57). Hence, the judge is also expected not to waste her time with a pro se case that is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if so, without any notion of the elements of the cause that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he needed to introduce to prove each of them. Thus, ignoring how to state a case, the pro se is likely to launch in his opening paragraph a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better, especially since she knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say, which does not lay out arguments of law, but rather is an intonation of articles of faith and cries of pain of merely an intuitive sense of justice denied? Supreme Court cases Some leads I discovered through research[ii] and prosecution of cases from federal bankruptcy, district, and circuit courts(jur:xxxv) to the Supreme Court[109b; 114c] . They point to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[107a-c, 213], and a docket clearing scheme(43§1) run risklessly by appointed[61§a] and life-tenured, unaccountable(jur:21§§1-3) federal judges, including J. Sotomayor(65§1). Supreme Court(jur:65fn109, 114c)Symposium or academic conference on judicial wrongdoing (jur:97§1)Systematic dismissal of complaint Chief circuit22a judges abuse the Federal Judiciary’s statutory18a self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b). Judges immunize themselves from liability for their wrongdoing by denying complainants their 1st Amendment right “to petition the Govern-ment for a redress of Grievances”, leaving their victims with no effective right to complain. Taking action (OL2:431)talkshow hosts(jur:xix; OL:73, 142, 146, 150, 308)Talkshow hosts, alliance with and Coalition for Justice (OL:113, 142, 222§1)Talkshow hosts, anecdote of response by victims of wrongdoing judges (OL:144§1); 1Talkshow hosts, as rallying point for victims of wrongdoing judges (OL:146)Talkshow hosts, to gain a passionate audience in victims of wrongdoing judges (OL:144§D, 146, 222§1)team of professionals, being a victim is not a sufficient qualification To expose for wrongdoing the top of the judicial class, that is, federal judges, being a victim of their wrongdoing is not enough at all. To do so, I am trying to form a team of professionals to participate in a multidisciplinary academic and business venture, as described at >jur:128§4 and 119§1, respectively. Team of professionals, working cooperatively (OL:118§B, 119)template for pro ses to orally argue their cases(OL:240)templates for the public to describe their judicial wrongdoing experiences(jur:122§2)the People’s power to force politicians A public as outraged at politicians in connivance with judges(OL:55§1) as it is at judges’ wrongdoing can make politicians pay a high price if they show indifference at its mood and disregard its demand that judges’ be investigated and removed if found doing wrong. The public can withhold its donations, its volunteered work, its word of mouth support, and its endorsement when replying to surveys; and associate them with wrongdoers, as can happen to Texas Gov. Perry after being indicted for abuse of power and to Rep. NJ Gov. Christie due to the scandal of alleged GW Bridge lane closure to embarrass a Democratic mayor. If such public disapproval does not render unviable the campaigns of the politicians affected, thus forcing them out of the electoral race, the public can still defeat them at the polls, as it did House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Virginia primaries. The power of an informed and outraged public to force politicians to control judges is not illusory. It only needs to be exerted so that politicians put their own survival ahead of their protection of judges. An outraged public can force politicians to investigate judges officially by wielding intrusive powers, such as the powers of subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt, and the power to hold nationally televised hearings, as was recently the case with the 9/11 Commission and its precedent, the Senate Watergate Committee hearings that opened on May 17, 1973. Outgoing and challenging candidates who fail to feel or at least to mimic the outrage of the public can experience devastating consequences: the People’s Sunrise E. Development of an outraged national public into a civic movement of masters that hold their servants accountable: the People’s Sunrise The national outrage provoked by those two unique, national cases can benefit Americans by causing a deep-reaching review of the relation between We the People and government. The outraged public can develop into a civic movement that asserts the People’s status as masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[jur:82fn172] to demand accountability of all its public servants, including judges, and hold all public wrongdoers liable to compensate their victims(jur:160§8). That civic movement can become the People’s Sunrise(OL:29). It can force politicians to investigate judges and bring about substantial judicial reform(jur:158§6-7), lest the politicians be voted out of, or not into, office. The empowering of We the People [the first three words of the American constitution] to hold public officers accountable can start in the U.S. and set a trend that reaches Canada and beyond, just as so many other developments here have found positive repercussions abroad. The People would recognize that they are the masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’. As such, the People are entitled to practice ‘reverse surveillance’ on all public officers as their servants hired to perform services in the People’s behalf. Thereby they can obtain enlightening information to render their servants’ performance transparent and not only hold them, including judges (jur:160§8), accountable, but also liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing: That is the People’s Sunrise civic movement(id. >OL:29). the People’s Sunrise (OL:29, 146); reverse surveillance(Lsch:2) (OL:109?6) An outraged public can assert its status in ‘government of, by, and for the people’172: It is the master of all public officers, who are its hired public servants, including judicial public servants. The public is entitled to practice “reverse surveillance”(Lsch:2) on the servants –as opposed to the mass surveillance over the public by NSA with judges’ rubberstampingOL:5fn7 approval– to obtain the necessary enlightening information about their performance to hold them accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their ‘malperformance’ and wrongdoing(160§8). Thinking like a lawyerSee also “Three years of law school education”3. The need to think like a lawyer: attention to detail and stepping into the adversary’s headThe lawyer above argued that non-lawyer pro ses do not have the necessary knowledge of the law to prosecute a RICO suit and illustrated his argument with three distinct points. The layperson below responded with a general comment on how to sue public servants under some mismatch of federal and state law. The layperson missed the point of the lawyer. This is a most frequent occurrence among well-intended pro ses who improvise themselves as lawyers: a. They miss the points, or “elements of the cause of action”, that the law requires to be proved to make a given case.b. They miss the fact that in addition to the code of civil or criminal procedure, there are also the rules of each particular court, which can add requirements and can differ from those general rules in reliance on a code rule authorizing variance by courts and even by “the judge in his discretion”.c. They miss the implications of their own points, thus arguing inconsistently: Pro ses accuse judges of being wrongdoers and abusers of power. Yet, in self-contradictory fashion, they expect those same judges to be fair and impartial in a suit where the defendants are precisely those public officers who sit in the legislature or in the executive branch and who are the very ones who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, campaigned for, donated to, the judicial candidates that now are the judges, whose turn it is to protect the defendant officers.Being a victim of a wrongdoing judge is not a qualification for realistically challenging in court judges and their supporting public officers. A pro se’s wishful thinking and untrained research of the law provide an unstable basis for action riddled by logical gaps. Thinking like a lawyer, which begins with three years of training in law school, is necessary to force oneself to pay attention to the numberless, fastidious, and confusing details of the law. It demands thinking as the opposing counsel to anticipate her arguments and maneuvers, for lawyering occurs in an adversarial context. “A good lawyer carries his adversary on her left shoulder.” Dealing with that adversary requires strategic thinking. That is shown in the two articles below. thinking strategically (Lsch:14§3; OL:52§C; jur:xliv?C)(Lsch:14§§2-3, jur:xliv?C, Lsch:20§1; OL:52§C, OL:8§E) and persisting with unwavering determination, we too have the opportunity to follow in their footsteps and, like them, become recognized by a grateful national public as We the People’s Champions of Justice. Third of a case, pro se case weighingA. A case filed by a pro se in a federal court is weighted as a third of a case1. When you file a case in a federal district court, you have to file a Case Information Sheet. It asks, among other things, whether you are represented or pro se. You are appearing pro se. These are the consequences thereof:2. In the Federal Judiciary, pro se cases are weighted as a third of a case(* >jur:43fn65a >page 40). By comparison, “a death-penalty habeas corpus case is assigned a weight of 12.89”(jur:43?81). There is already a corpse and a living person on his or her way to becoming one. It is because of the type of case and, thus, what is at stake, that it is so weighted. * All (blue text references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable as follows. There such references are active internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring up to your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thus facilitating substantially your checking it: Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting* * or or If these links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 880 pages and is more than 87 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:Google Chrome: Mozilla-Firefox: . As a result of such weighting, a pro se case is given some 39 times less attention than a death penalty case regardless of the pro se case’s nature, what is at stake in it, and whether the complaint was written by joe the plumber or Johnnie Cochran. It is so weighted because in the Case Information Sheet you had to check off “pro se”. Your pain and suffering and all your complaints about judges’ wrongdoing do not figure in that weighing.4. Consequently, when a federal judge sees a complaint written by a pro se, she gives it the perfunctory attention that the official weighing of the case enables her to give it. The weighing works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because upon your filing of your case in the In-take Office it was considered already not worth a case, not even half a case, but merely a third of it, the judge will do a quick job of disposing of it as worthless. 1. Justice is blind, but the judge sees the incompetence of pro se pleadings5. Would you rely on Jane Schmock, who cannot even balance her checkbook, to run a regression on the sales data of last year to determine the sales trend of five products and decide which one should receive the bulk of your advertisement budget?6. A federal district judge is not only enabled to quickly dispose of a pro se case by the case weighing system. A federal judge has hundreds of weighted cases. In fact, “a judicial emergency [is not declared until there is a] vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship” (jur36fn57). Hence, the judge is also expected not to waste her time with a pro se case that is most likely poorly written by an emotional plaintiff who ran to court to complain without a clue whether the law gave him a cause of action against the defendant and, if so, without any notion of the elements of the cause that he must prove and the admissible evidence that he needed to introduce to prove each of them. Thus, ignoring how to state a case, the pro se is likely to launch in his opening paragraph a rambling rant full of legally irrelevant matters. Why would the judge expect the rest of the complaint or other paper to be any better, especially since she knows from experience that pro ses hardly ever cite cases as precedential support for what they say, which does not lay out arguments of law, but rather is an intonation of articles of faith and cries of pain of merely an intuitive sense of justice denied? 7. Therefore, all the documenting that you have undertaken of your case is of no use, because the federal judge will not pay attention to it. It is tainted by the presumption of irrelevancy and inadmissibility. It will be considered incapable of surviving a motion for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted in court, that is, a Rule12(b)(6) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; . 8. Worse yet, you have to show something of which you, as a pro se and a lay person at that, are presumed not to have the faintest idea: subject-matter jurisdiction. This means that you have to show that the federal court had the authority conferred upon it by statute as interpreted by case law to entertain your case and use its judicial power to adjudicate the controversy that opposes you to the defendant. You cannot run to federal court and ask it to intervene in a purely state law matter, such as family law is. It is simply not enough for you to allege that the state judge and a host of other state officials engaged in what you, in your law-untrained opinion and your emotional state of mind as a party and a parent, consider to be corruption. 9. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be waived: The defendant cannot confer upon the court authority to decide your case by merely failing to raise an objection to it in its answer or by motion. At any time, even in the middle of trial, the defendant can move to dismiss the case, thus terminating it, due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction. What is more, the court can do so on its own motion upon realizing that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.this generation’s Washington Post…this generation’s Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham, Editor Benjamin Bradlee, and Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame(jur:4??10-14)Three years of law school education, pro se lack ofSee also “Thinking like a lawyer”No self-taught course is going to substitute for four years in college and three years in law school and make a pro se understand the law and write a brief or a motion in Standard English that in addition makes legal sense. To imply the contrary is not correct. If a course were so effective in making a litigant win in court, the publisher would be working for a top Wall Street law firm or teaching the course to Wall Street lawyers.Timesmen were the first to receive a tip on Watergate (jur:102fn198f)Toni Stabile Professor of Professional Practice in Investigative Journalism Transfer by judges of assets between disclosed and hidden financial accounts(jur:65§§1-3; 102§§a,b; 105fn213b)transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability (OL:65?9; Lsch:10?6)fundamental changes in the administration of justice (OL:179?14)trips, expense-paid (jur:146fn272)Trojan horse investigation (OL:177?1, 237§C, 269§1, 129§2, 101§B, 80§D, )Into the circumstances enabling judges’ wrongdoing and the harm that it inflicts on the vast and untapped constituency of their victims4,5Turf of judges Judges are not going to redress our grievance against other judges brought to their attention in our lawsuits filed in the courts, their turf. There they make the rules as they go and disregard those which they are supposed to uphold. They do so becauser they have no fear that parties may even be able to go up on appeal, never mind that they be reversed by their appellate peers( >jur:43§§b,c). A proposal that contemplates lawsuits to change the Federal Judiciary from within, is doomed to failure, for it is based on a self-contradictory premise: courtrooms, the judges’ turf, are precisely the venues where judges do whatever they want, including the wrongdoing complained about. They will handle those lawsuits with only more coordinated wrongdoing. wrongdoing judges cannot be exposed by suing them in the courts, the judges’ turf, where they disregard due process and substantive laws and make rules as they go. Adjudicating judges will never allow accused judges to be found at fault because thereby they too would risk being incriminated. The official statistics of the U.S. courts bear out that statement; >jur:21§§1-3. battling your cases in court, the judges’ turf, where they control the rules and the process. The battle is lost from the outset becomes the outcome is in the hands of the judges. The courts are the turf of judges. They have complete control of them. Neither you, I, nor all the many victims of their wrongdoing can force a single judge to incriminate a wrongdoing peer, never mind incriminate himself or herself by admitting his or her wrongdoing. your effort to change the system by battling it in the courtrooms, the turf of the judges, who control their rules and the outcome of cases. The courts are the turf of judges. They have complete control of them. Neither you, I, nor all the many victims of their wrongdoing can force a single judge to incriminate a wrongdoing peer, never mind incriminate himself or herself by admitting his or her wrongdoing. It is also a safe haven for wrongdoing judges. They enjoy lifetime appointment. They are stuck with each other for the rest of their professional lives. Federal judges do wrong in a routine, widespread, and coordinated fashion. Their official statistics allow this to be demonstrated, as done in the study Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, at . Two unique national cases (OL2:524§G; 525§H, i. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation Did the President know that his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, was involved in both concealing assets –which The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico107a suspected her of doing, and which is done to commit the crimesOL:5fn10of tax evasion107c and money laundering– and abusing the Federal Judiciary’s and/or the NSA’s computer network –see story ii. below–; but did the President cover it up and lie to the American public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage in Congress of the Obamacare bill, the key piece of his legislative agenda; and if so, when did he know it?(jur:4??10-14) Journalists can pursue this story through the Follow the money! investigation(OL:1, 66) and bring it to a head by calling on the President to release all the FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. ii. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation Have federal judges abused their computer network and expertise –which handle hun-dreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11?9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstampedOL:5fn7 by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crimeOL:5fn10– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(OL:1), and to cover up judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crimeOL:5a.fn13– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them; and if so, since when?(OL:69§C). (See the statistical analysis supporting probable cause to believe that there has been communications interferenceOL:19§Dfn2.) 16. If President Obama knew about Then-Justice Sotomayor’s concealment of assets but covered it up and lied to the American public about it, then he abetted such crime as an accessory after the fact; and all her subsequent asset concealment he has abetted as an accessory before the fact. Such criminal conduct would support the impeachment of the President. (For a detailed discussion of this and other legal grounds for the impeachment of President Obama, see OL:63, 70.) 17. There can be no doubt that every professionally knowledgeable and ambitious journalist, especially if motivated by the principled, watchdog function of journalism, would want to expose the President’s wrongdoing and bring about his resignation or impeachment. By so doing, that journalist would become this generation’s Washington Post Reporter Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate Fame(jur:4??10-14). 18. Through their superior investigative journalism, Woodward and Bernstein were instrumental in setting up the stage for the Senate Watergate Committee to be called into being. It asked of witnesses at its nationally televised hearings a question that became devastating, causing President Nixon to resign on August 8, 1974, and bringing about the imprisonment of all his White House aides. It has since formed part of our political discourse: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Therefore, I encourage all Advocates of Honest Judiciaries to contribute to the implementation of the proposal to have journalists and media outlets investigate those two queries and, to that end, to contact them with this email and arrange for the proposed presentations(OL:73) of those queries at schools of journalism, Information Technology, law, and business as well as other public interest organizations(OL:90) and political meetings(OL:52; 97). I look forward to hearing from you and kindly ask that you acknowledge receipt in light of the possibility of interference with our communications. The Federal Judiciary-NSA case aims to establish any assistance that NSA may have given federal judges by committing the crimes of electronically transferring money between declared and hidden financial accounts(OL:5fn10) and in interfering with the communications(OL:5afn13) of would-be exposers of judges’ wrongdoing in exchange for judges’ rubberstamping up to 100%(OL:5fn7) of NSA’s secret requests for secret surveillance orders and condoning the bulk collection of digital information on scores of millions of Americans. This case can be pursued through the proposed Follow it wirelessly! investigation(OL:66). ********************************************************************** The Obama-Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation What did the President(77§5), his top congressional supporters(78§6), and justices and judges196 know23b about his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Soto-mayor’s concealment of assets –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico107a– and consequent tax evasion and money launderingOL:5fn10; and when(75§d) did they know it? (Whether his lie in vouching for her honesty in his interest of passing Oba-macare warrants his removal, see OL:63, 70; for an estimate of her concealed assets, 107c.) The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11?9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstampedOL:5fn7 by the fed-eral judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– to conceal assets –a crimeOL:5fn10, unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(OL:1), and to protect wrongdoing judges by interfering with the communications –also a crime(OL:20??11-12)– of those complaining against them(OL:19§D)? Therefore, the strategy proposed to you and the other parties centers on the two unique national cases described below(also at OL:85): the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story. Can you reasonably expect your personal story attract as much attention of the national public? The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and The Federal Judiciary-NSA stories are two unique national stories that professional and citizen journalists can investigate to expose wrongdoing as the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary in connivance with the President, provoke national outrage, and cause the national public to demand that public servants, including judges, be held accountable to and by their masters: We the People. They can dominate the election campaigns. two unique national stories(OL2:524); their investigation(OL:194§E)the Obama-Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation; and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! Investigation(OL:191§§A, B);Two unique national stories i. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigationA. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation(OL:176§§A-B)What did the President(OL:77), senators(jur:78§6), and federal judges[213b] know about the concealment of assets by his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[107a] of concealing assets, which entails the crimes[OL:5fn 10] of tax evasion[107c] and money laundering– but covered up and lied(OL:64) about to the American public by vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and when did they know it?(jur:4??10-14)This story can be pursued through the Follow the money! investigation(jur:102§a; OL:1, 66), which includes a call on the President to release unredacted all FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor and on her to request that she ask him to release them. That can set a precedent for the vetting of all judges and other candidates for public office.B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigationTo what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(Lsch:11?9b.ii)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped[OL:5fn7] by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– to: 1)conceal assets –a crime[OL:5fn [10], unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden accounts(OL:1), and 2)cover up the judges’ wrongdoing(OL:154?3) by interfering with the communications –also a crime(OL: 20??11-12)– of their critics and prevent them from joining forces to expose them? See the statistics giving probable cause to believe that such interference has occurred[OL:19§Dfn2]. This story can be pursued through the Follow it wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b; OL:2, 69§C).Two-pronged approach to exposing judges’ wrongdoing (OL:248)two-pronged approach to exposing judges’ wrongdoing(OL:248)tyrannosaurus rex(OL2:569??13-14)U.S. Constitution (jur:22fn12b) Unaccountable, why judges are (OL:265)judges do not have a status superior to that of other public servants(OL:262§D)Veterans, presentations to (OL:90§§A,B, 93§G, 94§A, 96§C)Victims of wrongdoing judgesBy joining forces to expose this judges-politicians connivance, talkshow hosts can significantly increase their audience by becoming the rallying point where to vent grievances(jur:2fn1) for the victims of judges’ wrongdoing among the 100 million parties to the 50 million new cases filed in the state and federal courts annually(jur:8fn4,5). That does not begin to count the victims among the parties to pending cases and cases decided wrongfully by judges doing wrong in their own and their peers’ and cronies’ interest.as allies of exposers of judges (OL:126§B)as supporters of a politician (OL:112§B)contents of presentation at talkshows (OL:147§B)thinking strategically and realistically (OL:138)to emphasize journalists’ interest (OL:140§2) volunteer workSo that our collaboration begins on a basis of transparency that builds mutual trust, I would like to make clear that your work is on a volunteer basis. There is no offer of compensation. There is not expectation of compensation in future. Your work, just as that of other people that I have invited to my team(* >jur:128§4), is on a volunteer basis. Any work that you do in connection with our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform is to be tendered on a volunteer basis and is received as work of a volunteer.* Voters, treated as a jury (OL:122§C)Watergate On June 17, 1972, five men were caught who had broken into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. Initially, they were referred to derisively as the “five plumbers”, just as the story of their apprehension was belittled as “a garden variety burglary”. Yet, Washington Post Reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward kept investigating it. Their findings pointed to a political espionage operation financed from a slush fund of the Republican National Committee for the Reelection of President Nixon. The outrage set off a generalized media investigation of what by then had become the Watergate Scandal. It only kept growing after the revelation of the President’s participation in the operation’s planning and cover-up. But it was not until August 9, 1974, that President Nixon, decried by even his former allies and facing impending impeachment, resigned(jur:4??10-14). For any professionally ambitious journalist and outlet that is aware of the key role that the media play in a democracy as watchdog on behalf of the people, that interest is, in addition to winning a Pulitzer Prize, to be this generation’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post Reporters who were instrumental in exposing the Watergate Scandal that caused the resignation of President Nixon in 1974 and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(4??10-14). the Watergate Scandal, which broke on June 17, 1972, forced President Nixon to resign on August 8, 1974, and sent to jail all its White House aides; The investigation can be guided by the same query that galvanized public attention during the nationally televised hearings on Watergate: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Notice that such hearings culminated with the resignation of President Nixon and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. Yet, their starting point was an incident derided by even the majority of journalists as “a garden variety burglary by five plumbers”; id. >jur:4??10-14. On June 17, 1972, five burglars, derogatorily dubbed by the medial “the five plumbers”, were caught after breaking into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. The investigation of what at the beginning was thought to be a “garden variety burglary” developed for the next two years into a generalized media investigation of coordinated wrongdoing at the top of the Federal Executive and the Republican party. Its incriminating findings forced President Nixon, decried by even his former allies and facing impending impeachment for political espionage and its cover-up, to resign on August 9, 1974(jur:4??10-14). Remember how no politician could avoid Watergate-related questions in the two years of investigation that led up to President Nixon’s resignation and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. The exposition of judicial wrongdoing requires indispensably the investigative and disseminating work of journalists and media outlets. The exposition of wrongdoing by federal judges requires the prospect for such journalists and outlets of a very high upside, such as a Pulitzer Prize or a blockbuster featuring them. Think All the President’s Men, featuring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the Washington Post reporters who pursued the Watergate scandal, which eventually led to President Nixon’s resignation and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. Indeed, they can bring about resignations(jur:92§d) and impeachments and thereby become this generation’s equivalent of Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate Fame. They were key figures in forcing the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides(jur:4??10-14). Just as Woodward and Bernstein did, journalists who expose wrongdoing coordinated among the top officers of the three branches can earn any and all of many material and moral rewards(OL:3§F), including national recognition for setting in motion the… On June 17, 1972, five men were caught who had broken into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. Initially, they were referred to derisively as the “five plumbers”, just as the story of their apprehension was belittled as “a garden variety burglary”. Yet, Washington Post Reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward kept investigating it. Their findings pointed to a political espionage operation financed from a slush fund of the Republican National Committee for the Reelection of President Nixon. The outrage set off a generalized media investigation of what by then had become the Watergate Scandal. It only kept growing after the revelation of the President’s participation in the operation’s planning and cover-up. But it was not until August 9, 1974, that President Nixon, decried by even his former allies and facing impending impeachment, resigned(jur:4??10-14). You can become this generation’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame(jur:4??10-14). They were the initiators of the stream of Watergate news that began on June 17, 1972, and that led, with the contribution of many others, to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. The latter only concerned wrongdoing by President Nixon and his aides in connection with his reelection. These stories involve the three branches of government in coordinated wrongdoing; the inveterate reluctance of journalists to hold judges accountable as they do politicians; and a national public outraged at the blatant violation of the privacy of its communications committed by a Republican and a Democratic government ever more inefficient and that inspires ever more distrust(OL:11). It was progressively that the news developed of the accidental apprehension of five burglars at the National Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. At first, it was dubbed “a garden variety burglary by five plumbers”. But for the next two years, it went from breaking news to ever more outrageous news until it became the Watergate Scandal. It led to the unthinkable: the resignation of President Nixon on August 9, 1974, and the incarceration of all his White House aides for political espionage, abuse of power, and resort to the most corruptive force of public life: money! A Watergate-like generalized media investigation can provoke NATIONAL outrage. It can stir up the public to force that Congress and DoJ-FBI as well as their state counterparts open official investigations of those two stories. The establishment of the 9/11 Commission is precedent therefor. Through the use of their power to issue subpoenas, search & seizure orders, and contempt citations, bring penal charges, and hold nationally televised public hearings, those authorities can make even more outrageous findings of the abuse of public power for private benefit. The media investigation of the Watergate Scandal(jur:4??10-14), which began on June 17, 1972, led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides. Similarly, it was the media that caused Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to resign on May 14, 1969, due to his financial “improprieties”(jur:92§d). Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary (OL:200§I; 149§E)webinars(*>OL:329 et. seq.), e.g., on legal research and writing, and appeal brief writing and arguing(*>jur:153§c; ?>OL2:459??35-38)Weighing of casescatering to the growing number(jur:28fn35) of pro ses, who in hard economic times cannot afford lawyers and need easy to understand self-help literature on how to prosecute their cases effectively so that they are not doomed to perfunctory treatment by judges who weigh a pro se case regardless of its merits as one third of a case(jur:43?81);Judges hardly read pleadings, much less those filed by pro se litigants. What you can do Dear Mr. , Thank you for your willingness to join the effort to expose wrongdoing judges and bring about judicial reform. No one person can accomplish this enormous task alone. It requires the joint effort of We the People led by committed advocates of honest judiciaries. Hence, I respectfully suggest that you distribute the article below to all your email addresses and post it as widely as possible in order to help implement the strategy of informing We the People about wrongdoing judges and outraging them so as to stir them up to force politicians to officially investigate wrongdoing judges. Since Knowledge is Power, I encourage you to read my study of the Federal Judiciary titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. I suggest that you read the first three introductory pages after the title page containing a preface, an abstract, and a summary of the parts of the study. Click on as many (parenthetical) and superscript blue text references as possible, whereby you will effortlessly call up to the screen sections§ and paragraphs? as well as foot- and endnotes, respectively, providing supportive and additional information found in most cases in official statistics, reports, judicial decisions, and statements of the federal courts or their judges. Given that these courts and judges are the models of their state counterparts, our effort shoulf begin by exposing the Federal Judiciary and its judges. Thereafter see id. >OL:127. women changing millennial injustice (OL:145§2)Woodward/Bernstein role You can play the role of this generation’s equivalent of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporters. They doggedly and initially alone pursued the break-in at the National Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C, on June 17, 1972. Their investigation findings caused their media colleagues to realize that there was a lifetime scoop to be made by finding out who really was behind that break-in. Thereby they were instrumental in launching a generalized media investigation. More than two years later, their collective findings brought about the resignation of President Nixon on August 9, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides for conspiracy in political espionage, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Workers of Justice v. enforcers of wrongdoing(jur:100?b.6)Working hardest when working for oneselfOn the strength of pattern evidence, the group may be able to attract the attention of journalists. They are indispensable to put enough public pressure on a judge to cause her to be disqualified or forced to resign(jur:92§d). Journalists must not be expected or asked to report on the group’s evidence out of their interest in helping the group. Since people work hardest when they work for themselves, journalists should be invited to consider how they can make a name for themselves and win a Pulitzer Prize by exposing bias in the court that can become a scandal(OL:256§A).Working in isolation (OL:234?7)Writing grammatically correctD. Grammatical and spelling mistakes dissuade from reading If pro ses want their briefs or motions to be read, they must make a determined effort not only to comply with all the formal requirements concerning the numbered parts thereof, but also write them with proper grammar and without typos. If a brief is written by a pro se who does not have professional command of the English language, which a lawyer is expected to have, so that the pro se makes many grammatical and spelling mistakes, as does a person with little education or a foreigner for whom English is a second language, the judges will look down on the brief and be ever more disinclined to read it. The rationale for this is that if the pro se has not managed to learn English throughout his or her life, what reasonable expectation is there that he or she learned the law to be argued in a trial brief or motion, let alone in one written on appeal, where only an error of law made by the court below is to be argued? Crafting a competent argument, and all the more so a legal one, requires a much greater accurate understanding of the nuances of linguistic expression as well as command of their use than merely composing a statement of facts. It should be obvious to any person with a sense of professional standards that a brief must not be written on the equivalent of the back of a napkin or bear the coffee stains that betray the work and the mind of a slob. This goes to the physical appearance of a brief. Bad grammar and typos go to the contents of a brief. They cause the first impression that a pro se gives a judge of the merits of the case. They can be detected in the first sentence. If so, from then on, the writer’s credibility and the judge’s attention go on a steeply descending slope without hardly any uptick. They make applicable to the contents of the brief the saying: You never get a second chance to make a good first impression. Wrongdoing, sample of nature, extent, and gravity(jur:5§3; Lsch:21§A)Wrongdoing by judges, principles underlying its exposure (OL:219§A)wrongdoing schemes (OL:119§2a4, 173?96)judges’ wrongdoing so coordinated, pervasive, and profitable that it has become institutional schemesthe most harmful and extensive form of wrongdoing: schemes(OL:91§E), such as their concealment of assets scheme(jur:65fn107a-c, 105fn213, 68§3) and their bankruptcy fraud scheme(66§2). Through coordination, wrongdoing has become the judges’ institutionalized modus operandi(49§4) and the Federal Judiciary the safe haven of wrongdoers(OL:2§C)Unaccountability, coordination, and secrecy have enabled federal judges to engage in the most harmful form of riskless wrongdoing: schemes. That is how they have been able to set up and run their bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), a concealment of assets scheme107a,c; 213, and a docket clearing scheme(43§1). Coordination in secrecy has made wrongdoing so accepted among judges and has so intimately integrated it with their daily activities that wrongdoing has become the institutionalized modus operandi(49§4) of the Federal Judiciary while the Judiciary has become the profitable safe haven for wrongdoers beyond process through self-immunizationWrongdoing v. political decision (OL2:468?12b)Showing that they have engaged in, or condoned in self-interest, financial wrongdoing out of crass greed consisting in concealment of assets, suspected of Then-Judge Sotomayor by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico, >jur:65fn107a,c. This is quite different from trying to impeach a public officer for wrong or even wrongful or illegal political decisions. A political decision will always find supporters in Congress. But it is difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would like to be portrayed by a challenging candidate for his or her seat as having excused the concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money committed by a president or any other public officer. Moreover, the proposal here is not for individuals to try to impeach the president by suing him in court, since it is indisputable that only Congress can impeach him and the other public officers mentioned above. Wrongdoing(OL:154?3; jur:5§3)by judges (OL:154?3)1. jur:133§4 on the nature of wrongdoing 2. jur:88§a-c on the passive and active elements of coordinated wrongdoing 3. jur:5§3 and Lsch:21§A on concrete forms of wrongdoing 4. jur:21§§1-3 on the motive, means, and opportunity for judges’ wrongdoing 5.on judges’ material(213, jur:27§2), professional(69, jur:56§§e-f), and social benefits(jur:62§g, a&p:1?2nd) from wrongdoing 6.OL:100§A on the outrageousness of wrongdoing involving judges in criminal activity v. the ineffectiveness of alleged wrongdoing dismissable as the exercise of discretionary judicial power 7.jur:90?200 on accessorial liability incurred by keeping silent about wrongdoing 8.jur:52fn89 on perverse elements in a law that sets in motion the dynamics of wrongdoing 9.Lsch:13 on understanding wrongdoing through dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests in the legal system 10.jur:49§4 on the development from individual to collective fraud to wrongdoing so pervasive as to form a judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi 11.OL:147?6 and . jur:23fn17a on wrongdoing judges in connivance with politicians 12.jur:158§§6-8 on reforming the Federal Judiciary to prevent, detect, and punish wrongdoing judges. judges’ wrongdoing v. wrongdoing judges(OL:153?32): the term “wrongdoing” is understood by everybody and is more comprehensive of conduct that is ethically, professionally, or legally reprehensible. Its application does not demand that highly technical statutory and case law requirements be met(jur:86§4, 133§4; Lsch: 21§A). The investigation of “judges’ wrongdoing” is more appropriate than of “wrongdoing judges” be-cause the former expression points to the need to start investigating the manifestations of wrong-doing(jur:5§3 and Lsch:21§A), which should identify the participating judges and their enablers. definitional paragraph Currently, s, 1. federal judges, the model for their state counterparts, hold all their adminis-trative, adjudicative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors*>29 and never appear at press conferences71. 2. Chief circuit22a judges abuse the Federal Judiciary’s statutory 18a self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b), thus immu-nizing themselves. 3. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason sum-mary orders66a or opinions so “perfunctory”68 that they are neither published nor precedential70, raw fiats of star-chamber power. 4. Circuit judges appoint bankruptcy judges61, whose rulings come on appeal before their appointers, who protect them. In CY10, these appointees decided who kept or received the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies31. About 95% of those bankruptcies are filed by individuals; bankrupt, the great majority of them appear pro se33 and, ignorant of the law, fall prey to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(66§2). 5. Judges169 run60 the scheme risklessly, for in the 225 years since the creation of their Judiciary in 1789, only 813 have been impeached and removed14. 6. Congress and the president hold them unaccountable(50§95) because a single judge can hold unconstitutional what they have enacted and doom their legis-lative agenda17a. 7. ‘Court-owning judges are ruled’ by the most insidious corruptor: money!30,32 as institutionalized modus operandi Federal judges do wrong in such routine, widespread, and coordinated fashion that wrongdoing has become the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi. Its official statistics allow this to be demonstrated, as done in the study Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, at . benefits The President and others enabled her wrongdoing by looking the other way(jur:-88§§a-c) or participating in it or in other forms of wrongdoing for expediency(43§1), or material (213, 27§2), professional(169, 56§§e-f), and social benefits(62§g, a&p:1?2nd). Their wrongdoing is so pervasive that it has become the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary. in areas of law (OL:148§a)manifestations: abusing pro sesE. The abuse of pro ses’ rights is another manifestation of judges’ wrongdoing Judges trample on pro ses’ rights for the worst reason: because they can do it and get away with it. They are unaccountable. Consequently, they can engage in wrongdoing risklessly. How to expose judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform is the subject of my study and of the article below. I respectfully encourage you to read them, discuss them with your colleagues, and consider joining in the execution of the proposed plan of expository and reformative action. Hence, I also invite you to distribute and post the following article as widely as possible. What did the President know… What did the President(77§5), top Democratic senators(78§6), Chief Justice Roberts, and other justices and judges196 know23b about Justice Sotomayor’s concealment of assets(65§1) –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico107a– and consequent tax evasion107c and when(75§d) did they know it? What did the President(jur:77§5) know about both the concealment of assets of Then-Judge Sotomayor(65§§1-3) –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[107a,c]– and the abuse by the Federal Judiciary and NSA of their vast computer network and expertise(Lsch:11?9b.ii) to transfer money between disclosed and secret financial accounts(OL:1), and interfere with complainants’ communications; and when did he know it? What did the President know about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c)– and when did he know it? What did the President(jur:77§5), Congress(78§6), and the financial and tax authorities know about the concealment of assets of Then Judge Sotomayor(65§§1-3) and her colleagues(71§4) –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c)– and when did they know it? “What did the President know about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and the abuse of the Federal Judiciary’s vast computer network to transfer money to offshore and strawmen accounts or interfere with their complainants’ communications, and when did he know it?” What did the President(jur:77§5) know about both the concealment of assets of Then-Judge Sotomayor(65§§1-3) –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[107a,c]– and the abuse by the Federal Judiciary and NSA of their vast computer network and expertise(Lsch:11?9b.ii) to transfer money between disclosed and secret accounts and interfere with complainants’ communications; and when did he know it? judgesA. Wrongdoing judges by definition cannot be expected to do the right thing when confronted with their duties under law 1. In discussing the point that you made therein, the applicable underlying consideration is that whatever the wrongdoing lawyers and judges should do under law is useless as an argument for us to raise in an effort to force them to conduct themselves lawfully. The contradiction in terms is obvious: 2. If we complain against them due to their wrongdoing, then we cannot also expect that by confronting them with the law and the duties that it imposes on them, never mind a mere legal argument derived from it, they will relent, renounce the benefits that they obtain from doing wrong, and from then on perform their duties lawfully. 3. Accordingly, you are correct in the argument implicit in your question that if judges apply among themselves the rule of conduct, “Today I protect you, tomorrow you protect me”, then “doesn’t this…require disqualification of the "judicial branch from hearing complaints about the judicial branch" and therefore must be tried by the "legislature" or some alternate mode?” 4. It does. But since judges engage risklessly in wrongdoing because they protect each other, they will not disqualify themselves. 5. Likewise, the politicians that recommended, nominated, confirmed, endorsed them for, and appointed them to, judgeships, and donated money, effort, and support to their judicial election campaigns, will not turn against them to disqualify “their men and women on the bench”. 6. Hence, you also correctly conclude that their conflict of interests requires an alternative strategy to suing judges in court or appealing to legislatures to take away from judges their authorization to self-police and -discipline. judges, cannot be expected to do the right thing Wrongdoing judges cannot be expected to do the right thing requested in briefs A. Wrongdoing judges by definition cannot be expected to do the right thing when confronted with their duties under law 1. In discussing the point that you made therein, the applicable underlying consideration is that whatever the wrongdoing lawyers and judges should do under law is useless as an argument for us to raise in an effort to force them to conduct themselves lawfully. The contradiction in terms is obvious: 2. If we complain against them due to their wrongdoing, then we cannot also expect that by confronting them with the law and the duties that it imposes on them, never mind a mere legal argument derived from it, they will relent, renounce the benefits that they obtain from doing wrong, and from then on perform their duties lawfully. 3. Accordingly, you are correct in the argument implicit in your question that if judges apply among themselves the rule of conduct, “Today I protect you, tomorrow you protect me”, then “doesn’t this…require disqualification of the "judicial branch from hearing complaints about the judicial branch" and therefore must be tried by the "legislature" or some alternate mode?” 4. It does. But since judges engage risklessly in wrongdoing because they protect each other, they will not disqualify themselves. 5. Likewise, the politicians that recommended, nominated, confirmed, endorsed them for, and appointed them to, judgeships, and donated money, effort, and support to their judicial election campaigns, will not turn against them to disqualify “their men and women on the bench”. 6. Hence, you also correctly conclude that their conflict of interests requires an alternative strategy to suing judges in court or appealing to legislatures to take away from judges their authorization to self-police and -discipline. B. Replacing judges-judging-judges with the alternative out-of-court strategy of informing and outraging We the People 7. That is precisely why my alternative strategy is to: a. cause journalists to investigate the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA stories; b. outrage the national public during the long electoral season comprising the mid-term, primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns, c. stir up an outraged public to force politicians -lest it withhold from them its donations, volunteered work, word of mouth support, and endorsement on voting intention surveys, thus causing their campaigns to be unviable so that they must drop out of the race or face defeat at the polls- to d. investigate officially wrongdoing judges by using their more intrusive investigative powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and contempt orders, and indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea bargain, hold public hearings, etc., whereby the politicians will be able to e. make findings that will further outrage the public; f. cause the public to compel politicians to undertake meaningful judicial reform just as the Tea Party has compelled politicians to conduct themselves in ways that were unthinkable only 10 years ago; and g. promote the development of an outraged public into a Tea Party-like civic movement that forces the adoption of a new We the People-government relation encompassing citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(id. >jur:160§8): the People’s Sunrise civic movement(id. >OL:29). 2,131 federal justices, judges, and magistrates were in office on 30sep1113–Wrongdoing, different from abuse of discretion(OL2:437, 439)wrongdoing, establishing it by examining motive, means, and opportunity; modus operandi and its telltale mark: a pattern of wrongdoing (OL2:468?12b)Wrongdoing, routine(jur:21§1), grave(jur:27§2), and widespread(jur:28§3) wrongdoing(OL:154?3) by federal judges ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download