Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life


Support our advertisers


The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy


The Earth Pan

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix


The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim


[an error occurred while processing this directive]



Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing

the news and publishing field
judicial unaccountability reporting*

A study of coordinated wrongdoing among U.S federal judges and their
institutionalization of it in the Federal Judiciary, the models for their state counterparts


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris,,,

Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City

* Download the study, including the articles below, through these links:
or [the link to download it from your website]

If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:


Re: How you can expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform by joining the investigation of two unique national stories

How citizen and professional journalists and other professionals
can expose judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform
by joining the investigation of two unique national stories >ol: 224


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City,,,,

A. Judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform and what you stand to gain

1. If your bosses knew that they were entrenched for life in their power positions, could unaccountably use them for their benefit, and nobody would dare criticize them, would such lack of penalizing consequences[28] lead them to wrong you by abusing  your rights, property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine your life? You and the rest of the national public are in that relation with respect to federal judges.

2. This is a proposal for you to join in implementing an out-of-court strategy(ol:193§D) for exposing the judges’ wrongdoing(infra §A) and advocating judicial reform by further(194§E) investigating two unique national stories(191§§A,B): the P. Obama-Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor story –his first justiceship nominee– and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story. What you stand to gain is:

a. the attention of a growing audience that is part of an outraged(jur:83§§2,3) national public;

b. credit for raising issues that dominate the presidential election campaigns(ol:196§F); and

c. national recognition for setting a process in motion that leads to judicial reform(infra §B).

3. These stories are based on my study of the Federal Judiciary titled:

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

* NOTE: That study is found in the file downloadable through the links below.

The text of this article is also found in that file on page number (ol:224).

Likewise, the additional and supporting information in any section §, paragraph ¶, or footnote superscript corresponding to any of the (parenthetical) or [bracketed] blue text cross-references herein is found in that file.

In that file, all (parenthetical) and superscript blue text cross-references are active internal hyperlinks, which considerably facilitate calling up to the screen the corresponding additional or supporting information. That recommends downloading that file and reading this article there(ol:224). >ol: 224
or!161&authkey=!AETbgsKYmLmEYB8&ithint=file%2cpdf >ol: 224
or >ol: 224
or >ol: 224
or >ol: 224
or >ol: 224

B. Salient manifestations of federal judges’ unaccountability and riskless wrongdoing

4. You may agree on the need to expose federal judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3)[69] upon learning the following, among other things(ol:190¶¶1-7):

a. In the 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of its judges[13] have been impeached and removed[14]. Such historic assurance of UNACCOUNTABILITY(ol:186§A) and wrongdoing RISKLESSNESS breeds wrongdoing.

b. Federal judges hold all their administrative, adjudicative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors[29] and no press conferences. In such pervasive SECRECY corruption festers.

c. Moreover, up to 9 of every 10 appeals to the circuit courts are disposed of ad-hoc through reasonless summary orders[66a] or opinions so “perfunctory”[68] that judges mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”[70]: judicial fiats, contemptuous of a common law legal system based on precedent to curb unpredictability and arbitrariness; and anathema to the principle that judicial decision-making must not depend on each judge’s idiosyncratic view of the law or biases.

d. Chief circuit[22a] judges abuse their statutory self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; circuit and district judges(jur:24¶33) deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(jur:24§b). Hence the pursuit of the exposure through an out-of-court strategy(ol:158).

e. The overwhelming majority of litigants cannot afford to appeal. The unreviewability(jur:28§§3-4) of their cases allows judges risklessly to disregard the applicable law, the facts of the case, and due process; and to do wrong in self-interest(cf. Lsch:17§C).

f. Justices are unelected yet life-tenured, as are district and circuit judges. The latter appoint among those of their ilk bankruptcy judges for renewable 14-year terms[61a] with no consent of anybody. The appointers cover up for their appointees, who in CY10 decided who kept or received assets out of the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies[31]. The most insidious corruptor is money![32]

g. About 95% of bankruptcies are filed by people, not companies. Unable to afford lawyers, the great majority appear pro se[33] and ignorant of the law, fall prey to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§2) run by judges[60] in COORDINATION with other bankruptcy and legal systems insiders[169], who under- or overvalue debts and property, hold unadvertised auctions to buy low, flip property for huge gains, etc.

h. A single federal judge can hold unconstitutional what 535 members of Congress and the President have debated, voted, and enacted. Such power entails the threat to doom the legislative agenda of any party and politician, including the President[17a], that dare exercise constitutional checks and balances on judges, let alone investigate them. So, politicians hold them unaccountable, the harm that their wrongdoing inflicts on the people notwithstanding.

C. Implementing a tenet of democracy and the principles of judicial reform

5. Judges who engage in such wrongdoing deny the public the honest service that they were hired to render: to administer Equal Justice Under Law. This calls for reform(jur:158§§6-8). It must apply the tenet that in “government of, by, and for the people”(ol:192§C) We the People are the masters of public servants, including judicial ones, and can impose new terms of employment based on four principles to ensure that they do not embezzle public power for their own benefit:

a. TRANSPARENCY so that ‘justice is not only done but also seen to be done’71: In order for the People, the masters, to be sufficiently informed about the performance of those in their service as judges and their clerks to hold them accountable, the People must be empowered to practice ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:29) on them: require them to meet in public, hold press conferences; publish their tax returns107d; audit (ol:60) their decisions; prescribe parts -cf. FRAP-R28- for them, e.g., statement of reasons; etc.

b. ACCOUNTABILITY of servants to their masters: Citizen boards of judicial accountability(jur:160§8) must be established to receive publicly filed complaints against judges and their clerks; compare them to detect wrongdoing connections, patterns, and trends; investigate using subpoena, search & seizure, and contempt powers; hold public hearings where judges too are interrogated; etc.

c. DISCIPLINE that enforces the injunction on judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[123a]. The boards may transfer wrongdoing judges to lower or other courts; restrict the types of cases they can hear; require judges to state their reasons by a date certain or bear the cost of others writing them based on the record or redoing process; suspend them without pay upon finding them to have engaged in ‘bad Behaviour’[12]; recommend their impeachment and removal; refer them for prosecution; force their improper benefits to be disgorged; etc.

d. LIABILITY that ensures that Everybody Must Bear the Consequences of their Acts: The boards may order wrongdoing judges and judiciaries to jointly and severally pay compensatory and punitive damages to the victims of their wrongdoing; the cost of investigation incurred due to their wrongdoing; process held invalid; its redoing by others; their remedial training; etc.

D. What the investigation of the two unique national stories can accomplish

6. The investigation of the two stories can launch a Watergate-like(ol:200§I) generalized and first-ever media investigation of institutionalized wrongdoing by federal judges in connivance with politicians, guided by the query, ‘What did they know and when did they know it?’(195¶30a1)

7. Outraged voters can make it the predominant 2016 campaign issue(196§F), oust even top politicians(196¶35), and force candidates and incumbents to officially investigate the stories and undertake judicial reform.

8. As a result, a new We the People-government relation can emerge: the People’s Sunrise(201§J).

E. An offer to make a presentation

9. I offer to make a presentation(197§G) on exposing judges’ wrongdoing and advocating judicial reform through the two unique national stories, to you, your colleagues, and guests, either in person or by Skype, Zoom, or another video conference platform.

10. So, I encourage you to share this article widely.

11. For your assertion that We the People are the sovereign source of public power and entitled to ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’[ol:6], a grateful nation may recognize you as a Champion of Justice(201§K).

I look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

NOTE: NOTE: Given the suspicious interference with Dr. Cordero’s email addresses described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him place the above bloc of his email addresses in the To: line of your email to enhance the chances of its reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:
Dr. Cordero: U.S. Judiciary goes Rogue - 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed; U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hides assets with impunity

Re: Exposing Institutionalized Wrongdoing in the Judiciary: a strategy for advocates of honest judiciaries and journalists

Institutionalized Wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary of the U.S.
How advocates of honest judiciaries and journalists can work together
to implement a strategy that resorts to two unique national stories
to expose it, outrage the national public, and cause the public
to force campaigning politicians to adopt judicial reform,
thus setting an example that can be followed in other countries >ol:190

This email may be redistributed and posted.

A presentation of this paper is offered to groups of people
on Skype, Zoom (,
or a similar video conferencing platform.


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City,,,,

Table of Contents

Introduction to evidence of wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and proposal to expose it through a journalistic investigation

A. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! Investigation

C. A proposal intended to give practical meaning to a tenet of our democracy

D. Strategy for exposing a wrongdoing judiciary, not individual rogue judges

E. Concrete, verifiable, and reasonable grounds for investigating the two stories

1. The search for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets

2. The DeLano case and the bankruptcy fraud scheme run by judges

3. The systematic covering up of peers’ wrongdoing

4. Connivance of politicians with ‘their judges on the bench’

5. The Federal Judiciary’ interference with its critics’ communications

6. Failure to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”

F. Optimal economic, social & political context for the two unique national stories

1. Best context for journalists and strategic thinking advocates

G. Presentations to inform of and outrage at judicial wrongdoing and reform

H. Persuading the media to investigate the two unique national stories

1. Journalists can make scoops that establish their names nationally

2. Media outlets can advance their commercial interests through the stories

I. From a journalist leader to a Watergate-like generalized media investigation

J. From a media to official investigations and on to reform by the People’s Sunrise

K. Pioneers of judicial unaccountability reporting become Champions of Justice


Introduction to evidence of wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary and proposal to expose it through a journalistic investigation

1. Would you be afraid of your bosses if for the rest of their working lives they were secure in their jobs and could risklessly dispose of your career, your belongings, and all your rights and duties however they fancied because they were the ones with whom you had to file any complaint against them, which they dismissed systematically without any investigation?(jur:24§§b-d) Would they be likely to abuse such power for their benefit(ol:173¶93)?

2. That is the situation of the life-tenured judges of the Federal Judiciary. Because they say what the Constitution and the laws thereunder mean, they wield power over our property, our liberty, and all the rights and duties that determine our lives. Whereas on September 30, 2013, there were 2,217 federal judges, including justices and magistrates, in office[13], in the last 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!(jur:21§a)

3. 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.

4. On the contrary, 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 political[17a] 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).

5. Politicians also let judges self-immunize against discipline: Circuit and district judges dismiss without any investigation 99.82% of complaints filed against them and deny up to 100% of petitions to review such dismissals(jur:10,11). Circuit judges dispose of up to 91% of appeals in reasonless summary orders(jur:43§1) or decisions so “perfunctory”68 and ashamed of public scrutiny that they mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43¶82), and issue practically all of them unsigned, fiats full of contempt for a system of law based on precedent.

6. Secrecy breeds wrongdoing. It does so by providing wrongdoers a hideout where to engage confidentially in its coordination, which in turn allows wrongdoing to be extended to more complex forms and executed more effectively and profitably. Pervasive secrecy renders wrongdoing inevitable, for it assures wrongdoers that it is undetectable and, thus, riskless. When wrongdoing has no adverse consequences, it becomes morally neutral, in practice routine, and in time acceptable. With only benefits as its consequence, wrongdoing becomes irresistible, hence inevitable.

7. These are THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENABLING WRONGDOING(ol:154¶3) in the Federal Judiciary. They have enabled individual and collective wrongdoing by federal judges in connivance with politicians to become so widespread, routine, and intrinsic to their performance as to constitute the Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:49§4).

a. UNACCOUNTABILITY(jur:21§§a-d),

b.  SECRECY(27§e),

c. COORDINATION(88§§a-c)[ 169], and

d.  consequent RISKLESSNESS(100§§3-4).

8. This is a proposal for advocates of honest judiciaries and journalists to expose such wrongdoing. To do so in a cost-effective, focused, and timely fashion, there is proposed the further investigation of two unique national stories: the President Obama-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor story and the Federal Judiciary-NSA story(jur:xlvi§H on the profile of the journalist likely to take on this investigation).

9. The proposal is supported by the official sources[jur:iii/fn.ii] that this author consulted and analyzed to write his study(jur:1) of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts and likely to experience first what will befall to them subsequently:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >Prefatory:i)
* Note: The blue text references here are keyed to the study. They bear the format (study part prefix:page#section§# or paragraph¶#), or [footnote superscript#]. The study can be downloaded through any of the following links. In it, the blue text references are active internal hyperlinks that when clicked call up to the screen the corresponding supporting or additional information. Such easy access to that information substantially facilitates consulting it. That recommends downloading the study to continue reading this article there at page ol:190: >ol:190
or >ol:190
or!156&authkey=!AMV7fOyVzLPJU6g&ithint=file%2cpdf >ol:190
or >ol:190
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using Google Chrome, or Mozilla-Firefox,

A. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation

What did the President(ol:77§A), 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§C) 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! 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 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).

C. A proposal intended to give practical meaning to a tenet of our democracy

10. A tenet of our democracy is that in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[172], We the People are the source of all political power and as such, masters of all public officers, who are our public servants, including judicial public servants. As masters, the People have the right to require that those who have been entrusted with public power exert it for the intended purpose of delivering honest services for the benefit of the People and in accordance with their rules as expressed in the laws adopted by their elected representatives.

11. Judges are the officers charged with providing judicial services: They are supposed to resolve controversies between people and between them and the government by applying the law. But they do so only if they want.

12. Indeed, federal judges are life-tenured and beyond voters’ power to recall. Moreover, a law, whether a federal or state one, is nothing but a provisory recommendation for conduct until federal judges say that it is constitutional and apply it as intended by Congress and the Executive or their state counterparts.

13. The apprehension of a criminal suspect just as the trial of a person on civil charges by prosecutors is a waste of time, effort, and taxpayers’ money if a judge holds that there is no probable cause for detention or steers the trial more(ol:169§D) or less(Lsch:17§C) subtly towards a finding for the defendant, the jury notwithstanding. Their decisions are beyond a presidential veto and effectively beyond a congressional override.

14. As a matter of fact, judges are unimpeachable, irremovable(supra ¶2), thus beyond investigation by the authorities, and the officers of the other two branches acting in their own interest(jur:22¶31)[17a] have exempted them from constitutional checks and balances. Therefore, with impunity, the judges disregard the status of those branches as the people’s elected representatives and show contempt(infra ¶27) for the law that they have adopted.

15. More blatantly[124], they disregard the rights of people who bring their controversies to them for resolution and the rest of the people, who must bear their decisions’ precedential effect.

16. Power subject to no checks keeps expanding until it loses its balance and falls into abuse and corruption(jur:81¶174). That is how federal judges have become the most powerful officers in our country. Judges Above the Law have turned the Federal Judiciary into their safe haven and the most powerful branch. In reality, it is a state within the state of the people and their representatives.

17. If ours is ‘government, not by men and women, but by the rule of law’[ol:5fn6], then We the People must reassert our status as masters of government and of all our public servants and start by preventing judges from disregarding the People, the other branches, and the rule of law.

18. To that end, this proposal provides for the People to be informed about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) so that they may be so outraged at judges and the politicians with whom they connive as to force politicians to investigate them and reform the Judiciary by ensuring that the People have the means to ‘reverse surveil’(ol:73) their performance to make it transparent and be adequately informed to hold them accountable, disciplinable, and liable for compensation.
D. Strategy for exposing a wrongdoing judiciary, not individual rogue judges

19. Judges presiding over a trial or appeal involving another judge as defendant may have known him for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years or more. Conversely, they and their own wrongdoing may have been known to the defendant judge for the same length of time. The presiding judges cannot afford to let that judge be indicted or found guilty or liable without risking his telling on them either in retaliation or plea bargain in exchange for leniency or immunity, and bringing them down too. Nor can they risk establishing a precedent that will come back to haunt them.

20. This explains why, far from suing a judge in court(ol:158), a realistic and reasonably calculated strategy for exposing judges’ wrongdoing must be implemented out of court(jur:83§§2-3).

21. In addition, such a strategy must be centered on exposing wrongdoing institutionalized as the way of doing business in the Judiciary(Lsch:15¶¶9-15). This avoids the customary, uncritical, and futile effort to pick out of a judiciary one rogue judge at a time.

22. Removing a federal judge is wishful thinking, for they are in effect unimpeachable and irremovable(supra ¶2). Wishful thinking produces only the impulse for an exercise in futility.

23. But assuming arguendo that one was removed, he would simply be replaced by politicians by another of the same ilk. The replacement judge would protect the system in the interest of preserving her well-above average secure[12] salary[211]; the prestige of the office; and the ‘carrot’(jur:60§§f,g) of other prime benefits given for being loyal to the class of judges. The replacement would not dare expose her peers’ wrongdoing because if she did, she would be ostracized and treated as a pariah by all the other judges, who for the rest of their lifetime appointments would beat her with a ‘stick’(jur:56§e) for being an unreliable traitor.

24. Trying to remove one judge at a time by suing him or her in court, never mind bringing charges against him or her before a citizen grand jury or a tribunal of the people(Lsch:13), reveals ignorance or disregard of how the legal system works and how the avoidance of harm and the obtaining of satisfaction of interests motivate people’s conduct.

25. Such judges-judging-judge approach pays no attention to the historic record(supra ¶2). So it exemplifies Einstein’s aphorism: Doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome is the hallmark of irrationality. It is irrational(ol:154) because it shows unawareness of a fundamental law of both the physical and the human worlds: cause and effect. It is the diametrical opposite of strategic thinking(infra 197§1), which conceives of the pursuit and blocking of interests as the causes that have effects.

E. Concrete, verifiable, and reasonable grounds for investigating the two stories

26. The key element of the out-of-court strategy for exposing wrongdoing intrinsic to the Federal Judiciary’s operation and its judges’ performance is the further investigation of the two unique national stories of P. Obama-J. Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(supra §§A,B). Its findings will allow gaining a complete understanding of judicial wrongdoing’s nature, extent, gravity, enabling circumstances, modus operandi, and harm to the people and their trust in the rule of law.

27. That understanding is a prerequisite(ol:135) to determining the full scope and fundamental changes of the reform necessary to ensure that the Federal Judiciary and its judges do not abuse for their own benefit the power that the people entrusted to them but rather serve in the interest and subject to the control of the people, their masters.

28. It is also a prerequisite to provoking the national outrage that will generate the public pressure needed to force politicians to undertake such reform. The investigation of those stories already conducted provides solid grounds and reliable, abundant leads for journalists and other researchers to continue it(ol:66, 115):

1. The search for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets

29. The statements of financial affairs that J. Sotomayor filed publicly[107b] under oath with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judicial Nominations at its demand, showing an earning-assets-liability mismatch[107c] pointing to concealment of assets, which is done to evade taxes and launder money.

30. The articles[107a] in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Politico suspecting her of concealing assets(jur:65§1).

31. Their suspicion[id. ] of her having declared a much smaller amount of money than she must have received for cashing out her partnership in the high end boutique law firm of Pavia & Harcourt[205] in New York City upon resigning it to become a federal district court judge in the Second Circuit.

32. Her participation as a justice in concealment of assets, which is a continuing crime committed to avoid the self-incrimination attendant upon declaring up-to-now concealed assets.

2. The DeLano case and the bankruptcy fraud scheme run by judges

33. Her cover up in the appeal of the DeLano[109a] bankruptcy case(jur:68§a) of a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§2) run[60] with the participation of a bankruptcy judge appointed by her peers at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CA2).

a. Bankruptcy judges are neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. Rather, they are appointed by the respective circuit judges[61a]. They are removed, not by impeachment, but by decision of circuit judges and district judges of their district.

b. Thus, bankruptcy judges are ‘the circuit judges’ men and women on the bench’ and dependent on them to remain there and be reappointed at an annual salary of at least $160,080[211]. That is far above the average income of even lawyers and a strong motive for bankruptcy judges to do the bidding of their appointers and share benefits with them.

c. When bankruptcy cases reach the circuit court on appeal, the judges there have a bias toward upholding their appointees’ decisions no matter how wrong or wrongful they may be, lest those circuit judges indict their own vetting of the persons that they appointed to bankruptcy judgeships and their good judgment in assessing their competence and honesty.

34. J. Sotomayor’s withholding(jur:69§b) of DeLano from the Senate Judiciary Committee, though she was required to file it on two grounds, among others: She had presided over it[109a] at the Court of Appeals and from there the case had gone on petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court[109b].

a. Her concealment of information from the Senate, whereby she obtained its confirmation of her nomination by President Obama to the highest bench by misrepresenting herself as an honest person and a judge whose legal philosophy was “fidelity to the law”[132f] constitutes fraud in the inducement. It would also support a charge of perjury since she affirmed under oath that she had submitted all the documents requested.

b. DeLano need not be the only case that J. Sotomayor withheld from the Senate. Other similarly withheld cases can be found through research conducted either on the CA2 website(jur:20) or at the in-take office of the Court in New York City(jur:17). They can also be found through a search on the electronic law database of Westlaw or Lexis.

c. Finding other cases that she similarly withheld from the Committee so as not to jeopardize its confirmation of her to a justiceship can establish a pattern of deception that reveals her dishonesty and further supports the charge of fraud in the inducement.

3. The systematic covering up of peers’ wrongdoing

35. Her participation as a member[20] of the Judicial Council of the 2nd Circuit in the 100% denial of appeals from the 99.82%(jur:11) systematic dismissal without investigation(jur:24§b) by her chief judge peers of complaints against her colleagues, including the judge124 in DeLano(jur:xxxv), whereby she too abrogated in effect Congress’s Judicial Conduct and Disability Act[18a] without authority; for self-immunization; and to the detriment of complainants and judicial integrity.

36. Her participation in the systematic denial by all the Circuit judges of petitions for en banc review of decisions by CA2 three-judge panels(jur:45§2), thus covering up her peers and her own wrong and wrongful decisions(46§3), unlawfully abrogating in effect Rule 35[72] of Appellate Procedure.

37. Her condonation of her peers’ wrongdoing despite her duty[170b] to expose it so as to safeguard the integrity of judicial process, her Court, and the Federal Judiciary; and in the self-interest of preventing the investigations that her denouncing their wrongdoing would prompt from leading to her own or motivating an investigatee to enter into a plea bargain agreement to provide incriminating information about his peers, including her, in exchange for immunity or leniency.

4. Connivance of politicians with ‘their judges on the bench’

38. In the course of their search for J. Sotomayor’s concealed assets and their investigation of her other forms of wrongdoing(jur:102§4), journalists will ask the logical question, “Who knew of her wrongdoing and when did they know it”, and proceed to broaden and deepen their investigation of:

a. connivance between President Obama, who nominated her in his own interest(supra §A) and lied about her honesty(ol:63, 70).

1) Journalists can publicly ask that question as Senator Howard Baker, vice chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, originally formulated it and asked of every deponent at the nationally televised hearings on the Watergate scandal: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” It turned out to be a devastating question that was then branded in our political discourse and ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides.

2) As journalists ask that question now, they can poignantly request that the President release the reports of the FBI when it vetted Attorney and later on Judge Sotomayor first upon her nomination to the district court in 1992, and subsequently to the circuit court in 1998, and to the Supreme Court in 2009; and that the reports not be redacted.

3) They can ask Justice Sotomayor to request that the President release all those reports.

4) This can set a precedent that contributes to transparency in the Judiciary and the rest of government, and the nomination and confirmation of honest persons to public office.

b. the top senators who recommended, endorsed, shepherded her through the confirmation process in the Senate, and confirmed her(supra ¶4);

c. the Republican senators who were repeatedly provided with information[132] about the evidence of her wrongdoing but ignored it to avoid having ‘their own men and women on the bench’ investigated in retaliation; and

d. the circumstances enabling(ol:154§1) such and other forms of wrongdoing by other judges(jur:5§3), justices(jur:71§4), and politicians[17a] (jur:22¶31).

5. The Federal Judiciary’ interference with its critics’ communications

39. The statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2) supporting probable cause to believe that there has been interference with the communications of critics of judges’ wrongdoing with the intent or effect of preventing or hampering their efforts to exercise their First Amendment right “to assemble peacefully to petition the government for a redress of grievances”[268].

40. Have the Federal Judiciary and its judges, as the interested parties, abused their power to have the FBI or a similar government agency issue security letters to communications service providers, such as Internet and phone service providers and mail carriers, to interfere with the communications of critics of their wrongdoing under a pretense, such as that the critics pose a security threat, e.g., to national security?(ggl:1 et seq.)

6. Failure to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”

41. The search for the assets that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(supra §1) suspected J. Sotomayor of concealing need only show her failure to comply with the unambiguous and exacting injunction in the judges’ own Code of Conduct[123a] to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” in all personal and professional matters.

42. Hence, even without finding her concealed assets, her appearance of having concealed them and/or engaged in any of the other forms of wrongdoing listed above can cause her resignation just as that of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was caused on May 14, 1969, upon Life magazine revealing his financial improprieties and suspect friendship(jur:92§d).
F. Optimal economic, social & political context for the two unique national stories

43. The average American household is struggling economically because it is making less money now than before the economic crisis that was set off by abusive mortgage lending.

44. By contrast, a Supreme Court justice receives a salary over four times the average household income[211], which cannot be diminished[12], will keep coming for life due to his life appointment, and is increased by his outside income. Americans will be outraged upon learning that one such justice, J. Sotomayor, is concealing assets, evading taxes on them, and covering for her peers, who, among other things, have tapped an illicit source of money by running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:xxxv).

45. A series of scandals, e.g., no WMD, abusive mortgage lending. Abu Ghraib prison, NSA, IRS, VA, Fast & Furious, SS, has outraged the national public and caused it to become most distrustful of government. Yet, the two-year campaigning for the primaries and the presidential election has begun, during which politicians will ask people to trust, and vote for, them.

46. During that long and critical electoral season, politicians will be most vulnerable to the public’s mood and must appear most responsive to its demands, e.g., in the 2014 primaries in Virginia, voters voted out of office none other than U.S. H.R. Majority Leader Eric Cantor because of his stance on immigration.

1. Best context for journalists and strategic thinking advocates

47. This is the best context for journalists and media outlets to investigate the two unique national stories(supra §§A,B), for it offers what they want the most for any of their stories: a receptive audience –here one prone to believe the worst of public officers and resent tax cheats the most–; a thematic link to the central issues of the national debate –here the elections–; and the opportunity to advance their personal, professional and commercial interests through those stories(infra §H).

48. This socio-economic and political context is also optimal for advocates of honest judiciaries who can think strategically to apply a key principle of strategic thinking: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my friend is my friend”.

49. The campaigns for votes provide choice opportunities for advocates to identify those individuals and groups who, regardless of any interest that they may or may not have in honest judiciaries, can win or lose due to judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform pursued through the two stories. Those who win from exposure and reform have interests harmonious with those of advocates, so they are ‘friends’; those who lose will oppose exposure and reform, their interests conflict with those of advocates, and they are ‘enemies’.

50. Advocates can form or strengthen alliances with ‘friends’ and disrupt or prevent alliances between ‘enemies’. First, they want to join and assemble the largest number of advocates. Then they want to make alliances with journalists and media outlets.

51. This illustrates thinking strategically by applying dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11) to the members of a system of related interests.

52. The members constantly affect each other by jointly or severally reinforcing, advancing, maintaining, hindering, or defeating their related interests; members, interests, and means of affecting them exit or enter the system. The system and its alliances reconfigure themselves constantly; hence, its analysis must be dynamic.

53. Members in the system and in actual or potential alliances are:

a. politicians who are or have been in office(jur:xxvii) and newcomers(ol:125§A)[164a];

b. voters(ol:122§C);

c. judges doing wrong or condoning it(jur:88§a-c);

d. Deep Throat(ol:180) and out loud(ol:46) judges;

e. law clerks(jur:106§c);

f. court staff(jur:30§1);

g. judicial wrongdoing victims(ol:126§B, 138);

h. law professors and schools (jur:81§1);

i. journalists(ol:21-41, 45);

j. media outlets(jur:xlviii);

k. IT and research entities(ol:42, 60);

l. advocates of honest judiciaries(jur:xxvi; ol:135);

m. means of information dissemination(infra §G).

54. The analysis can be applied, for instance, to the electoral races and the jockeying for position in them.

a. Journalists are reporting on them.

b. Their stories attract the national public’s attention.

c. The two unique national stories will outrage the public at wrongdoing judges and the politicians in connivance with them.

d. An outraged public will confront politicians with the choice between protecting their judges, but, like Former Majority Leader Cantor(supra ¶35), not be elected, and calling for and conducting judicial wrongdoing investigations and reform, and be elected.

55. Strategizing(ol:59§B) means identifying through dynamic analysis those in the system who have an interest in that confrontation either happening, e.g., advocates and journalists, or not happening, e.g., wrongdoing judges, and working on alliances to advance the former’s interest and hinder that of the latter.

G. Presentations to inform of and outrage at judicial wrongdoing and reform

56. Making presentations(Lsch:2) on judges’ wrongdoing coordinated among themselves and in connivance with politicians is a means of implementing the strategy for informing the public thereof and outraging it enough for it to force politicians, under pain of not receiving donations, volunteered work, word of mouth endorsement, etc.(ol:123¶17), to investigate judges’ wrongdoing and bring about judicial reform. Advocates of honest judiciaries can organize and/or deliver them.

a. venues of presentations:

1) private meetings and press conferences with journalists(ol:22, 26, 88)

2) talkshow hosts(ol:146)

3) public interest entities(jur:86§4; ol:127)

4) political organizations(ol:48, 51)

5) political candidates(jur:ii; ol:121)

6) veterans meetings(ol:90, 94)

7) advocates of honest judiciaries(ol:142)

8) schools(jur:129§b) of:

a) journalism(ol:186, 188; Lsch:24),

b) law(Lsch:1, 21),

c) business(jur:104¶¶236-237),

d) Information Technology(ol:42, 60)

b. topics of presentations:

1) the available(jur:21§§A-B) evidence of judges’ wrongdoing individual and coordinated among themselves and others[169] and in connivance with politicians;

2) the two unique national stories of P. Obama-J. Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(supra §§A-B); the leads for further investigation(supra §E); and the investigative plan(ol:66);

3) the search for campaigning politicians who may want to distinguish themselves from others by making judicial wrongdoing and reform a central issue of their platform, and rallying behind them all victims of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:125§A)[164a];

4) the offering for academic credit of a course(dcc:1), internships, seminars, and clinics(ol:133¶¶7, 15) in which students(jur:129§b) and professors can engage in field and library research(ol:115) of the two stories, in particular, and of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform, in general;

5) the formation of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§1) aimed at Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(jur:1§1) and advocating judicial reform; and the team(jur:128§4) of professionals and students who should participate in the venture as the precursor to an institute of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5);

6) elements of judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8);

7) organizing a symposium on judicial wrongdoing and reform(jur:97§1; dcc:11);

8) the proposed documentary Black Robed Predators(ol:85); and

9) advocates’ participation in a constitutional convention[270>Ln:309](ol:87§D; ol:135).

57. Because of their valuable experience and expertise in investigative journalism, in general, and judicial and Follow the money! investigations, in particular, a special effort should be made to have in the audience, or present privately to, the following and similarly situated media members:

a. Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and School of International Public Affairs(ol:184-189);

b. Newsday(ol:176);

c. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists(ol:179§C); and

d. Former CBS Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has sued the U.S. Department of Justice on a claim that it hacked into her work and home computers to find out about investigations of hers that embarrassed the Obama administration, in particular the DoJ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Fast and Furious sale of assault weapons to drug traffickers[295], which led Congress to hold DoJ Secretary Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to produce requested documents, the first time ever that a member of the cabinet is held in contempt of Congress; and the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other American officers at Benghazi by Islamic militants[270>Ln:331-344].

H. Persuading the media to investigate the two unique national stories

58. Presentations at a press conference and to individual journalists and media outlets have a multiplier effect because if they report on the topics presented, many more people are informed about them. That effect is magnified if journalists start investigating those topics on their own.

59. Thus, a main purpose of the presentations is to persuade the audience to further investigate the two unique national stories(supra §§A,B,E), especially journalists –who must persuade their assigning editors– given their superior skills and means to investigate and disseminate information; and graduate students(jur:129§b) because of their youthful idealism, belief that they can change the world for the better, and willingness to do their best, and knowledgeable professors(jur:131§b).

60. They must be convinced that the more of them join the investigation, the less judges can retaliate against them, for powerful though judges are, they cannot retaliate against everybody simultaneously without revealing their unlawful motive and abuse of power to conceal their wrongdoing.

1. Journalists can make scoops that establish their names nationally

61. The presentations must appeal to the personal, professional, and commercial interests(ol:3§F) of ambitious and principled journalists and media outlets. Each one of them will want to make the scoop of a lifetime(jur:xxi§5), whether it is the one that brings down a justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. for tax evasion and money laundering[107a,c](ol:5fn10); the one that shows that the President and senators knew it but lied about it to the American public(jur:77§§5-6); or…

62. …the one revealing that the Federal Judiciary interferes with the communications of the critics of judges and transfers concealed assets to and from hidden and declared accounts electronically by abusing its and/or NSA’s computer network and expertise(supra §B).

63. That revelation will be more outrageous than that by Edward Snowden of NSA’s dragnet collection of communications data of scores of millions of Americans because the judges’ wrongdoing has no “national security” redeeming value whatsoever. It is nothing but criminal activity in self-interest aggravated by abuse of power, betrayal of public trust, and theft of services through misuse of public property. So, that revelation will cause a scandal that will provoke more national outrage and deepen the people’s distrust of government more than any other scandal heretofore.

2. Media outlets can advance their commercial interests through the stories

64. Indirectly through presentations to journalists or directly to their assigning editors, media outlets must be shown that by investigating those stories they can achieve a business administration goal of all well-run media outlets: perform a cost-benefit analysis to allocate their resources of journalists, money, effort, and time so as to attain most effectively their mixed target of revenue, prestige, editorial agenda, etc.

65. That analysis will show that the benefits of investigating those stories cannot be surpassed by those of any other story given their uniqueness, national scope, and current public mood and economic and political context. To obtain those benefits, an outlet can:

a. take the lead in the investigation so as to develop a knowledge base, sources, and audience loyalty and growth that place its reporting ahead of its competitors’, attract more advertisers to whom higher advertising fees can be charged, thus increasing its revenue and enhancing its prestige, which will include the credit for having broken the stories;

b. publish an article or a serial on the available(jur:21§§A-B) evidence of judges’ wrongdoing, which can take the form of an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(jur:98§2) denunciation of it;

c. contribute its findings to a documentary as it participates in its making(ol:85);

d. investigate whether WP, NYT, and Politico entered into a quid pro quo with the Obama administration, the Judiciary, or its judges to drop their stories[107a] suspecting J. Sotomayor of concealing assets in exchange for some benefit or to avoid some harm(jur:xlviii);

e. use its connections to talkshow hosts(ol:146) to:

1) present on their shows the evidence and findings; and what from a media standpoint is

2) more imaginative and promising, promote the holding of regular(ol:73) shows that repeat the amazing experience of the talkshow host1 who invited his audience to share on the air their stories of abuse by wrongdoing judges; turn talkshows into rallying points for judicial wrongdoing victims; and thus spark the formation of a civic movement(ol:29) that advocates judicial reform, in general, and the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(jur:160§8), in particular;

f. use the stories of judicial victims, including those posted to its website in reaction to its reporting on the two unique national stories, as the raw material to:

1) devise templates(jur:122§2) for:

a) facilitating people’s judicial wrongdoing storytelling; and

b) aiding journalists and researchers in the comparative analysis of stories in search for points of connection, patterns, and trends of wrongdoing; and

2) be verified and collected for publication in the Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Consequent Wrongdoing in America(jur:126§3);

g. cause the two stories to make judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians the dominant issue of the electoral campaigns and a decisive factor in voters’ Election Day conduct;

h. win a Pulitzer Prize;

i. write a book on the investigation and see it become a bestseller(jur:4¶¶10-14);

j. be portrayed in a blockbuster film by an A-list actor or actress(id.); and

k. earn any of many other material and moral rewards(ol:3§F).
I. From a journalist leader to a Watergate-like generalized media investigation

66. The journalist and media outlet taking the lead in the investigation of the two unique national stories(supra §§A,B) will provoke public outrage. Ever more media members will climb on their investigative bandwagon rather than lose audience to competitors who carry the latest developments in the emerging scandal.

67. That is how the investigation of those stories will become a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized and first-ever media investigation(jur:100§§3-4) of the Federal Judiciary(ol:149§E) and its judges in connivance with politicians and their agents, e.g., NSA. It will lead to historic reform of the Judiciary, in particular, and government, in general.

J. From a media to official investigations and on to reform by the People’s Sunrise

68. The Federal Judiciary and its judges are the models of their state counterparts: The latter have adopted the federal rules of procedure and evidence. Federal judges’ interpretation of the minimum civil right protections and due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution must be complied with by state judges so that their decisions and application of state law may survive if reviewed in federal court on appeal or diversity of jurisdiction.

69. Thus, the more journalists and media outlets join the leaders in the investigation of the two stories(supra §§A,B), the more they will be attracted and induce others to investigate state judges and judiciaries for similar wrongdoing.

70. Their combined exposure of judges’ wrongdoing will increase the chances of reaching the critical mass of outrageous findings and public outrage needed to stir up the public to force(supra ¶41) politicians to have Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts investigate judges at televised hearings. The authorities’ coercive investigative powers(ol:157¶f) will expose even more outrageous wrongdoing, which will exacerbate the outrage and determine the public to force reform.

71. Entrusting judges with self-discipline and suing them in court before their peers have been demonstrated to be failed mechanisms to ensure that they are honest and exert public power to serve the people rather than themselves(supra ¶2; §D).

72. Judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) can correct this failure by empowering We the People, the masters in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[172], to practice ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:73; Lsch:2) on their servants –judges and judiciaries– to enforce four principles(ol:225§B):

a. TRANSPARENCY by requiring them to hold all meetings open to the public (supra §5), for “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”[ 71];

b. ACCOUNTABILITY by establishing citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(jur:160§8) that publicly receive complaints against judges, investigate them with power of subpoena, search and seizure, and contempt, and impose

c. DISCIPLINE, including suspension, and

d. their LIABILITY to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing(ol:65¶9).

73. Such a far-reaching reform that upsets the conniving relation between politicians and judges to the detriment of the people requires the latter to give themselves a new We the People-government relation:

74. The power to impose that relation on, and in spite of the resistance of, judges and politicians can emerge from a self-assertive civic movement: the People’s Sunrise (ol:73, 29).

75. The precedent that makes it a realistic expectation is the Tea Party and its development into a political powerhouse to be reckoned with. In the Sunrise movement, the People shine their light to see everything that occurs in society and their government; illuminate the areas that need services by public servants; and oversee them as they serve for the benefit of We the People.

K. Pioneers of judicial unaccountability reporting become Champions of Justice

76. Through separate and concerted action, advocates of honest judiciaries and journalists and media outlets can advance their respective interests by informing the national public of, and outraging it at, judges’ wrongdoing coordinated among themselves and in connivance with politicians.

77. Advocates can make presentations thereon to journalists, research-capable students and their professors, and others(supra §G); and the media can report on the available evidence of judicial wrongdoing and further investigate the two unique national stories of President Obama-Justice Sotomayor and Federal Judiciary-NSA(supra §§A,B,E).

78. By so doing, they all will be ‘Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting’(Preface:i). Such reporting can become a key defender of American democracy. As a result, a grateful People can express their appreciation by granting upon them many material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), the most valuable of which is to be nationally recognized as the People’s Champions of Justice.

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

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


The Earth Plan's Peopleisim  is THE Solution to the Worlds Problems.
Please Support Adverts as it helps cover some of the costs of the site. Liberty For Life does not endorse any adverts in this section as they are randomly generated by advertising companies.