Sunday, February 14, 2016

Sent as an individualized letter to each of the presidential candidates

4:11 PM (15 hours ago)
Thank you for your comments.
A. Commitment and strategic thinking to bring about judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
1. People like you, Mr. Youssef, with your enormous experience and financial resources who do no quit their effort to expose judges’ wrongdoing, but rather pursue it in ever more imaginative ways thanks to strategic thinking are the ones who can make progress in our common cause of bringing about judicial reform.
1. Those who never quit are the ones who turn millennial impossibles into current realities
2. Based on facts, historic perspective provides a justification for adding unwavering determination and endurance to our commitment, for it shows that although egregious conditions of injustice and inequality had persisted for even thousands of years, a substantial change did come about as a result of the indefatigable effort of those who would not quit:
a) child labor was prohibited by law and schools were opened, not just for the sons of the wealthy, but also for the children, even the daughters, of the poor; and black and white students studied together in schools as well as in colleges;
b) men without land got the right to vote, and the unthinkable also happened: women were allowed to vote and even be voted into office; and a black man even became president, a “laughable” idea as recently as 45 years ago, when blacks and whites were run away, beaten, and lynched for merely trying to organize voting registration drives for blacks;
c) institutionalized slavery was dismantled as was the enslavement in effect resulting from the need to avoid at all cost arbitrary termination of employment by abusive employers; and employees won the right to unionize and even to go on strike without being fired in support of their demands for an adequate salary earned from work under safe conditions for a regulated number of hours;
2. The proposal for a multidisciplinary academic and business venture pursued by professionals
3. You are not alone, Mr. Youssef: I am fighting on your side. For proof, there is my study of judges and their judiciaries. It now has more than 830 pages. Can you imagine how much effort, time, and commitment it has cost me to research, write, and distribute it widely at the expense of everything else that I could have done instead? That has caused me an enormous opportunity loss. But it has simultaneously produced a substantial beneficial gain for all advocates of honest judiciaries: work of research and analysis.
4. Indeed, as you have learned the hard way, most victims of wrongdoing judges lack the knowledge and skills to expose judges’ wrongdoing; their commitment is limited to the pursuit of their own narrow, personal, local case.
5. The broad effort at judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform requires a team of professional with advanced knowledge and skills in law, journalism, business, Information Technology, and politics. We need to form that team to pursue a multidisciplinary academic and business venture to meaningfully expose judges’ wrongdoing. Forming  that team requires contacts, fund-raising, and a concrete plan, which are described at * >jur:119§§1-5; ol:115, 66. That is where you come in, Mr. Youssef, together with all those advocates committed to that broad effort.
6. My professional work of research and analysis together with my presentations can be used as a concrete and verifiable basis to recruit that team of professionals. That work is titled, downloadable, and summarized as follows:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability 
and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:

Pioneering the news and publishing field 
of judicial unaccountability reporting
B. An example of professional research and analysis based on statistics
7. The point made in my previous email was completely missed: The official statistics cited therein do not concern cases and judicial corruption, but rather complaintsagainst federal judges whose disposition shows bias.
1. Statistics show blatant bias in the systematic dismissal of complaints against federal judges
8. Complaints against federal judges can be filed by anybody, parties and non-parties, with the chief circuit judge of the respective circuit.. The statistical analysis of them reveals blatant bias of federal judges toward the peers complained about by systematically dismissing them so as to exempt peers from any accountability.
9. Unaccountability encourages wrongdoing because it results in risklessness of doing wrong. It fosters coordinated wrongdoing, whereby judges do wrong in reliance on the implicit and explicit assurance that they will hold each other unaccountable.(* >jur:88§§a-c) The problem is compounded by the fact that the filing by complainants and the disposition by federal judges of complaints against their peers are performed in complete secrecy, which in turn festers wrongdoing(jur:27§e).
2. Bias shown by statistics required by an act of Congress
10. The data on complaints against federal judges are collected by each circuit and compiled by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, which publishes them in its Annual Report and submits it to Congress, as mandated under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2); See also
11. The circuits claim(* >jur:12-14) that fewer than 1,275 complaints are filed against federal judges every year. Judges systematically dismiss 99.82% of those complaints. See the statistics at:
12. In 2012-2014, 3,824 complaints were filed, but the number of remedial actions taken -private or public censure of a judge or other disciplinary measures- was only 2! See also
13. That means that in 99.95% of complaints the judges took no action against their peers. The sheer improbability of that result being honest can be appreciated by comparing that statistics with the statistics of wrongdoing concerning the whole population or just the members of Congress, the very ones who recommend, endorse, and confirm judicial candidates nominated by another politician, the president(jur22fn14,15).
14. It follows that complaining against federal judges is an exercise in futility, the result of judges’ bias toward their own determined by mutually dependent survival(jur:90¶202).
15. Such blatant bias of federal judges toward their own shows that those judges have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect the act of Congress that gave We the People the means of complaining about federal judges, namely, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §28usc351-364(jur:24:b). Consequently, they have become Judges Above the Law.
3. The use of statistics in the federal courts traces back to Louis Brandeis, who eventually became a justice of the Supreme Court
16. Statistics have been used in courts for a very long time since the first time, which set an illustrious precedent: Before Louis Brandeis became a justice of the Supreme Court in 1916, he was an effective litigator advocating progressive causes. He won his cases, not only by arguing the law, but also by writing briefs where he presented socio-economic data and treated it with as much rigor as if it were legal evidence.
17. The best known of such briefs of his was filed in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S.Ct. 324 (1908). There Then-Attorney Brandeis used social and economic studies to argue successfully to the Supreme Court that it should uphold statutes limiting workdays for women to a maximum of 10 hours.
18. His briefs were so innovative and persuasive that they gave rise to a new type of brief: the Brandeis brief. They contributed to ushering in a more just society and thus, to making history. In time, Brandeis himself became a member of the Court.
4. The importance of statistics and their superiority over anecdotes
19. The usefulness of statistics lies in the fact that they are computed from data gathered on the solid principle of representativeness: either all members of a set –i.e., allegedly all the complaints against federal judges reported by the circuits to the Administrative Office– or a representative sample of members of a set –i.e., political surveys–. Such data afford statistics foundational breadth.
20. By contrast, comments based on the narrow basis of personal anecdotes and impressions rather than broad data on the real world and analysis only have entertaining value and no general validity. They contribute little to enlightening a problem.
21. In fact, anecdotes are a distraction that waste time and attention. And when they try to undermine the value of professional analysis of the problem and the imaginative proposal of a solution, they only render a disservice to all advocates and those who could be persuaded to join them.
C. Concrete, realistic, and feasible actions to set in motion a process
22. Therefore I ask that you, Mr. Youssef, do not walk away from me and all the other Advocates of Honest Judiciaries who are willing to fight too and who need the example of your unwavering commitment.
23. I encourage you to remain committed to exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, and to that end:
a. share and post as widely as possible the email below(also at * >ol:362 and comparative statistical table at ol:365) on a proposal to presidential candidates to denounce judges’ wrongdoing and thereby draw support from the huge untapped voting bloc of the people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems; 
b. contact your colleagues in politics and industry so that I can make presentations on judicial wrongdoing and reform advocacy either at video conferences or in person; and
c. network with colleagues, friends, and acquaintances of yours to cause them to network with theirs in order to bring me at video conferences or in person before the top officers of any and each presidential candidate campaign, such as the respective campaign strategist or chief of staff, so that I may present to them the above mentioned proposal.
24. So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Youssef, to access your contacts in NH and your industry, with the support of Mrs. Roe, Dr. Jimenez, and all other advocates.
Note: For some unknown reason, when my emails are received by their addressees, some words appear joined, like these ‘joinedwords’. When I send my emails –which are composed in Word 2010, and copied and pasted to a Verizon webmail page– they do not have joinedwords. Hence, I cannot prevent their appearance. I can only kindly ask that you overlook that glitch. If you have any idea how to fix it, please let me know.
A proposal to presidential candidates
to reassuringly place the risk of death by terrorism in perspective
by comparing it with other causes of death in America
so that one of them who thinks strategically may emerge as
the enlightening leader that leads an enlightened People

and as
the Champion of Justice
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 ReformNew York City,,,,
NOTE: Eliminate all blank spaces inside links before clicking on them.   dr-richard-cordero-   esq/4b/8ba/50/
This open letter may be republished and redistributed, provided it is 
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
[Sent as an individualized letter to each of the presidential candidates.]

[Message clipped]  View entire message

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.