|
7:16 PM (11 hours ago)
 | | ||
ANote on ‘Joinedwords’:A glitch in Word 2010 causes text composed in it, properly spellchecked, andthen pasted in the body of an email to be received by the addressee with‘joinedwords’, that is, pairs of words missing their separating blank spaces.There is nothing that I can do to prevent the post-emailing formation ofjoinedwords. I can only kindly ask that you overlook that glitch. If you haveany idea how to fix it, please let me know.
Doyou suspect that communications from and to you
have been intercepted?
If you have had experiences similar to those described below,
this is a call to join forces to exercise our
First Amendment right to“freedomof speech, of the press;
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
have been intercepted?
If you have had experiences similar to those described below,
this is a call to join forces to exercise our
First Amendment right to“freedomof speech, of the press;
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
By
Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq.Ph.D.,University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, ParisJudicial Discipline ReformNew York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq.Ph.D.,University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, ParisJudicial Discipline ReformNew York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
This articlemay 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.
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
A.Probable cause to believe that communications about exposing judges’ wrongdoinghave been intercepted
1. I am alawyer, a doctor of law, and a researcher of court statistics, reports,statements, etc.(*>jur: iii/fn.ii), whichI have cited hundreds of times in my 880+-page study of federal judges and the Federal Judiciary –the models for their state counterparts– titled and downloadable as follows:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability
and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting*
and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting*
or http://Judicial-Discipline-
Ifthese links do not download the file in the most widely used browser, i.e.,Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copythe first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If thefile, which has over 880 pages and is more than 93 MB in size, does notdownload, try using the other links and then the other browser:
Google Chrome: https:// www.google.com/chrome/
or
3. The evidence(jur:65§§1-3) shows thather asset concealment is enabled by, and only part of, wrongdoing coordinatedamong federal judges and between them and insiders of the judicial and legalsystems(jur:81fn169). Thus, her investigation wouldbe a Trojan horse that would reveal wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinatedas to constitute the judges’ and the Judiciary’s institutionalized modusoperandi(ol:190¶¶1-7).
5. This article argues that under those three considerations, there isprobable cause to believe that the communications that I sent or that were sentto me were intercepted and their delivery was prevented. It calls on victims ofjudges’ wrongdoing and on advocates of honest judiciaries to join forces toexpose such wrongdoing by implementing a strategy that takes advantage of thepublic mood and the presidential campaign that feeds off it.
B. Interception and secrecy as the government’s modusoperandi
6. Interception and disclosure of wire,oral, or electronic communications, and the intentional access to a protectedcomputer without authorization are acts prohibited as federal crimes and punishablewith up to 20 years in prison under Title 18 U.S. Code §§1030 and 2511(ol:5a/fn13, 14).
1. NSA and judges can issue companies secret orders of interception
7. The documents of the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA) leaked by Edward Snowden(ol:17)have revealed that the NSA, which reports to the President daily, broke the lawto intercept the communications of private and public parties, including 35 headsof state and government, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and BrazilPresident Dilma Rousseff among them as well as U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.
8. This supports probable cause tobelieve that the government is once more intercepting communications, such asmine, to safeguard its own interests.
9. The NSA has an interest inintercepting communications calling for the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing: Itdepends on judges, such as those of the secret federal court set up under the ForeignIntelligence Surveillance Act(ol:20fn5 >50U.S.C. §§1801-1811), to have its secret requests forsecret orders of surveillance rubberstamped, up to 100% in a year(ol:5afn7).
2. Microsoft sued the government over its orders’permanent secrecy
10. In mid-April 2016, Microsoft sued the federalgovernment over secret requests, such as those by the NSA, for secret orders ofsurveillance that those who must execute them, such as Microsoft and otherInternet Service Providers, must keep secret forever. It is arguing that suchpermanent secrecy even after the abatement of the emergency that warrants the order’srequest and execution without due process notice and opportunity to defend tothe surveillance target defendant prevents any control on the government and,as a result, leads to government abuse of power.
11. Secrecy is the petri dish for corruption(jur:49§4), for it places wrongdoing beyond public condemnation,rendering it private, blameless, acceptable to those in on it, whom it rendersunaccountable and whose wrongdoing it turns into riskless acts to gainirresistible, wrongful benefits, inevitably leading to their performance throughabuse of power(jur:88§§a-c). “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”,as Justice Brandeis put it: information is needed to rid the government ofcorruption.
3. Unauthorized access to CBS Reporter SharylAttkisson’s computers
12. CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed thefiasco of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms of the Department of Justice (DoJ), which sold weapons, includingmilitary assault rifles, intended to be followed all the way to druglords in Mexico.But the Bureau lost track of them; one was used to murder an American borderpatrol.
13. DoJ Attorney General Eric Holder tried to coverup Fast and Furious by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas fordocuments, submitting them with whole pages redacted so that they no longermade sense. As a result, he became the first sitting member of the cabinet inAmerican history to be held in contempt of Congress. Having lost the trust ofCongress, he had to resign.
14. Likewise and much to the chagrin of the Obamaadministration, Reporter Attkisson reported on the Benghazi attacks, where theAmerican ambassador to Libya and three other American officers were killed byIslamic militants while the Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton.
15. Rep. Attkisson(ol:215)had three independent computer experts examine her home and work computers.They attested to their having been hacked and roamed through. She, representedby Judicial Watch, has sued DoJ for information concerning the hacking of hercomputers (ol:216fn2); and reportedly hasdemanded $35,000,000 in compensation.
4. The government sued Apple to get backdoor access to aniPhone
16. In order to gain access to the messages on thephone of one of the terrorists that committed the massacre at San Bernardino,California, the federal government sued Apple to force it to crack on itsbehalf the encryption system that protects the privacy of messages on itsiPhones. Apple refused to comply, arguing that the public interest in theprivacy of emails trumped the interest of the government in particular casesand that cracking the encryption would set a dangerous precedent, give theAmerican government as well as foreign ones a backdoor access to all messageson all iPhones, and lead to abuse of power.
17. After the government managed to crack the encryptionwith the help of another company, it withdrew its suit.
18. Instead of just after a crime, how far ahead ofany crime or even suspicion of it will the government enter through that backdoorto read all contents of iPhones…and eventually of all phones and computers?
19. Power is by nature expansive; it will only stopits advance if opposed by an equal power or is pushed back by a stronger one(jur:81¶174). Such can be the power ofWe the People, the sovereign source ofall public power, when informed by the free flow of communications.
B. Statistical considerations: the normal distributionof a series of values and the abnormal number and contents of replies
20. Probable cause to believe that there has beeninterception of my communications derives from the statistical abnormality(ol:19fn2 >ws:46§V) ofmy non-receipt of replies from the thousands of people to whom I wrote(cf. *>Lsch:1), except for some five replies, and thestatistical oddity that all those replies were negative, expressing therepliers’ lack of interest in my proposal.
21. Normally, the reactions of the subjects to whoman attitudinal questionnaire is submitted –like the people to whom I sent myproposal– line up on a continuum from an extreme of very few ‘not liked any bitof it’ rising toward the most numerous ‘balanced bunch’ and descending towardthe other extreme of very few ‘liked every bit of it’. When the series of valuesmeasuring the intensity of their reaction and the number of those so reacting areplotted on an X,Y graph, they produce the bell-shaped curve called a normaldistribution of values(ol:19fn2 >ws:59¶124).
22. Instead, the replies that I received produced aflat floor line with a hiccup at the end. But there is neither a logical nor apsychological cause to believe that normally only people who disliked aproposal would be motivated enough to bother to write to let the proponent knowthat they disliked and rejected it rather than outright delete the email orshred the letter of proposal.
23. Only the interception by an outside agent whomanaged to gain access to all the replies, examined them, and prevented thedelivery of those that liked and accepted the proposal can explain thatabnormal one-sided delivery to me of only replies that disliked and rejected myproposal.
C. Interception by companies’ suspending email and cloudstorage accounts
24. Probablecause to believe in interception is found in the sudden, unexplained, arbitrarysuspension between October and December 2014 of my email and cloud storage accountsby Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft.
25. It isutterly improbable that these three, at the time independent, companies actedindependently and only coincidentally to suspend my accounts. Their doing sowas contrary to their commercial interest in advertising themselves through theaccounts that people open with them, which bear the companies’ names in the domains of the accounts, e.g.,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.
Ric.Cordero@hotmail.com(*>ggl:
1. One of the 5% most viewed Linkedin profiles losesmost of its contents
26. Acompany’s commercial interest in encouraging Internet traffic with its name attached to it is shown by Linkedin’s congratulatingme for my profile being among the 5% most viewed among its more than 200million profiles(*>a&p:25-27). Sohow is it possible that last week, I checked my profile and noticed that myphoto and most of its information about me were not there? I had to repostthem. Do you see them at www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richar
2. Microsoft prevents again the signing in to an emailaccount
27. After Microsoft suspended my Hotmail account, Icreated this other Microsoft account: Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook
Sign in
Something went wrong and we can't sign you in
right now. Please try again later.
Microsoft
3. The dramatic drop in the number of daily subscribersto my blog
28. I built a new website using WordPress inSeptember 2015 and started to post my articles there; www.Judicial-Discipline-
29. At the beginning, it was only a handful a day.But the phenomenon of referential chain reaction increments that occurs throughoutcyberspace must also have occurred with respect to my blog-like website: Onereader who liked my articles referred them to two or more other readers, whodid the same, thus giving rise to an exponential growth rate.
30. As a result, by Monday, April 11, there was adaily average of 53 new subscribers with an upward trend. But thereafter thedaily average plummeted. In fact, only 8 readers subscribed last Sunday, April17, although normally the highest number of readers subscribe on Saturdays andSundays.
31. One cannot reasonably assume that for the third(ol:19fn2; ggl:1) timeand only coincidentally companies, this time Microsoft and Verizon, have causeda negative flow of emails to me, whether in their content or number, concerningmy proposal for exposing judges’ wrongdoing.
32. Rather, such flow is probably caused by interceptionof emails to and from me. But since such interception only hurts thosecompanies’ commercial interest in self-advertisement, it occurs either withouttheir participation or by them upon orders of a third party. The latter canreasonably be assumed to be those who have the most to lose from judicialwrongdoing exposure:
a. judges (cf. jur:71§4);
b. the politicians who recommended, endorsed,nominated, and confirmed them(cf. jur:77§§5-6) andnow protect them as ‘ourmen and women on the bench’; and
c. others who benefit from maintaining a good relationwith judges in exchange for favorable rulings.
E. Anotherquery for investigation during Election 2016 of judges’ wrongdoing
33. Based on these and other instances of actual,attempted, and probable government interception and access, I have posed thefollowing query(ol:192§4) for professional investigation:
To what extent do federal judges abuse their vastcomputer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of casefiles(Lsch:11¶9b.ii)
1)conceal assets –acrimeunder 26 U.S.C. §§7201, 7206ol:5fn10,unlike surveillance– by electronicallytransferring them between declared and hidden accounts(ol:1;¶2 supra),
2)cover up judges’ wrongdoing(ol:154¶3) by intercepting the communications –also a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)– of their exposers; and
3)prevent exposers from communicating to joinforces, thus infringing upon their rights“to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redressof grievances”(jur:22fn12b;ol:371
1. From collection of metadata to unconstitutionalinterception based on contents and undertaken in the interest of covering upwrongdoing
34. The findings of the investigators of that querycan have a farther-reaching impact than Snowden’s revelations. His leaked documentspointed only to illegal dragnet collection of communications metadata of scoresof millions of people, such as their telephone numbers, call duration, date,etc., but not the contents of the intercepted communications. Even so the publicwas out-raged by the breach without warrants of communications privacy, itsscope, abuse potential, etc.
35. The public would be more intensely outraged ifverifiable findings pointed to the government committing communications interceptionbased on their contents, which constitutes breach of privacy as well as abridgementof freedom of speech and the press”(jur:130fn268).
36. Public outrage would reach its paroxysm if theinterception were spurred by the unjustifiable motive, not to protect anyalleged ‘national security interest’, but rather to advance judges’ crassinterest in covering up their wrongdoing and the government’s in avoidingjudges’ retaliation by executing their im-plicit threat “If you let them takeany of us down, we bring you with us!”(jur:22§31; ol:266¶13).
37. Such findings can lead to a test case representativeof many other cases of government content-based interception of thecommunications of advocates of honest judiciaries, victims of wrong-doingjudges, and journalists critical of public officers.
38. The findings can support discovery through asuit under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552,552a, to ascertain the identity of those who sought and those who implementedinterception orders, the latter’s text, target, justification, objective, etc.
39. Moreover, an outraged public could impact theelections significantly.
2. Strategy for launching the investigation andinforming the public
40. To launch the investigation, I offer to makepresentations(ol:197§G) at video conferencesand in person, generally, to IT experts, journalists, lawyers, students andtheir professors, business people, and other potential members of amultidisciplinary academic and business venture (jur:128§4) and advocates and victims, and, particularly, to any or allpresidential candidates.
41. They and their top officers, e.g., their respectivechief of staff and campaign strategist, can be interested in drawing support(ol:311, 362) from thehuge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of the dissatisfiedwith the judicial and legal systems, part of the Dissatisfied with theEstablishment(¶4 supra).
42. Since the candidates are covered by the nationalmedia and the public pays attention to them, they are in the best position todenounce(jur:98§2) contents-based interceptionand judges’ wrongdoing. They can cause their campaign research teams, and encouragethe media, to conduct pinpoint, profit-making investigations of the uniquenational queries of Justice Sotomayor(¶¶2-3) and the Federal Judiciary-NSA.
43. After exposure of the nature, extent, andgravity of the wrongdoing, informed discussion and adoption of judicial reformmeasures(jur:158§§6-8) can begin.
44. If you have had an experience similar to thosedescribed above, please email me to all my addresses†. Kindly use the headings of this article asthose of a template, providing information under applicable ones. If necessary,add headings.
45. If you want a presentation for you and others,let me know.
46. You can also network with your acquaintances sothat they may network me with campaign officers for me to make a presentationon how their candidate can attract that huge untapped voting bloc and eventuallynominate replacements for wrongdoing judges(ol:312¶10).
47. If we think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E), we can earn material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), including the highest one: to be nationallyrecognized as We the People’s Championsof Justice(ol:201§§J,K).
48. But time is of the essence.
So I look forward to hearingfrom you.
Dare triggerhistory!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richar
.
NOTE 1: Given theinterference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at* >ggl:1 et seq.,when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it inthe To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reachinghim at least at one of those addresses.
NOTE 2: Listen to Dr.Cordero’s presentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a seriesof concrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidentialcampaign, at:
or
The outline of the presentation is at * >ol:350:
or
http://1drv.ms/1NkT7D8
or
or
******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.