Federal Investigation Agenda by The National Association for Probate Reform
Inbox
| x |
|  2:10 PM (3 hours ago) | | ||
A Note on ‘Joinedwords’: A glitch in Word 2010 causes text composed in it, properlyspellchecked, and then pasted in the body of an email to be received by addresseeswith ‘joinedwords’, that is, pairs of words missing their separating blankspaces. There is nothing that I can do to prevent the post-emailing formationof joinedwords. I can only kindly ask that you overlook that glitch. If youhave any idea how to fix it, please let me know.
Dear Ms. Roe and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
I received your request, Ms. Roe, for comments on the the National Association for Probate Reformand Advocacy (NAPRA writings and submit some of general interest).
You will find them in a formal letter in the attachment, which can bedownloaded through this link:
A. Mistaken references to courts, agencies, andjurisdiction; and consequences
1. The letter dated April 29, 2016, that asks NAPRAmembers to endorse its accompanying “2016 Investigative Agenda for Congress”states the following:
Our 2016 Investigative Agenda for Congresscovers the entire field:
Colorado, New Jersey, California,Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico, Wyoming, and every respectivestate in America [sic] Article III Agency Courts known as Probate Courtsattempts [read ‘attempt’, plural] and successes [read ‘succeed’] to divert yourinheritance and by pass [read ‘bypass’] Congress
2. To start so late in the year todraft, and ask for comments, on the year’s agenda, gives the impression of procrastination.Compare it with the impression of a methodical, ahead-planning organization inthe process of developing “NAPRA’s 2017 Agenda”.
3. For an outside entity to set the “Agenda for Congress”sounds presumptuous. Would the President himself dare do that? An entity with botha sense of realism about its position relative to that of Congress andsensitivity to the impact of words, can ‘respectfully request that Congress do X’,just as tactful lawyers in their Request for relief section ‘respectfullyrequest that the court grant Y’. NAPRA can present to Congress “Our Program forProbate Reform and Advocacy”.
4. It is not stated what “field” is referred to. If the field is probate, qualifying it with theadjective “entire” isperplexing, for the NAPRA letter and the Agenda mention ‘inheritance’, but notwhat some state laws include in the term ‘probate’, namely, guardians andwards.
5. The “field” cannot be ‘the whole nation’ because the explaining paragraph thatfollows the colon perplexingly singles out some states and makes a reference to“every respective state”, itself of unclear meaning,restrictively, which means that not all the other states are referred to.
6. The phrasal noun “every respectivestate” can be modified and joined by the restrictivephrase in either of these grammatically correct and semantically meaningfulways:
…and every otherstate in America that has Article III Agency Courts known as Probate Courts…[where the readeris expected to read “America Article III“ as “U.S. Constitution, Article III”;
or
…and every otherstate with a state court corresponding to the federal Article III Agency Courtsknown as Probate Courts…
7. Substantively, however, both ways areunacceptable. The following are the provisions in the U.S. Constitution thatdeal with courts:
Article I
Section1. All legislative Powers…
Section8. The Congress shall have Power To… establish…uniform Laws on the subject ofBankruptcies throughout the United States;…constitute Tribunals inferior to thesupreme Court;….
Article II
Section1. The executive Power…
Section2. …the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, asthey think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in theHeads of Departments.
Article III
Section1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supremeCourt, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordainand establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall holdtheir Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive fortheir Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during theirContinuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the UnitedStates,..;—to Controversies…;—between Citizens of different States[this is the basis for diversity jurisdiction];….
8. There are no “Article III ProbateCourts”. Probate is a subject matter left to the states.Hypothetically, if “Probate Courts” were established, theywould in all likelihood be established by an act of Congress under Article I tohear cases under state probate law since there is no federal probate law. Theywould join the other courts established by Congress under Article I.
9. Such courts are known as legislativecourts, e.g., the U.S. bankruptcy courts, which are sub-units of the districtcourts, and whose judges are not judges protected under Article III by lifetimetenure and the prohibition against diminution in salary. Rather, Congressentrusted their appointment for a renewable term of 14 years to the respectivecircuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §151; so they are Article II-appointed judgesthat serve in an Article I legislative court.
10. OtherArticle I courts are the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, whichreviews decisions of the agency-like Board of Veterans Appeals, 38 U.S.C. §§7251et seq.; and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which adjudicates claims againstthe U.S., 28 U.S.C. §171.
11. Withinfederal departments and offices, there are also administrative tribunals andagencies that are quasi-judicial bodies. Among them are:
a. the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, theagency in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that hears appeals fromdecisions on entitlements to veterans’ benefits;
b. the Merit System Protection Board, anagency that hears appeals from decisions taken against federal employees bytheir respective employing federal entities;
c. the Board of Immigration Appeals,which hears appeals from decisions of the Immigration and NaturalizationService;
d. the Board of Patent Appeals andInterferences, which hears appeals from decisions of the U.S. Patent andTrademark Office.
12. The mistaken NAPRA term “Article IIIAgency Courts” conflates Article III courts, such as the district,circuit, and supreme courts, with administrative tribunals, agencies, andcourts set up under Article I, whose decisions are appealed to Article IIIcourts.
13. What is “known” is‘the domestic relations and probate exception to diversity jurisdiction’ in thefederal courts. It originates in the tradition – in neither the Constitutionnor statute– of leaving these matters to state courts. Consequently, federalcourts:
a. may not hear cases involving divorce,alimony, or child custody (as stated in, and reaffirmed since, In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594(1890)); and
b. may not probate wills or administerestates (In re Broaderick’s Will, 88U.S. (21 Wall.) 503 (1875); Markham,Allen Property Custodian v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1945). In Marshall v. Marshall, 126 S. Ct. 1735(2006), the case involving Former Playboy Centerfold Model Anna Nicole Smith,Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, stated at 1748:
Thus, the probate exception reserves to state probate courtsthe probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’sestate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose ofproperty that is in the custody of a state probate court.
14. Whenan organization shows that it has a mistaken understanding of the terms in itsname, it renders suspect everything that it states or does thereunder. NAPRA’sconfusion about courts, agencies, and jurisdiction detracts from itscredibility, image of competence, and basic knowledge of its field.
15. Itsabove-mentioned letter and agenda contain many other similar, grave mistakes ofsubstance and grammar. They should be withdrawn from its members; they shouldnot be submitted either to Congress or the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ).They will not attract their attention or command their respect. They can onlyinflict a reputational harm on NAPRA.
16. Whatfollows illustrates what I can do for you, the NAPRA “grassroots coalition ofnon-profit and other volunteer organizations dedicated to helping families…whohave been victimized…in probate courts”, and other advocates of honest judiciaries andtheir respective organizations and initiatives. You and they may obtain myconsulting, drafting, and advocacy services on retainer.
B.Why letters sent by the thousands to AGs and Speakers end up shredded
17. A letterdevoid of facts, illustrative cases, and analysis has no informative value.
18. A conclusoryone consisting of sweeping generalizations accusing of corruption every probatecourt, judge, lawyer, and estate administrator in the country can hardly beconvincing.
19. Whereit ignores that a search warrant must be applied for by an officer showing probablecause for a reasonable impartial observer to believe on objective, factualgrounds that there is criminal activity; and disregards the risk of suits forabuse of power and defamation, but demands an unfocused investigation startinganywhere and covering the 50 states, it can scarcely be persuasive.
20. Lettersof such tenor are only a cry of pain from disappointed expectations in dealingswith others.
21. Thousandsof them are sent to the Attorney General (AG) and the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives by those with, as you put it, “hundreds of thousands of stories not only in Colorado,but across America”. Neitherthe AG nor the Speaker has time to read all of them.
22. Norcan they be reasonably expected simply to read one and order a full blowninvestigation of the alleged problem decried therein or even refer each to thecompetent officer for review by his office. That requires a letter to reach aminimum level of credibility, harm, and potential benefit. Thus, the AG and theSpeaker silence most hurt criers by simply shredding their letters.
C.An application composed of a pithy cover letter, a statement of the problem, andsome key supporting materials
23. A one-pagecover letter can be drafted that pithily arguesyour case for action on a problem affectinga large constituency(cf. *>ol:362). Toincrease the chance of anybody reading that cover letter, it should becontained on one single side of a page, with your signature appearing there (Lsch:1). This lets the reader know at a glance that thewriter is not a rambler, but rather a realistic person aware of the reader’slimited time so that if she reads what is in front of her eyes she will get agood enough idea to decide what action to take: Less text is more likelyto be read.
* All (bluetext references) herein are keyed to my study of judges and theirjudiciaries, titled and downloadable as follows. There such references areactive internal hyperlinks. By clicking on them, you can effortlessly bring upto your screen the referred-to supporting and additional information, thusfacilitating substantially your checking it:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting*
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting*
* Judicial-Discipline-Reform.
If these links do notdownload the file in the most widely used browser, i.e., Internet Explorer,download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first linkabove into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which hasover 850 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using theother links and then the other browser:
Google Chrome: https:// www.g oogle.com/chrome/
or
Mozilla-Firefox: https:// support.mozil la.org/en-US/products/firefox/
24. The lettershould be accompanied by a 6 to 9-page statement of facts, analysis, and proposalfor concrete, realistic, and feasible action(ol:255). It should have 2-4 key supporting materials attachedto it and others referred to in footnotes to show the depth of your knowledge,the breadth of the problem beyond your personal experience of it, and your researchof the literature on it.
25. This three-partset will constitute an application, highly professional in substance, grammar,and appearance. It will result from strategic thinking(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E). This requires a keen understanding ofthe circumstances enabling the problem and the harmonious and conflictinginterests competing for maintaining things as theyare or changing them.
26. So, it should emphasizethe benefits that the addressee of the letter or his or her boss, e.g., the AG,the President, or a party, will derive from taking the requested action. Tothat end, a strategy shouldbe outlined for exposing the problem and bringing about reform through thepinpoint, cost-efficient investigation of one or two test cases(ol:191§§A,B).
27. Ifthe applicant is a group, such as the NAPRA “grassroots coalition”, its member entities should be identifiedto show that a sizable constituency can have an appreciable political impact ifthe requested action is or is not taken.
28. Itfollows that the application must present an informative, convincing, andpersuasive argument for the requested action; otherwise, it will be shredded.It must make you, the applicant, stand out of the pack of hurt criers andportray you as a professional knowledgeable about the problem’s causes; theparties and their interests against and for action based on subjective andobjective considerations, such as their values and prejudices and their educationand wealth; obstacles to and opportunities for action; with a realistic cost-benefitanalysis and sense of magnitudes (any talk about $100 trillion casts doubt onthe talker’s grasp of what $1 trillion is and everything else).
D. The addressee: the officer likely to read and act on theletter
29. No AG or Speaker opens the correspondenceaddressed to her. No top officer ever does. All correspondence is opened by lowlevel officers who visually scan it, get some idea of its subject matter, and sendit on to the office that they think will be able to handle it. In that office,nobody will feel bound to take ownership of the letter because it was notaddressed to anybody there.
30. Nor does the top officer take the call ofeverybody who writes her. When a sender calls to inquire about his letter, hewill reach only an operator or assistant, who will try to guess who would handlea similar one. Even so, he will be transferred to a lower office and likely onand on. Writing to the AG or the Speaker is ineffective: protocol that losessight of procedure in practice.
31. Strategicthinking makes it much more advisable to identify the chief of the specific officewithin the addressee entity who will actually decide whether to consider yourapplication further or shred it. You have to give that officer a motive to useyour application to advance his or her noble or pet interests…for nobody worksas hard as when they work for themselves.
32. Thus,the application should be addressed to the chief of the DoJ-FBI bureau oroffice, andthe chairperson and the ranking member(jur:70fn132f)of the congressional committee with jurisdiction over the problem’s subjectmatter, and to the committee members, particularly those who introduced or are sponsoringa bill somehow related to your problem(jur:77fn158b).Those are the officers likely to read the application and decide what to dowith it (hereinafter the office or officers).
33. Identifyingthose officers requires research: of the addressee entity; its hierarchical‘tree’ of offices and assigned subject matters; and what the officers havewritten or stated in speeches about their mission or policy in harmony withthose of the AG, the President, or their party.
34. Theopening paragraph of the cover letter and the introduction of the statement canquote a pertinent sentence or term of that ‘inside information’ as a bridge betweenthe officer and a brief mention of the applicant’s proposal; their lastparagraph can circle back to it for supportive association with the action askedof the officer to start implementing the proposal(jur:81fn167b;ol:215).
35. Indeed, the officer must be persuaded to commitsome of his limited manpower and investigative resources to problem expositiveand reformative action. He must be convinced that by so doing, he can advancehis own project or career rather than put them at risk, and bring a publicrelations benefit to his boss or party because a large constituency of voterswill gain from his action(cf. ol: 311¶1).
36. In government, every decision is political.After all, elected and appointed officials are there to serve those who mayreelect them, rather than comfort every crier with a personal story. Whetherthe officer proceeds opportunistically or on principle, if he does what yourequested him to do or something in that vein, you obtain a positive resultfrom your application to him.
E. Taking the initiative to prosecute and argue theapplication live
37. On the first Monday at least ten days aftermailing the application, at 9:00 a.m. (as opposed to Friday at 4:59 p.m.), theapplicant will know the name and office of the officer who probably has read atleast the cover letter and who can reasonably be asked to take the call. If an assistantanswers it, she may have read it or know the colleague who is likely to havebeen assigned the type of letter described by the applicant in a well-rehearsedone sentence pithily stating the problem and his request for action(cf. ¶27 infra). No rambling!
38. The applicant’s first goal is to talk then or atan appointed time with the officer who has actually read his application andhas ownership of it, and get her feedback. But he must also endeavor to talkwith the officer with the authority to shred it or order further review by heroffice and even recommend it to her boss for adoption as an institutionalproject or to the committee for holding hearings on it.
39. All along, the applicant should offer to argue his case live via video conferenceor in person because a face to face presentation will allow him to talk toseveral people simultaneously, address their concerns, detect who is apotential ally and foe, and adjust his strategy and argument accordingly.
41. I am willing to discuss your, the NAPRA coalition’s,and other advocates’ retaining my services. You and they may share and postthis letter widely.
So I look forward tohearing from you all.
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York CityDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon
ww w.linkedi n.com/pub/dr-ric
.
NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr.Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the abovebloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as toenhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of thoseaddresses.
NOTE 2: Listen to Dr. Cordero’spresentation on judges’ wrongdoing and its exposure through a series ofconcrete, realistic, and feasible actions in the context of the presidentialcampaign, at (eliminate the blank spaces within the links below and then clickon the link):
http:// Judicial-Discipline-Reform.
The outline of the presentationis at * >ol:350:
* http:// Judicial-Discipline-Reform.
******************************
Hi All,
Please read the two attachments and fill out the short forms (self explanatory). As you know, Luanne, Cliff and Robin are all organizing members of NAPRA so this is a collective effort. Return to me ASAP so that when we are lobbying we have these citizen's support documents. I have streamlined the process to ensure results!--
Athena Roe, J.D.,
President of The National Association for Probate Reform and Advocacy
Hi
Member Bristol's Who's Who in America available at:
Member: National Association of Consumer Advocates
Lobbyist (State)
Cell: (719) 502-0798
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.