NOTE: If in spite of my effort to circumvent the glitch that creates “joinedwords”, this email, saved in HTML, has them, kindly overlook them and let me know.
Thinking strategically and collaborating realistically
to take advantage of
voters’ dissatisfaction with the Establishment and
the two main parties’ capacity to accommodate novel and divergent factions
by arranging presentations
to the presidential candidates and others
aimed to make judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
a key issue of Election 2016
to take advantage of
voters’ dissatisfaction with the Establishment and
the two main parties’ capacity to accommodate novel and divergent factions
by arranging presentations
to the presidential candidates and others
aimed to make judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
a key issue of Election 2016
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Dear Att. Crenshaw, Att. Ostrowski, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
In your recent emails you wrote respectively:
In the spirit of developing a party platform, I must emphasize that I have several friends and business acquaintances who are accomplished establishment lawyers or law professors….I submit that it is the lack of reasonable coordination, cooperation, and support between these two camps that destine us to remain on the fringe of public policy debate and reform more than anything else…I’m hearkening back to our need to collaborate, coordinate, and strategically challenge persistent U.S. legal system abuse (emphasis in the original).
During my campaign, I talked about these issues [with] media and party operatives...the Scranton Times editorial board [and] a national group that supports independents….
A. The strategy of forming a team and holding presentations to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform
1. In the spirit of thinking and proceeding “strategically”, and curing the “lack of reasonable coordination, cooperation, and support between” us, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, I would like to request that you put me in touch with those with whom you ‘emphasized’ you have a relationship, namely, “several friends and business acquaintances who are accomplished establishment lawyers or law professors”.
2. I am trying to:
a. form a team of professionals, including graduate students and journalists,(*>jur:128§4), in order to conduct a multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§1) aimed at judicial wrongdoing(jur:5§3) exposure and reform(jur:158§§6-8), and want to make ‘recruiting’ presentations(*>ol:197§G) thereon to them; and
b. network through colleagues and acquaintances and those of them so that they may arrange my holding a presentation to any and each of the presidential candidates, or more realistically their respective campaign manager and campaign strategist, on how(*>ol: 311, 362) they can draw electoral support from the huge(ol:311¶1) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems, who form part of an electorate dominated by The Dissatisfied With The Establishment –just as Donald Trump has untapped a bloc of millions of blue collar people who had never before voted –.
* See my study of judges and their judiciary, which is titled and downloadable as follows:
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*
B. Making the presentations appeal to the presidential candidates’ political interests and journalists’ personal and commercial interests
3. These presentations will apply strategic thinking(*>Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E) to pursue judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform. One of its principles is “nobody works as hard as when they work for themselves”. So the presentations will give presidential candidates and other campaigners advice on how they can advance their own interests rather than ask them to help our cause. They will assume on their part no interest in ensuring honest judiciaries, only in:
a. being elected, for which they need to attract known and untapped voting blocs; and
b. setting in motion a process whereby the largest number of judges are impeached or forced to resign for having failed to abide by the injunction of their own Code of Conduct Canon 2(jur:68fn123a) to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”.
1) This failure forced U.S. Justice Abe Fortas to resign on May 14, 1969(jur:92§d).
2) The new president and his or her party will be able to nominate and confirm the largest number of federal judges. The latter will be handpicked to support their appointers’ legislative agenda if challenged; and their life tenure will allow them to continue to do so for a generation. This will amount to “packing the court”, what President Roosevelt failed to do after a conservative Supreme Court stroke down as unconstitutional one after another of his New Deal laws(jur:23fn17a).
3) All politicians, and especially presidential candidates and presidents, can be deemed most interested in any means that holds out the prospect of having their legislative agenda upheld by the courts: Where would Obamacare, the President’s signature legislature, be if the Supreme Court had held it to be unconstitutional?
4. On the part of the journalists and media outlets covering the presidential candidates, the presentations will only assume their personal and professional interest in winning a Pulitzer Prize and the commercial interest in revealing and reporting on a judges’ wrongdoing scandal because “scandal sells copy”, which grows their audience and increases their advertisement income.
C. Advocates’ strategic need to turn presidential candidates and journalists into their ‘friends’ against their common ‘enemy’, the judges
5. The above strategy is the product of another strategic thinking principle: The enemy of my enemy is my friend and I will contribute to strengthening his capacity to defeat our common enemy.
1. Presidential candidates can cause an issue to be reported nationally
6. No advocate individually, not even all of us collectively, can bring to the attention of the national public the issue of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, and cause such profound public outrage as to insert that issue into the national debate and launch its investigation by the media or the authorities, i.e., Congress, DoJ-FBI, and their state counterparts.
7. But a presidential candidate can. Through one single denunciation(jur:98§3; jur:xlviii) of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:5§3) in general –as opposed to exposing any wrongdoing judge in particular–, a candidate can set the journalists covering him or her to a fact-checking mode that gives rise to a media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing, a Watergate-like generalized one because on competitive grounds no media outlet can afford not to jump on the scandal investigative bandwagon.
8. An investigation of judges’ wrongdoing is realistic if neither the media nor the authorities are asked to ‘go out there and investigate thousands of judges’, but instead are led to pinpointedly and cost-efficiently investigate(ol:194§E) the two unique national stories of President Obama- Justice Sotomayor and the Federal Judiciary-NSA(ol:190§§A,B).
9. These stories can operate as Trojan horses into the circumstances of:
a. unaccountability(jur:21§§a-d),
b. risklessness(10-14),
c. secrecy (27§e),
d. money(27§2), and
e. coordination(88§§a-c)
that condition the means, motive, and opportunity of judges’ wrongdoing and enable it to be so routine, widespread, and grave as to function as their and their judiciaries’ institutionalized modus operandi(49§4).
10. The revelation of a never-ending series of instances of wrongdoing and of the systemic nature of wrongdoing will provoke an ever intensifying scandal, emboldening more and more professional and citizen journalists to investigate, and insiders to become whistleblowers and Deep Throat(jur:106§C) informants, and to extend their investigation to the state judiciaries.
2. Advocates cannot create a party or cause legislators to investigate ‘their’ judges
11. By contrast, there is no realistic chance that advocates can form a party or movement between now and the nominating conventions this summer to turn the issue of unaccountable judges’ riskless wrongdoing into a dominating one of the election in November. Advocates cannot even field enough candidates. Presumptive presidential nominees, though supported by millions of voters and donors and their parties’ experienced national and local machinery, find it a serious logistical, financial, and manpower challenge to build a campaign in each of the 50 states.
12. It is also unrealistic to expect enough candidates to be elected to force the other legislators to dis-cuss, let alone vote on, investigating the very judges that they recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed, and supported in their races, to judgeships and justiceships. To expect them to turn against ‘their men and women on the bench’ betrays a faulty understanding of the in-the-same-boat appointers-appointees relation, and a conceited idea about one’s powers of per-suasion and messianic role in overturning the merchants of influence in the temple of injustice.
13. Considering the formation of a party for more than a nanosecond shows disregard for the fact that for over 245 years our country has been dominated by only two parties…which accommodate a wide spectrum of views, including the novel ones of Trump and Sanders. Not even the Tea Party became a third party.
14. What Att. Ostrowski rightly said about the difficulty of “getting the issue of judicial reform injected into the presidential campaigns”, is even more pertinently ap-plied to forming a party: “I don’t think the prospects of that are great from a small group of ostensibly malcontent disciplined lawyers and disgruntled litigants”.
15. Forming a party is not a strategy; it is unformed wishful thinking. Hence the importance of realistically applying Att. Crenshaw’s call to “collaborate, coordinate, andstrategize” to networking our way to those candidates and the journalists covering them, all of whom have already attracted the attention of millions of voters.
D. Strategically cooperating to network with your friends for a presentation
16. We can think strategically and proceed opportunely. Now, during the remainder of Campaign 2016 and until Election Day, when voters, especially the dissatisfied, can take decisive action, we can use the forces at play to our advantage. We can make presidential candidates and journalists our unwitting and implicit ‘friends’ who can reach the national public with a message in their own interest that nevertheless advances our interest in exposing the common ‘enemy’, the judges.
17. You can proceed strategically by hedging your bets: Form a party, if you are so inclined, while affording me the access that you, Att. Crenshaw, “emphasize you have [to]friends, business acquaintances, accomplished establishment lawyers, and law professors” and that you, Att. Ostrowski, have had as a candidate to “media and party operatives…and a national group that supports independents”.
18. You can arrange for me to contact them either individually or simultaneously by organizing a presentation by me to you and them at a video conference or in person. So you can share this email with them.
19. I look forward to hearing from you.
20. Time is of the essence.
Dare trigger history(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.