Sunday, December 18, 2016

How you can demand that P-e. Trump does not shirk from draining the swamp of the Federal Judiciary

Editor's note: This Shark is aware that the FBI has had numerous complaints about the criminal conduct of the Probate Court of Cook County and its supporters.  Your Probate Shark encourages all victims to make written reports to the local FBI Office of Public Corruption.  Just as soon as the new A.G. takes his oath send copies of your complaints to his Washington office.  When enough victims and their families make reports action will be taken.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster,

Re: How  you  can  demand  that  P-e.  Trump  does  not  shirk  from  draining  the  swamp  of  the  Federal  Judiciary,  the  Establishment  by  definition
NOTE:  If  in  spite  of  all  the  effort  to  circumvent  the  ‘glitch’  in  word  processing  or  emailing  software  that  creates  “joinedwords”  in  my  emails(>ol2:426§C),  this  email  has  them,  kindly  overlook  them  and  let  me  know  at  and
Federal  judges  with  life-tenure  are  
the  Establishment  by  definition
Will  President-elect  Trump  
drain  the  judicial  swamp
let  it  fester
on  the  advice  of  the  Establishment  insiders  that
he  is  bringing  into  the  White  House  and  his  cabinet  and
to  avoid  judges’  retaliation  against  
his  70  pending  business  lawsuits,
thus  leaving  exposed  to  judges’  continued  abuse
The  Dissatisfied  With  The  Establishment  and  
the  rest  of  We  the  People?
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
This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Visit  the  website  at,  and  subscribe  to  its  series  of  letters  and  articles  thus:>  +  New  or  Users  >Add  New
1.  President-elect  Trump  has  stated  that  what  follows  in  importance  a  president’s  declaration  of  war  is  a  Supreme  Court  nomination.  
2.  Indeed,  until  the  Court  upholds  the  constitutionality  of  a  law,  it  is  little  more  than  a  set  of  wishful  guidelines  envisaged  by  the  535  members  of  Congress  and  the  president  and  expressed  in  black  ink  on  white  paper.  Where  would  Obamacare  be  today  if  the  Court  had  held  it  unconstitutional?  In  a  footnote  in  the  chronicles  of  the  Obama  presidency.
3.  P-e  Trump  also  campaigned  on  the  promise  “to  drain  the  swamp  of  corruption  of  Washington  insiders”.  The  latter  constitute  the  Establishment.  He  accused  Sec.  Clinton  of  being  its  representative  so  that  if  she  won  the  presidential  election,  she  would  protect  the  swamp  and  its  corruption  would  continue  festering.  
4.  It  stills  festers  although  in  2006,  Democratic  Representative  Nancy  Pelosi,  before  becoming  Speaker  of  the  House,  famously  declared  that  “Washington  is  dominated  by  the  culture  of  corruption”  and  vowed  “to  drain  the  swamp”(*>jur:23fn16).  She  miserably  failed  to  do  so  because  she  was  part  of  the  Establishment.
5.  By  contrast,  P-e  Trump  is  an  outsider.  He  is  not  tied,  and  does  not  owe  his  election,  to  Establishment  members.  Far  from  it,  those  who  got  him  elected  are  precisely  The  Dissatisfied  With  The  Establishment.  
6.  However,  in  light  of  his  nomination  of  Washington  insiders  for  his  White  House  and  cabinet,  how  concerned  should  The  Dissatisfied  be  about  his  becoming  domesticated  on  those  insiders’  advice  to  the  Washington  ways  so  as  to  become  used  to  the  continued  festering  of  the  swamp,  in  general,  and  its  most  harmful  portion,  the  judicial  swamp,  in  particular?

A.  The  abused  powers  that  generate  the  judicial  swamp

“Power  corrupts,  and  absolute  power  corrupts  absolutely”.  Lord  Acton,  Letter  to  Bishop  Mandell  Creighton,  April  3,  1887.
7.  The  status  of  unaccountability  is  at  the  source  of  the  capacity  to  turn  power  into  absolute  power  that  ends  up  forming  a  swamp  of  corruption.

1.  Judges’  power  to  stay  established:  life-appointment  and  irremovability  in  practice

8.  Federal  judges  are  appointed  for  life.  Worse  yet,  they  are  irremovable  in  effect:  While  2,293  federal  judges  were  in  office  on  30sep15,  in  the  last  227  years  since  the  creation  of  the  Federal  Judiciary  in  1789,  the  number  of  them  impeached  and  removed  is  8!(*>jur:21§1).  
The  above  statistics  originate  in  the  official  ones  that  the  Federal  Judiciary  must  submit  by  law(28  USC  §604(d)(3);  (h)(2);  *>jur:26fn23a)  ,  to  Congress  every  year.  They  are  analyzed  in  my  study  of  judges’  performance  in  practice  as  opposed  to  as  prescribed  on  rules  printed  on  paper.  It  is  titled  and  downloadable  thus:
Exposing  Judges’  Unaccountability  and  
Consequent  Riskless  Wrongdoing:
 Pioneering  the  news  and  publishing  field  of  
judicial  unaccountability  reporting
.  *
*  Vol.  1:  >all  prefixes:page#  up  to  ol:393
All  the  materials  corresponding  to  the  (blue  text  references)  herein  are  found  in  that  study.
9.  Several  justices  have  been  on  the  Supreme  Court  for  around  25  years,  such  as  JJ.  Thomas  (29),  Kennedy  (28),  Ginsburg  (23),  and  Breyer  (22).  J.  Scalia  was  in  office  for  30  years.  That  does  not  count  at  all  the  years  that  they  spent  in  the  circuit  and  district  courts.  
10.  For  instance,  while  J.  Sotomayor  has  been  on  the  Supreme  Court  only  since  2009,  she  has  been  in  the  Federal  Judiciary  since  1992,  when  she  was  appointed  a  federal  district  court,  followed  by  her  appointment  in  1998  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit.  Hence,  she  has  already  been  in  the  judicial  Establishment  for  24  years.
11.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Federal  Judiciary  is  the  quintessential  Establishment.  Its  judges  are  established  in  power  forever  no  matter  the  quality  or  quantity  of  their  performance  or  conduct.

2.  The  power  of  connivance  between  appointing-politicians  and  their  appointed  judges

12.  Federal  judges  are  recommended,  endorsed,  nominated,  and  confirmed  by  politicians.  For  the  latter,  judges  are  “our  men  and  women  on  the  bench”.  They  stand  in  an  appointer-appointee  relation(ol2:488¶¶3-6).  
13.  Politicians  hold  judges  unaccountable  in  the  expectation  that  they  will  hold  the  laws  of  their  legislative  agenda  constitutional(jur:23fn17a)  and  not  retaliate(Lsch:17§C)  against  the  thousands  of  lawsuits  that  the  government  files  every  year.  
14.  The  relation  of  power  between  these  branches  is  out  of  balance,  but  only  due  to  pragmatic  considerations,  not  because  the  Constitution  holds  the  Judiciary  superior  to  the  other  branches.  Far  from  it.  Nevertheless,  the  result  is  that  judges  neither  fear  nor  respect  politicians.

3.  Judges’  vast  power  of  the  office

15.  Judges  act  as  a  standing  constitutional  convention,  for  they  give  content  to  the  mere  labels  of  the  Constitution(jur:22fn12b),  such  as  “freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  the  press”,  “due  process”,  “equal  protection  of  the  law”.  They  even  read  into  it  new  rights  never  imagined  hundreds  of  years  ago  by  a  rural,  religious,  and  mostly  illiterate  society  and  even  diametrically  opposite  to  its  beliefs.
16.  Judges  interpret  the  meaning  and  scope  of  application  of  every  law.  By  exercising  that  power  in  its  many  forms(ol:267§4),  they  dispose  of  the  property,  liberty,  life,  and  all  the  rights  and  duties  that  shape  what  people  can  and  cannot  do  from  before  their  birth,  throughout  their  lives,  and  after  their  death(jur:25fn25,  26).
17.  Judges  abuse  their  power  by  the  way  they  make  decisions:  The  analysis  of  their  official  statistics  shows  that  the  12  federal  regional  circuit  courts  dispose  of  93%  of  appeals  in  decisions  “on  procedural  grounds,  by  consolidation,  unpublished,  unsigned,  without  comment”.  They  are  so  perfunctory  that  the  majority  of  them  are  issued  on  a  5¢  summary  order  form  and/or  marked  “not  precedential”(ol2:453),  mere  ad  hoc,  arbitrary,  reasonless  fiats  of  the  judicial  swamp.
18.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  individually  and  collectively  judges  wield  the  broadest,  farthest-reach-ing,  and  most  substantial  power  of  any  public  officer,  including  the  most  corruptive:  the  power  'to  tell  what  is  good  and  evil'  in  the  contemplation  of  the  law,  that  is,  what  is  legal  and  illegal.

4.  Judges’  power  to  grab  benefits  

19.  Judges  abuse  their  power  to  grab  the  social,  material,  and  personal  benefits  within  their  reach(ol:173¶93)  and  for  sheer  convenience.  
20.  The  opportunity  to  use  power  to  grab  can  hardly  be  passed  up  under  the  influence  of  the  most  insidious  corruptor:  money!,  lots  of  money!  In  the  calendar  year  2010,  the  bankruptcy  judges  alone  ruled  on  the  $373  billion  at  stake  in  only  personal  bankruptcies(jur:27§2).  The  only  ones  watching  with  power  to  do  anything  about  its  disposition  were  the  circuit  judges  who  had  appointed  them  and  they  and  the  district  judges  who  could  remove  them(jur:43fn61a).  With  them  as  their  overseers,  bankruptcy  judges  could  do  just  about  anything,  except  being  too  greedy  and  ungrateful.  
21.  In  addition,  there  is  all  the  money  subject  to  judges’  decisions  in  probate  matters,  contracts,  alimony,  mergers  &  acquisition,  taxes,  product  liability,  initial  public  offers,  etc.

5.  Judges’  power  to  grow  well-connected

22.  The  arguments  that  militate  in  support  of  the  two-term  limit  for  holding  the  presidency,  and  of  P-e  Trump’s  promise  to  push  for  legislation  limiting  the  number  of  terms  for  members  of  Congress  apply  to  judges  too:  The  longer  a  person  serves  in  public  office,  the  more  entitled  they  feel  and  the  more  their  public  office  becomes  their  personal  one.  
23.  That  feeling  of  entitlement  is  exacerbated  for  federal  judges,  who  do  not  have  to  run  for  reelection  and  need  not  fear  in  reality  being  removed.  They  and  their  public  office  become  one  and  the  same.
24.  Moreover,  as  public  officers  deal  with  ever  more  people,  they  become  ever  more  powerful  through  the  IOUs  that  they  have  collected  from  people  who  needed  their  help;  and  the  more  indebted  they  become  to  others  whose  help  they  needed  to  get  their  way.  Hence,  to  an  ever  greater  extent  they  move  from  doing  the  public’s  business  to  ‘dealing  for  their  own  account’.  

6.  Judges’  power  of  camaraderie  

25.  To  be  in  good  standing  with  the  other  judges,  a  judge  only  needs  to  engage  in  knowing  indifference  and  willful  ignorance  or  blindness,  which  are  forms  of  culpably  looking  the  other  way(jur:88§§a-c)  and  carrying  on  as  if  nothing  had  happened  or  will  happen.  
‘Keep  your  mouth  shut  about  what  I  and  the  other  judges  did  or  are  about  to  do,  and  you  can  enjoy  our  friendship.’
‘I  will  protect  you  today  against  this  complaint  and  tomorrow  you  will  protect  me  or  my  friends  when  we  are  the  target  of  a  complaint’.
26.  That  is  how  judges  implicitly  or  explicitly  ensure  for  decades  their  social  acceptance  and  their  self-preservation  through  reciprocal  protection.  They  know  from  the  historical  record  that  nobody  will  charge  them  with  accessorial  liability  after  the  fact  that  they  kept  quiet  about  or  covered  up,  and  before  the  fact  of  the  next  wrongful  act  that  they  encouraged  others  to  do  with  their  promise  of  passive  silence  or  active  cover-up.
27.  By  contrast,  a  judge  who  dared  expose  another  judge’s  wrongdoing  would  be  deemed  by  all  the  other  judges  an  unreliable  traitor  and  cast  out  their  social  circle  and  activities  as  a  pariah.  
28.  Such  interdependent  security(Lsch:16§1)  gives  rise  to  the  judicial  class  mentality.  It  is  similar  to  that  found  among  police  officers,  doctors,  priests,  sports  teams,  sororities  and  fraternities,  etc.  It  trades  integrity  for  the  benefits  of  membership.
29.  The  more  time  judges  spend  in  the  Judiciary,  the  more  they  transition  from  peers  to  colleagues,  to  members,  to  friends,  and  to  co-conspirators(ol:166§§C,  D).  So  instead  of  administering  justice  to  We  the  People,  they  run  their  swamp  as  a  private  enterprise  to  make  it  ever  more  profitable,  efficient,  and  secure  for  themselves.

7.  Judges’  power  to  self-discipline  

30.  In  its  Article  III,  the  Constitution  only  creates  the  Supreme  Court.  All  lower  courts  thereunder  are  created  by  Congress,  which  can  also  create  tribunal-like  administrative  agencies  under  Art.  II,  Sec.  8;  and  appoint  judges  directly  or  by  delegation  under  Art.  II,  Sec.  2.  
31.  The  Constitution  does  not  grant  judges,  not  even  those  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  power  to  determine  themselves  what  constitutes  “good  Behaviour”  during  which  they  can  “hold  their  Offices”.  Yet,  politicians  have  relinquished  that  significant  ‘check  and  balance’  to  the  judges  by  allowing  them  to  exercise  the  power  of  self-disciplining(jur:21§1).
32.  With  the  connivance  of  politicians,  judges  abuse  that  power  by  dismissing  99.82%(jur:10-14)  of  complaints  against  them  filed  by  parties  to  cases  and  any  other  members  of  the  People,  as  well  as  denying  up  to  100%  of  petitions  to  review  those  dismissals(jur:24§§b-d).  
33.  The  relation  of  political  protectors-judicial  protégés  is  anathema  to  the  objective  analysis  of  complaints  against  judges  and  the  fair  and  impartial  treatment  of  complainants.  That  is  why  judges  have  no  inhibitions  about  abusing  their  self-disciplining  power  to  arrogate  to  themselves  self-exemption  from  liability.
34.  Complainants  have  no  other  source  of  relief.  They  are  left  to  bob  with  their  complained  about  harm  in  the  middle  of  the  swamp.

8.  Judges’  power  to  show  contempt  for  We  the  People  and  our  representatives

35.  We  the  People,  the  masters  in  “government  of,  by,  and  for  the  people”(jur:82fn172),  hired  judges  as  their  public  servants  to  deliver  the  service  of  administering  justice  according  to  the  rule  of  law.  
36.  But  judges  need  not  serve  the  People  to  stay  established  in  office.  Voters  neither  elect  nor  reelect  federal  judges.  Judges  stay  even  when  they  disserve  the  People.  There  is  no  downside  to  disservice,  for  they  can  neither  be  demoted  nor  have  their  salary  reduced.
37.  To  enjoy  their  lifelong  stay  on  the  bench,  judges  only  need  to  serve  their  constituency:  each  other.  If  they  stand  together,  nobody  can  bring  them  down...unless  their  swamp  is  drained  through  exposure,  as  proposed  below.

9.  The  power  to  retaliate

38.  Judges’  power  to  retaliate  is  not  limited  to  declaring  each  of  the  pieces  of  a  president’s  or  party’s  legislative  agenda  unconstitutional.  
39.  Judges  have  a  panoply  of  ways  to  engage  in  chicanery:  They  can:
a.  sign  search  and  seizure  warrants  broader  than  they  should  be,  narrow  them  or  refuse  to  sign  them  altogether;
b.  grant,  deny,  or  impose  punitive,  bail;
c.  admit  or  exclude  evidence,  evidentiary  and  expert  witnesses,  and  their  testimony;
d.  uphold  or  overrule  objections  and  raise  others  on  their  own  motion;
e.  cause  documents’  docket  entry  dates  to  be  moved  forward  or  backward;
f.  lose  and  misplace  documents  and  make  them  reappear  at  will;
g.  meet  with  some  parties  in  the  absence  of  other  parties;
h.  grant  or  deny  the  sealing  and  unsealing  of  documents  and  leak,  or  profit  from,  sealed  information;
i.  grant  or  deny  hearings  and  leave  to  appeal;
j.  ignore  or  grant  more  or  less  than  the  relief  requested;
k.  enter  judgment  consonant  with  or  notwithstanding  the  verdict;
j.  grant  a  reduction  or  increase  in  the  amount  of  compensation;  etc.(Lsch:17§C)
40.  But  judges’  power  of  retaliation  has  one  important  limit:  They  cannot  retaliate  simultaneously  against  a  large  number  of  professional  and  citizen  journalists  participating  in  a  concerted  effort  to  drain  their  swamp  through  investigation  and  exposure,  especially  if  the  effort  was  launched  by  the  president  to  deliver  on  a  campaign  promise.  Such  massive  retaliation  would  unmask  their  actions  as  coordinated  abuse  of  power  to  conceal  their  liability  for,  and  preserve,  their  swamp  benefits.

B.  Judges  unaccountability  is  the  key  corruptive  component  of  the  judicial  swamp

41.  Unaccountability  is  the  attribute  that  distinguishes  judges  individually  as  public  officers  and  collectively  as  a  class,  the  judicial  class,  a  privileged  one.  Their  privilege  is  at  once  the  source  and  the  result  of  their  powers,  which  they  leverage  to  preserve  and  exploit  their  privilege  by  adopting  a  black  robe  first  mentality  and  letting  it  guide  their  professional  and  personal  “Behaviour”.
42.  Judges’  privilege  is  the  product  of  corruptive  components:  
a.  a  sense  of  entitlement  to  their  office  for  life;  
b.  the  assurance  of  being  held  unaccountable  by  others  and  the  capacity  to  assure  themselves  their  self-exemption  from  discipline,  never  mind  liability  to  others,  which  give  rise  to  a  sense  and  the  reality  of  impunity;  and  
c.  the  most  corruptive  of  all  powers:  the  power  to  decide  what  is  lawful  or  unlawful  and  thereby  make  anything  either  right  or  wrong...or  simply  go  away.  
43.  People  are  not  merely  elevated  to  the  federal  bench.  Because  they  are  allowed,  and  manage,  to  do  from  there  whatever  they  want  without  being  worried  about  its  adverse  consequences  regardless  of  the  nature  and  quality  of  their  behavior  and  performance,  they  are  given  access  to  a  status  that  no  person  is  entitled  to  receive  or  grab  in  ‘government,  not  of  men  and  women,  but  by  the  rule  of  law’(ol:5fn6):  Public  Servants  Above  their  Masters  –We  the  People-  and  their  Law.  
44.  Conferring  a  federal  judgeship  amounts  to  issuing  a  license  to  engage  in  wrongdoing  for  profit  as  a  member  of  an  independent,  sovereign,  and  most  powerful  corrupt  organization.  Since  P-e  Trump  wants  to  drain  the  Establishment  swamp,  he  must  begin  by  draining  the  one  that  dominates  it:  the  judicial  swamp.

C.  P-e  Trump’s  first  step:  a  press  conference  to  call  on  the  public  and  the  media  to  expose  the  corruptive  judicial  powers  and  the  resulting  swamp

45.  P-e  Trump  can  call  a  press  conference(ol2:489¶¶10-11)  to  declare  that  the  system  of  justice  that  he  accused  of  being  rigged  in  favor  of  Sec.  Clinton  is  actually  rigged  against  We  the  People(ol2:  437¶4),  constituting  a  key  portion  of  the  Establishment  swamp,  so  that  as  a  prerequisite  to  nominating  J.  Scalia’s  successor  and  ushering  in  a  fair  and  impartial  system,  the  depth  of  its  corruption  must  be  plumbed.  He  can  thus  become  the  People’s  Champion  of  Justice.  
46.  In  that  vein,  P-e  Trump  can:
a.  make  an  Emile  Zola-like  I  accuse!(jur:98§2)  denunciation  of  politicians/judges’  connivance;  
b.  ask  the  public  to  submit  their  judicial  complaints(ol:311¶2;  362¶4)  and  the  decisions  of  the  judges  in  their  cases(ol:274,  304)  to  his  website  for  the  public  to  examine  them  in  search  of  the  most  persuasive  evidence:  commonalities  forming  patterns  of  wrongdoing;  
c.  call  on  professional  and  citizen  journalists  to  investigate  the  two  unique  national  stories(ol2:440,  480¶¶2-3)  of  President  Obama-Justice  Sotomayor  and  Federal  Judiciary-NSA.  
1)  Judges  are  required  by  their  own  Code  of  Conduct  to  “avoid  even  the  appearance  of  impropriety”(jur:68fn123a).  Therefore,  journalists  only  have  to  show,  rather  than  prove,  that  judges  appear  to  engage  in  improprieties,  never  mind  criminal  conduct,  such  as  concealing  assets  to  evade  taxes  and  launder  them  of  the  taint  of  unlawful  origin(jur:65fn107a,c).  Such  showing  will  cause  outrage  so  intense  in  the  public(ol2:461§G)  as  to  provoke  resignations  among  judges(jur:92§d);  
d.  announce  nationally  televised  hearings  on  judges’  wrongdoing  to  be  conducted  by  the  Department  of  Justice  with  the  assistance  of  the  FBI  to  expose  the  corruption’s  nature,  extent,  and  gravity,  and  determine  the  scope  of  the  needed  reform(jur:158§6-7)  
1)  This  is  as  unrealistic  and  improbable  as  other  millenial  impossibles  were  that  have  become  everyday  realities,  e.g.:
(a)  public  education  for  the  boys  of  the  poor,  even  their  daughters;  
(b)  the  extension  of  voting  to  unlanded  men  and  even  women;  
(c)  the  abolition  of  slavery;  
(d)  labor  unions  and  the  right  to  strike;  

No comments:

Post a Comment

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