Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

April 15, 2017 § Leave a comment

See the note below on “joinedwords” andinterference with the formatting of this email.

Dear Mrs. Harrold-Claessonand Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you very much for youremail and kind wish for 2017.

I in turn wish you and theorganization that you preside over, the Nordic Committee for Human Rights NKMR/NCHR – For theProtection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries- successful involvement inadvancing family rights by joining the effort both to expose unaccountable judgeswho engage risklessly in wrongdoing, and to advocate judicial reform.

To that end, I would like toencourage you to read an article that sets out how organizations inside and outsidethe U.S. can join that effort. It is at *>ol:127. I wrote it in response to a query from an organization inScotland.
Thematerials corresponding to the (bluetext references) herein are found in my study ofjudges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* †

*Volume 1: >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

†Volume 2: from ol2:394

Moreover, since you seem to befamiliar with judicial corruption in American courts, I would like to draw yourattention to a pertinent article on how pro ses as well as represented partiescan join forces to audit the writings of judges –such as their decisions- insearch of the most persuasive evidence of their wrongdoing, namely, patternsand trends of wrongdoing. It is at ol:274-283.

The tables and templates for partiesto organize the audited writings and subsequently present their findings tothird parties, such as journalists, are at ol:304-307.

Consider the window of opportunitythat is opening for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by the ascendancyof The Dissatisfied With The Establishment. They elected Trump, voted for Brexit,are supporting Far Right Populist Marie LePen in France, have developed astrong opposition to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, defeated Prime Minister Renziin Italy, have assumed a decisive role in the Spanish government, and firstmanifested themselves in the Arab Spring.

A powerful component of theDissatisfied is the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems(ol:311¶1). Imagine them joining forcesacross borders in order to create an international movement that asserts the statusof We the People as the sovereignsource of all political power and, thus, the masters who are entitled to holdall our public servants, including judicial public servants, which is what judgesare, accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

By joining forces to work towardthat objective, you and your organization could become internationallyrecognized as Champions of Justice.

To that end, I respectfully suggestthat you discuss with the members of your organization the above-mentionedarticles, and share and post the article below as widely as possible.

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:> + New or Users >Add New

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City,,,,,

NOTE: Given the interference 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 in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.

Re: How you can demand that P-e. Trump does not shirk from draining the swamp of the Federal Judiciary, whose life-tenured judges are the most established of the Establishment

NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING AND POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH IT: The formatting of this email is normal, consistent, and intended to be pleasant to the readers, rather than to be odd, disconcerting, and dissuade them from reading it.
The following are its main features; if they are otherwise, please overlook any oddity and let me know by emailing me at this bloc of addresses:,,
a. 14 point Bookman Old Style type (this NOTE is in Calibri 13) (but this parenthesis is in Bookman 12, a bit bigger than the characters in the Subject line above); and this question is in Bookman 14). Which is just big enough to be easy on your eyes?
b. normal typeface so that italics and boldface are exceptional in paragraphs and no underlining
c. headings that are boldfaced, and sequentially identified and indented in outline style
d. numbered paragraphs with justified margins
e. 6 point white space between paragraphs
f. text carefully spell-checked to ensure that there are no “joinedwords” when the email goes out.
On interference with the communications between advocates of honest judiciaries see †>ol2:426§C; and on The Dissatisfied With The Establishment see below.

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

Thisarticle 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

† Vol. 2: >from ol2:394

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


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Advocates of Honest Judiciaries at Will County Pro-se.


%d bloggers like this: