 |
This is a letter to Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich from Dr. Richard Cordero, a leader in the battle against judicial corruption.
Dr. Cordero provides evidence for Speaker Gingrich to criticize federal judges on the objective basis of their wrongdoing, and earn the attention and support of an outraged public.
Lawless America is non-partisan. If Speaker Gingrich will agree to make the government corruption a key part of his campaign, then he would have my support. Same goes for Ron Paul or anyone else.
Dear Mr. Gingrich,
You are the only presidential candidate that has shown enough courage to criticize federal judges and that commands the attention of the media and the public. I have my research on the Federal Judiciary and a proposal to show that its judges should also be criticized on the objective evidence of their wrongdoing, which unlike their “activism,†can outrage and be disapproved by a broad swath of the public of all political stripes. I offer to help you develop this key issue, which affects all Americans and can win you their gratitude and respect.
Federal judges engage in wrongdoing because they are held unaccountable by themselves, Congress – including Reps. M. Bachmann and. R. Paul– and the media. As a result, their wrongdoing is riskless, which makes it irresistible for them to grab the benefits available through it.
This follows from official statistics, such as these:
1) In the 222 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been removed from office.
2) The Judiciary has allowed its chief circuit judges to dismiss systematically 99.82% of the complaints filed against its own in the 1 oct 96 – 30 sep 08 12-year period.
3) In that period, its judicial councils –the circuits’ all-judge disciplinary bodies– denied up to 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals, as did the 2nd Circuit’s council in NY City, of which Then-Judge Sotomayor was a member.
4) In effect, the judges abrogated an Act of Congress with the latter’s consent, depriving the people of their rights thereunder as Congress watched complicitly.
5) Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders or opinions so “perfunctory†that they are neither published nor precedential, just fiats of raw judicial power.
Judges abuse their means, unaccountable power, to pursue the most corruptive motive: money!
Just in the bankruptcies filed by consumers in CY10, bankruptcy judges ruled on $373 billion.
Money is what drives the blatant concealment of assets in DeLano, a consumer bankruptcy appeal presided over by Then-Judge Sotomayor. She engaged in such concealment as part of a routine practice that has developed into a judge-run bankruptcy fraud scheme.
Indeed, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico suspected her of concealing assets of her own despite her duty to disclose.
While 1.5 million bankruptcies are filed annually, only .23% are reviewed by district courts and fewer than .08% by circuit courts. Their unreviewability provides the opportunity for riskless wrongdoing since nobody will hold judges accountable.
But you can by using your access to the media to pioneer judicial unaccountability reporting to expose
1) the conditions that have allowed wrongdoing to become the Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi, and
2) how the justices, as such and earlier as judges, have engaged in, or tolerated their peers’ wrongdoing and must cover it up.
Your exposé at a public presentation need only provide enough objective evidence thereof in the DeLano-J. Sotomayor story and your own findings for journalists, in quest of a name-making scoop that alters the presidential campaign, to be sent on a Watergate-like generalized media investigation that asks:
‘What did the President and the justices know about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and judicial wrongdoing and when did they know it?’
It can cause one or more justices to resign, as Justice Abe Fortas had to in 1969.
You can earn the support of voters among the scores of millions of people that will be outraged by the revelation, courageously initiated by you, that they have been harmed by wrongdoing judges who gave them what was left after they trampled due process underfoot and squeezed the law out of it: a mockery of justice!
A business venture can channel their outrage and a joint project with a journalism school can increase your investigative resources.
Thus, I respectfully request the opportunity to present to you and your staff my proposal.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
Dr.Richard.Cordero@verizon.net 59 Crescent Street
Brooklyn, NY 11208
tel. (718)827-9521
See:
Proposal to presidential Candidate newt Gingrich
To support his criticism of federal judges due to their activism, which is a subjective matter of opinion, by basing it also on their wrongdoing, which is an objective matter of evidence –e.g. that concerning J. Sotomayor- resulting from their unaccountability and which can so outrage people of all political views as to stir them to demand that judges be held accountable and generate goodwill for him as the People’s Champion of Justice and pioneer of judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/2012_E/NG/DrRCordero-PresCandidateNGingrich.pdf
Â
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned in any article is invited to respond on the record. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
Â
{jcomments on}