* * * Getting JAIL4Judges Behind The New York Times * * *
- Dear Dr. Richard Cordero:
Thank you for your email. Basically, I agree with your below points regarding the judiciary. Something must be done directly by the People on their behalf. The only point I disagree with you on is the something. I appreciate every effort made whatsoever to expose the judiciary, as it at least places the cross-hairs toward the right Branch of government.
You are suggesting that JAIL4Judges jump in behind the New York Time's effort to "reverse surveillance" public officers, their secrecy, and wrongdoing. This effort is certainly consistent with the spirit of constitutional precepts. However, such method cannot avail because of judicial immunity. It is the judges who essentially "write," modify, and enforce all laws in this country. Judges are super-legislators. To them, it matters not what laws are written by the legislature because they can just "declare" such laws "unconstitutional," and rewrite those laws to their liking.
In the instant news the courts of New Mexico have just declared the laws passed by the New Mexico legislature, which have been on the books for years, unconstitutional. Despite law to the contrary, the County Clerks in the State must issue marriage licenses to gay people notwithstanding the law.
In California, their Constitution clearly states that the People have the inherent right to change or alter their forms of government. Thus, this wording would include the right of the People to alter or abolish the judiciary totally, if that is what they wished to do. "All political power is inherent in the People. ... They have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require it." Art. II, Sec. I. The People, exhibiting same inherent power, did vote to establish marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However, the Courts said that such Constitutional provision is unconstitutional. Hence, according to the judiciary, the Constitution is unconstitutional. This is so despite the fact that judges swear by an Oath to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law.
In practice, the supreme law of the land is whatever words issue from the lips of some judge somewhere! Congress, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, passed DOMA, but the judges declared such law passed by Congress void. They then rewrote DOMA to their liking, providing that men may now marry men, and women may marry women. We are only one judicial step away from voiding all polygamy laws in which everyone can marry as many people or beasts as they feel they need. How about a marriage consisting of a family of three men, two women, and a donkey?
The judiciary has not only made a mockery of marriage, but also of law itself! The very moment we "pass" a law providing for "reverse surveillance" of public officers, the courts will step to provide for public officer's protection and security. Already, those who have sought "reverse surveillance" on government, are being called out and hunted down for criminal prosecution for committing such unpardonable sin.
So what I propose, Dr. Cordero, is that rather than JAIL4Judges getting behind the New York Times, we should get the New York Times behind JAIL4Judges in seeking for the creation of Independent Special Grand Juries by constitutional process already provided for us to hold the judges exercise of judicially created "law" of judicial immunity accountable to the Constitution. This way, we, the People, are afforded the process whereby we can indict, try and convict every judge when they willfully choose to violate the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.
Actually, there is no other way to accomplish what you wish to accomplish. Thanks again, Dr. Cordero, for sharing your ideas with me. I am impressed that you have so done, and I invite you to feel free to do so in the future. As you have requested, I am sharing your idea with the many behind JAIL4Judges. God bless.
On 9/4/2013 5:53 PM, Richard Cordero wrote:
Re: Invitation to expose with The New York Times the lack of ‘reverse surveillance’ of public officers, their secrecy, and wrongdoing
Dear Mr. Branson and Members,
I would like to invite you to join an advocacy effort together with The New York Times(NYT) in the interest of We the People. As a professional, you deal with the judiciary; so this concerns you.
The revelations by Edward Snowden of government snooping on Internet communications and collection of phone records of millions of Americans, including perhaps you, have alerted us to an unsettling fact:
Last year, every government request for surveillance and records was approved by a rubberstamping, secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA):
It has no jury, no audience, and those who are put under surveillance or are the subject of the requested records are not even given notice of the request. Hence, they have no opportunity to be heard in opposition. They have been deprived of the key element of due process of law: notice to the defendant of the claims against him or her and opportunity to be heard in his or her defense.
The secrecy of the FISA court is only the extreme manifestation of the secrecy that pervades[*>fn71] the Federal Judiciary. It illustrates what happens due to lack of reverse, democratic ‘surveillance’ of government by We the People: abuse of power that leads to wrongdoing(*>jur:5§3) festering as its institutionalized modus operandi(49§4).
* All references are at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/NYT/DrRCordero-ExecEd_JAbramson.pdf
1. The Federal Judiciary holds all its administrative, adjudicative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and no press conferences.
2. A single federal judge can hold unconstitutional what 535 members of Congress and the President have debated, voted, and enacted[17a].
3. Justices are unelected yet life-tenured, as are district and circuit judges; the latter appoint bankruptcy judges for renewable 14-year terms[61a] with no consent of representatives of the people.
4. In the 224 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed.
5. Chief circuit[22a] judges abuse their statutory self-disciplining authority by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against their peers; with other judges they deny up to 100% of appeals to review such dismissals(24§b).
6. Up to 9 of every 10 appeals are disposed of ad-hoc through no-reason summary orders[66a] or opinions so “perfunctory” that they are neither published nor precedential, mere fiats of raw judicial power.
7. Judges are influenced by the most insidious corruptor, money!(27§2).
If your bosses knew that they were entrenched for life and could unaccountably(21§A) wield power for material and professional profit(5§3) and neither Congress, the President nor the media would dare criticize, let alone investigate, them, would such unchecked power, unbalanced due to lack of penalizing consequences, corrupt them absolutely, causing them to abuse with a sense of entitlement your rights, property, liberty, and life?
Most likely, you deem yourself a person who has the right to hold your public servants accountable in ‘government, not of men, but by the rule of laws and of, by, and for the people’. You can only exercise that right effectively outside the courts. Asking a judge to hold accountable another judge is doomed to failure(52¶103).
To exercise that right effectively, you need journalists, as E. Snowden did.
In that context, notice what NYT Executive Editor Jill Abramson said when she appointed Assistant Managing Editor Matt Purdy and praised his “formidable investigations team”: “We have long placed a special kind of emphasis on our stories behind the story, our exclusive investigative pieces, our long term enterprise projects — they are our hallmark.”
Hold NYT to its “hallmark”. Ask Editors Abramson and Purdy –addresses at ol:37a– to start with an investigation of the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story(ol:17).
They can pick up where NYT, The Washington Post, and Politico left off their stories[107a] suspecting J. Sotomayor of concealing assets[107c].
Federal judges engage in financial wrongdoing, whether to evade taxes or launder money of its illegal provenance, because their secrecy ensures its risklessness and their coordinated and routine practice of it makes it acceptable and profitable(104fn211).
The unique story of a sitting justice’s tax evasion/money laundering and a sitting president’s condonation of it and nomination of her will so outrage a financially struggling public as to set off a Watergate-like generalized media investigation, giving NYT a second[198f] chance at a story that can lead to the resignation of a president and/or one or more justices(92§d).
Their investigation can also rest on my prosecution of cases(xxxv) from bankruptcy court all the way to the Supreme Court[109b,114c]; and on my research[ii] for my study(i) “Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(119§E).
The proposed investigation relies on an external sources strategy: judges’ publicly filed financial disclosure reports that contain incongruous data[107b,213] and a Follow the money! investigation(ol:1,2).
What is more, the Follow the wire! investigation(ol:19§D) may reveal the judges’ abuse of their vast information technology infrastructure and expertise to interfere with would-be exposers’ communications.
Ask NYT Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal to do what is the Editorial Board’s “hallmark”: raise its voice for public integrity even at its own risk. Request that he and his Board colleagues(addresses infra *>ol:47a):
1. expose the known facts of judicial wrongdoing(21§§A-B);
2. call for further investigation(98§§2-4); and
3. criticize the media, which by abdicating their mission to inform the people on all(jur:3§2) public servants have allowed judges to become Wrongdoers Above the Law.
By so doing, you and NYT can spark the development, which recent events show realistic, of a civic movement(166§d) that demands, not the reduction of taxes as the TEA Party does, but rather an increase in ‘reverse surveillance’ of judges by We the People to ensure the law is applied to and by judges equally.
That is the objective of the advocacy of a Judiciary monitored and disciplined by citizen boards(160§8) and other concrete demands for reform(130§§5-7) that eliminate secret courts and promote an open-door operational norm and public servant accountability.
Thereby you can contribute to bringing about a new We the People-government paradigm based on transparency, ‘reverse surveillance’, and accountability: the People’s Sunrise.
Thus, you may share this email widely.
I offer to make a presentation to you, your colleagues, and the NYT editors(171§F) of an introductory expository article and the proposed investigation(98§§2-4).
Dare trigger history!
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform, NYC