How you are harmed by judges’ 100% self-exoneration; how you can benefit from a complaint against them; and by bringing it to the attention of the presidential candidates

[Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.]

NOTE: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.  

            I kindly encourage you to share and post it in your and the public interest.

            To subscribe for free to articles similar to the one hereunder go to >
                    http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >left panel >↓Register; or > + New or Users >Add New.

How you are harmed

by judges’ abusive 100% self-exoneration
from complaints against them,
whereby they make their abuse of power riskless
and
how you can benefit from
the professional law research and arguments below
in your own complaint
and
by bringing judges’ abuse to the attention of
the more than 20 presidential candidates,
each of whom desperately needs to gain
national attention, campaign volunteers, and donations
by breaking a story that makes him or her
We the People’s Champion of Justice

 

Petition for review of the dismissal of a complaint
against U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (DCC)

Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
and their peers and colleagues
for their self-interested abusive
dismissal of 100% of the 478 complaints against them and
denial of 100% of petitions to review those dismissals
filed during 11 years,
which complaint DCC referred to
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,
and he referred for disposition to the 11^th Circuit,
whose chief judge likewise dismissed it
in his personal and judicial class interest

 

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

Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform..org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com

 

The judicial complaint, the dismissal order, this petition for review, and
all intervening documents are found in the file at:

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-11Circuit..pdf

 

Re: Misconduct Petition 19-90053 & 11-19-90054

From referred complaint DC-18-90089

 

Mr. James Gerstenlauer
Circuit Executive
Office of the Circuit Executive
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit       tel. (404) 335-6535
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-2218
       http://www.ca11.uscourts..gov/circuit-executive-office; http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/

 

Dear Mr. Gerstenlauer,

 

I, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., (hereinafter Dr. Cordero), hereby petition the Judicial Council of the 11^th Circuit for review of the dismissal by Chief Judge Ed Carnes (C. J. Carnes) of the above-captioned judicial misconduct complaints, which originated in a referral from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements that I have made in this review petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

 

A. The original complaint and the judges’ Abuse of Complaint Procedure through Abusive Orchestrated reciprocal exoneration

 

1. Dr. Cordero publicly filed the original complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(*>jur:24fn^18a) against Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and their circuit peers and district colleagues in the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of the petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period(^†>OL2:748).

 

The materials corresponding to the(^{* †}>prefix:page number references) are found in Dr. Cordero’s two-volume study of judges 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: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393

 

^† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from page OL2:394

 

a. Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page.

 

b. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html

 

c. In each downloaded file, go to the Menu bar >View >Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use its bookmarks, which make navigating to the contents’ numerous(* ^†>blue references) very easy.

 

 

2. The factual basis for the above statement is provided by the statistics(complaint, ^†>OL2:795§C) that judges were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) (*>jur:26fn^23a), to submit and did submit to Congress and the public. Through their 100% complaint dismissal and petition denial, the DCC judges committed “Abuse of Complaint Procedure” through “Abusive Orchestrated” self-interested reciprocal exoneration (cf. Rule 10 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (the Rules)).

 

B. The granting of impunity to Then-Judge Kavanaugh

 

3. At the outset, 11^th Circuit Chief Judge Ed Carnes (C.J. Carnes) excluded Judge Kavanaugh from the complaint by alleging that he was no longer a member of the DCC, but rather a justice of the Supreme Court, whose members are not covered by the Act. With the stroke of a pen, C.J. Carnes granted impunity to a member of the class of judges. He did so by disregarding the secular principle “the offense travels with the offender”.

 

4. That principle provides that a person is not absolved from responsibility for his acts simply because at the time of reviewing a complaint against him he no longer holds the same office that he did at the time of committing the alleged offense. The jurisdiction of the court that could have determined the complaint if it had been filed while the person was holding an office covered under the law or rule that he allegedly violated is predicated on his having committed the alleged offense, not on his continued holding of the same office.

 

5. By disregarding this principle, C.J. Carnes pretended that the new office conferred impunity on Now-Justice Kavanaugh. Thereby, the Chief Judge also deprived Dr. Cordero and every other person harmed by Then-Judge Kavanaugh of any remedy.

 

6. C.J. Carnes’ gross violation of that secular principle can be illustrated by arguing the extreme:

 

a. Hitler’s officers argued that the International Tribunal at Nuremburg did not have jurisdiction to judge them for the crimes that they had allegedly committed as officers of the Third Reich because that Reich had ceased to exist, and consequently, they were no longer officers of it, but rather simple citizens. The Nuremburg Tribunal rejected that defense because “the offense travels with the offender”.

 

b. To rule otherwise would have been an outrage. It would have deprived the rules of war and conventions against war crimes of any sense. It would have made a mockery of the principle that ‘murder –and all the more so crimes against humanity- never prescribes’. This explains why after well half a century since the end of the Third Reich the U.S. and the rest of the international community still chase after Hitler’s officers, bring them to justice, and convict them…and even if delayed, not all justice is denied to their victims and their relatives.

 

c. Mutatis mutandis, C.J. Carnes got Now-Justice Kavanaugh scot-free and made the harm to his victims irreparable.

 

7. Arguing comparables, “the offense travels with the offender” has been applied by federal and state judges in cases involving pedophilic priests and the Catholic Church:

 

a. Most charges against them concern offenses that they committed while the priests served at dioceses other than the current ones to which the Church transferred them while they were priests, which they may not be anymore. Neither the priests’ current service elsewhere nor non-priest status exempts the priests or the Church from liability regardless of whether the Church, the principal, was ignorant of the reason for the transfer of the priests, its agents, or carried it out to effect an institutional cover-up of their crimes.

 

b. Cf. A company does not escape its debt by being bought by another, for ‘a debt travels with the debtor’.

 

8. But Judges Above the Law do not apply to themselves the principles that they apply to others. So, C.J. Carnes pretends that the transfer of J. Kavanaugh from DCC to the Supreme Court immunizes him from responsibility for his abusive exoneration of himself and his DCC peers and colleagues from 100% of complaints(*>jur:88§§a-c) and 100% of review petitions, no matter how much such exoneration imputes his fairness, impartiality, and commitment “to maintain[ing] public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability”(Rule 23(b)(1)).

 

9. Dr. Cordero could have engaged in expensive and time-consuming law research to provide citations to cases supporting the above statements. But it would have been a waste of his resources:

 

a. Neither C.J. Carnes nor his peers and colleagues everywhere in the Federal Judiciary(*>jur:10-14; ^†>OL2:548, 748) ever considered subjecting themselves to the requirements of the Act, in particular, or any other legal principle or precedent, in general, when they “Orchestrated” (cf. Rule 10(b)) their reciprocal complaint exoneration.

 

b. In fact, it would have been naïve and presumptuous of Dr. Cordero to wishfully think that if he only argued the law competently with an abundance of citations, the judges who held a 100% self-interested exoneration record would have had no choice but to rescind their complicit institutionalized agreement through which they ensured the risklessness of their misconduct in order to start incriminating themselves and holding each other accountable and even liable to compensate their victims.

 

C. The exoneration of “peers and colleagues” nominally and not nominally identified was contrary to the facts and the Rules

 

1. The identification of complained-against judges whose names appeared in official lists

 

10. Dr. Cordero filed his complaint against DCC C.J. Garland, Judge Kavanaugh, and their “peers and colleagues” who participated in the dismissal of 100% of the 478 complaints against them and the denial of 100% of review petition filed during the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period.

 

11. It is counterfactual for C.J. Carnes to state that Dr. Cordero did not identify those “peers and colleagues”. In his letter of April 19, 2019, which C.J. Carnes admitted as “a second supplement”, Dr. Cordero identified the current judges of DCC as well as the current members of its Judicial Council as among those “peers and colleagues”. He even provided the official list of their names that DCC itself had posted on its website and that he downloaded, printed, and attached to his April 19 letter.

 

12. Chief Judge Carnes knew the names of those “peers and colleagues”.

 

13. There was as a matter of fact no justification for dismissing Dr. Cordero’s complaint against them on the pretense that he had not identified them by name. Dr. Cordero did identify them by name.

                                                                         

2. Judges not complained against by name can be identified through a “limited inquiry”

 

14. As to the “peers and colleagues” not nominally identified, e.g., those who had been DCC chief judges and previous members of the DCC judicial council, C.J. Carnes could have identified them had he conducted in good faith, impartially, and with due diligence a Rule 11(b) “limited inquiry [to] communicate orally or in writing with the complainant, the subject judge [nominally identified, such as C.J. Garland], and any others who may have knowledge of the matter [such as Justice Kavanaugh], and may obtain and review transcripts and other relevant documents” in the possession or under the control of, for instance, those two judges, any other current or former DCC judge or council member, the DCC Circuit Executive, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(>jur:21fn10), or the Federal Judicial Center(>jur:22fn11).

 

15. Rule 11(c) does not authorize a chief judge to exonerate a subject judge if the latter is not identified by name. A subject judge may be identified by any other reasonable means, such as the time and place of their service, and acts, e.g., ‘the judges serving on the DCC during at least the 1oct06-30sep17 period and participating in such 100% dismissal and denial’.

 

16. Do judges reject a complaint against John and Jane Doe? Of course not, unless the judges are the putative defendants. Judges Above the Law.

 

17. C.J. Carnes exonerated his “peers and colleagues” in the DCC from Dr. Cordero’s Rule 6 complaint as well as himself and those in the 11^th Circuit from the complaint that he identified under Rule 5(a) based on Dr. Cordero’s.

 

18. To do so he arrogated to himself the power to insert in the Rules an exclusionary provision: If a complainant does not state the name of a subject judge, that judge is exonerated even if his name can be ascertained through “a limited inquiry”.

 

19. By so doing, C.J. Carnes offended against Rule 5(b), which provides as follows:

 

5(b) Submission Not Fully Complying with Rule 6.  A legible submission in substantial but not full compliance with Rule 6 must be considered as possible grounds for the identification of a complaint under Rule 5(a). (emphasis added)

 

20. Rule 6 does not require that a subject judge be identified nominally. For its part, Dr. Cordero’s complaint provides ‘grounds for the identification of a complainant’. This statement is supported by:

 

Commentary on Rule 5…when a chief judge becomes aware of information constituting reasonable grounds to inquire into possible misconduct or disability on the part of a covered judge, and no formal complaint has been filed, the chief judge has the power in his or her discretion to begin an appropriate inquiry.

 

21. All C.J. Carnes needed was “information”, not names…not even a complainant with a complaint! Once he had such “information”, he could “inquire”, whether by himself, a designee, or by appointing a special committee to investigate not “misconduct”, but merely “possible misconduct”.

 

22. Just as he need not be sure that any misconduct had been committed in order to set in motion an inquiry, he need not be sure of the identity, never mind the name, of the possibly misconducting judge. But all he wanted to do was go through the motions of processing yet another complaint in order to conjure up any pretext to exonerate himself and his “peers and colleagues” everywhere and dismiss it, just as the DCC judges had dismissed a 100% of 478 complaints against themselves and denied 100% of review petitions. They all run the processing of complaints as a sham.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

D. 100% self-exoneration is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ inherently suspicious and should have led to the appointment of a Rule 11(f) “special committee"

 

1. Two or three chief judges could not have had the same views of the law and the facts on 478 complaints for 11 years

 

23. C.J. Carnes offended against Rule 11(b), which provides in pertinent part thus:

 

Rule 11(b). …In conducting the inquiry, the chief judge must not determine any reasonably disputed issue. Any such determination must be left to a special committee…and to the judicial council that considers the committee’s report.

 

24. Disregarding that injunction, C.J. Carnes did “determine the reasonably disputed issue” that the judges’ 100% complaint dismissal and 100% petition denial constituted misconduct through “orchestrated” abuse of their self-disciplining power in the self-interest of securing 100% exoneration.

 

25. Self-endowed with impunity, unaccountable judges will escape any adverse consequence for their past misconduct and be emboldened to continue and expand their current and future misconduct, harming “the effective and expeditious administration of justice”, Dr. Cordero, similarly situated complainants, and the rest of the public left exposed to the same and new forms of their riskless misconduct.

 

26. To determine the reasonableness of that issue, this petition applies the highest standard of proof, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. Applicable only in criminal cases, that standard is applied by the trier of facts to sentence a man or woman to capital punishment or to life imprisonment or to spend 10, 20, 30 years in prison.

 

27. To that end, ‘circumstantial evidence from which reasonable inferences can be raised may be sufficient’(Rule 11(c)(1)(D)). If that standard can be satisfied by the instant complaint, then its result is reasonable in light of the legal maxim “he who can do the most can do the lesser”.

 

28. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that 100% of the 478 complaints filed against DCC judges during an 11-year period could not have been so undoubtedly defective that they warranted dismissal and denial of 100% of review petitions without even the appointment of a special committee to investigate them. This could not happen but for the judges-cum-accused interpreting the Act self-servingly to frustrate its intent of providing for “effective justice” by means of disciplining judges.

 

29. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the two or more DCC chief judges during that 11-year period could not have held exactly the same views of the law and the facts so that upon applying them to the different sets of complaints that they handled during their respective tenure they reached the same conclusion in 100% of complaints: dismissal. By contrast, their views of the law and the facts of all non-complaint filings at times coincided and at times diverged to the point of their writing a dissent.

 

2. Tens of Judicial Council members could much less have had the same views but for their abusive orchestrated reciprocal exoneration agreement

 

30. The above analysis is only more patently beyond a reasonable doubt as to the 100% of the review petitions that the DCC Judicial Council denied during those 11 years: It is composed of 9 members at any point in time to whom must be added the number of their replacements during that time. Their unanimous denial of 100% of petitions did not come from shared views of the law and the merits of the petitions:

 

31. In any judicial council, there are members with different backgrounds, attitudes, and loyalties. Some were nominated and confirmed by one party while others by the other party. Some were circuit judges while others were district judges.

 

32. Actually, some were never district judges, who are in much closer contact with the parties, witnesses, experts, police officers, prosecutors, jurors, etc., than the circuit judges, who sit in the ivory tower of a court of appeal and are not exposed to the same set of human contact and circumstances that generate real or imagined misconduct opportunities.

 

33. Some circuit judges even overturned the decisions of district judges or their friends. Yet, none of the 478 complaints gave rise to “Payday!” vengeful gloating.

 

34. Despite their substantial differences, the tens of DCC Judicial Council members agreed unanimously and without exception during those 11 years: 100% of the dismissals by whoever was the chief judge at the time were right and 100% of the petitions for review were so meritless that not even one member dissented, whereby no appointment of a special committee was triggered.

 

35. When have you seen even only two married people, brought together by love rather than assignment, agree on everything for 11 years?

 

36. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that those judges could not have reached those 100% records by shared views; they did it by self-interest ‘orchestration’.

 

37. They were confronted with a conflict of interests between dealing with the complaints and petitions fairly and impartially, and exonerating without even appointing any committee their “peers and colleagues”, who might have become their friends after working together for years or decades; with whom they were ‘stuck’ for their rest of their life-appointment; and from whom they could fear retaliation if not exonerated.

 

38. So they resolved the conflict in their personal and class interest. They committed “Abuse of Complaint Procedure” through “Abusive orchestrated” exoneration of each other (cf. Rule 10 and ¶(a)).

 

3. The inherently suspicious 100% orchestrated self-exoneration

39. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that their 100% self-interested exoneration from 478 complaints and 100% of review petitions filed during 11 years is inherently suspicious.

 

40. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself): “the complaint and review procedure in the D.C. Circuit must be flawed because if it were not, the results would be different”; cf. C.J. Carnes’ order of dismissal, p.8.

 

41. Those results would not have obtained but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement that replaced the fair and impartial determination of each complaint and each petition with a rubberstamp: ‘Today I exonerate you and tomorrow you exonerate me or my friends’. The judges “orchestrated”(Rule 10(b)) their predetermined exoneration.

 

42. While “Res ipsa loquitur” is a legal maxim, the concept of ‘inherently suspicious’ derives from the common sense that “a reasonable person” and lay people are supposed to have and apply as jurors. To something ‘inherently suspicious’, their common sense reaction would be to look into it.

 

43. A fortiori, C.J. Carnes, duty-bound to ensure “the effective and expeditious administration of justice” based on facts and the law, was required to appoint a Rule 11(f) special committee. Its duty is to investigate “reasonably disputed issues” thus:

 

Commentary on Rule 14. ...The special-committee’s duty — and that of their staff — is at all times to be impartial seekers of the truth. Rule 14(b) contemplates that material evidence will be obtained by the committee…Staff or others who are [obtaining it] should regard it as their role to present evidence representing the entire picture…subpoena powers are available.

 

44. Instead, C.J. Carnes protected his personal and class interests. Neither he nor his DCC peers and colleagues appointed any special committee. After all, he would have appointed his own peers and colleagues in the 11^th Circuit and even himself. All of them would have ended up doing exactly the same: protecting their personal and class interests by exonerating their DCC “peers and colleagues”.

 

45. C.J. Carnes spared himself and them that farce and reached the predetermined result required to maintain a record of 100% complaint dismissal and 100% review petition denial: C.J. Carnes dismissed Dr. Cordero’s complaint.

 

46. By disregarding the inherent suspiciousness of 100% orchestrated self-exoneration by those with the greatest interest therein, the accused themselves, C.J. Carnes offended against a tenet of justice:

 

a. “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923).

 

b. “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”; Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie et al., 475 U.S. 813; 106 S. Ct. 1580; 89 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1986).

 

 

E. C.J. Carnes’s disingenuous allegation that Dr. Cordero’s complaint is dismissible as merit-related

 

47. J.C. Carnes has allowed the appearance of his disregard for the inherent suspiciousness of the complained-against judges’ 100% self-exoneration from complaints and review petitions in order to cover up its abusive and orchestrated nature.

 

48. This inherent suspiciousness constitutes a “reasonably disputed issue” involving ‘a genuine issue of material fact’. Under Rule 11(b) (supra ¶23) and its Commentary, C.J. Carnes was prohibited from determining the issue and dismissing the complaint:

 

Commentary on Rule 11: …Essentially, the standard articulated in subsection (b) is that used to decide motions for summary judgment pursuant to FRCP 56. Genuine issues of material fact are not resolved at the summary judgment stage. A material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and a dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”…Similarly, the chief judge may not resolve a genuine issue concerning a material fact or the existence of misconduct or a disability when conducting a limited inquiry pursuant to subsection (b).

 

49. To disregard those injunctions and run his cover-up, C.J. Carnes disingenuously states on page 7 of his Order: “the allegations of the Complaint challenge the merits of judicial decisions…which is an independently adequate alternative reason for dismissing the Complaint in its entirety”.

 

50. That statement is factually wrong because Dr. Cordero never challenged the merits of any of the 478 complaints dismissed or any of the petitions denied. He could not have done so because all complaints and petitions are kept secret.

 

51. On the contrary, he requested that they be disclosed so that the merits of the dismissals and denials may be determined fairly, impartially, and publicly. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Justice Brandeis put it. Their examination can detect misconduct patterns, trends, and schemes. Thereby they can expose the DCC judges’ institutionalized policy of misconduct as their orchestrated modus operandi.

 

52. Dr. Cordero’s complaint is predicated, not on the merits of any complaint, but on it being beyond a reasonable doubt inherently suspicious for 100% of complaints and petitions to be dismissed and denied by the very ones complained against.

 

53. That inherent suspiciousness presents the “reasonably disputed issue” that prevents dismissal.

 

 

F. A call on judges to become Deep Throats and Champions of Justice

 

54. The disposition of this complaint and petition by the judges of the 11^th Circuit and, for that matter, of DCC or any other circuit or court, has nothing to do with what the Act or the Rules provide.

 

55. It has to do only with safeguarding crass personal and judicial class interests:

 

a. the avoidance of retaliation by the judges that one fails to exonerate and their friends;

 

b. insurance of reciprocal exoneration when one becomes the complained-against judge; and

 

c. the preservation of the pretense that the judicial class is composed of people who command respect for their superior integrity and are immune to the insidious effect of their unaccountable, ‘absolute power, which corrupts absolutely’(jur:27fn²⁸).

 

56. But you, the reading Judge, you can advance a noble interest that can make you “Honorable”: You can courageously buck the class, whether discreetly, as Deep Throat of Watergate fame did(*>jur:106§c), or openly, as did the Silence Breakers on the cover of Time magazine’s Person of the Year issue for 2017. They spoke up and significantly contributed to transforming society by launching the MeToo! movement....

 

57. You can denounce judicial abuse at a press conference or in an Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(*>jur:98§2) article, or help me publish mine(^†>OL2:760, 781, 901) -just as Ronan Farrow exposed Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse in The New Yorker- and have a transformative impact on justice here and abroad.

 

58. By so doing, you can reasonably expect to set in motion for the first time in history a movement for We the People, the masters, to hold our judicial public servants accountable for their performance and liable to their victims.

 

59. Unlike all other whistleblowers, you have life-tenure and your “Compensation shall not be diminished”(Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1; *>jur:22fn12) ....

 

60. For your “good Behaviour”(id.) to ensure “the effective and expeditious administration of the business of” justice (the Act, §351(a)), you will step out of your anonymity as one of 2,255 federal judicial officers (as of 30sep18) and become nominally recognized nationwide by a grateful People as their Champion of Justice.

 

61. This is the most opportune time to share your inside information with each and all of the 25 presidential candidates, each of whom is desperate to become the standard-bearer of an issue that causes public outrage and earns him or her national media and public attention, campaign volunteers, and indispensable donations:

 

a. At least 65,000 donors from at least 20 states are required to qualify to appear on the nationally televised presidential debates that begin on June 26. Failure to qualify will toll the death knell for the non-appearing candidates.

 

62. Hence, the candidates want to hear from you. The winning one may reward you with a nomination to a new Supreme Court of justices who honor their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453:

 

“[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers and colleagues, as opposed to other parties to complaints], and do equal right to the poor [in connections to us] and to the rich [in IOUs on us that we gave the peers and colleagues who dismissed complaints against us]”

 

G. Action requested

 

63. Dr. Cordero respectfully requests that the 11^th Circuit Judicial Council:

 

a. vacate the dismissal order;

 

b. appoint a special committee to work through Rule 13(a) “experts and professionals” who are neither judges nor lawyers and are top journalists to investigate whether the judges have committed misconduct, e.g., abusive orchestrated self-exoneration from complaints to ensure the risklessness of their misconduct; and

 

c. take the other requested actions(OL2:794§B; 884§D).

 

Sincerely,

..

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

        http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.com

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

 

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

..

Visit the website at, and subscribe for free to its articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org >Left panel ↓Register

or    + New   or   Users >Add New

 

64. If you want to retain Dr. Cordero to render you any legal service, read his model letter of engagement(*>OL:383).

 

No meaningful cause can be advanced without money.

 

Support
the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking of
Judicial Discipline Reform

 

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

 

DONATE
to the professional law research and writing, and
strategic thinking of
Judicial Discipline Reform

here

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=HBFP5252TB5YJ

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

*************************

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq." <dr.richard....@verizon.net>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

SPONSORED LINKS

.

__,_._,___

[Christopher Fogarty]

This acknowledges receipt, and my admiration of your presentation.

I wish I knew of an honest judge to whom to bring your crucial revelation.

Hey! Maybe I do. CC Judge Tom Murphy was Chicago's honest Alderman.

He is now a judge in a western suburb of Chicago.

Chris Fogarty

[allamer...@aol.com]

This E mail was received at THIS email address:  allamer...@aol.com

The owner of this email address is Michael Smith.  Michael Smith is shutting down this email address (allamer...@aol.com).

Please in the future, send all emails (such as this one received below) to a NEW EMAIL ADDRESS.

Send ALL future emails to THIS address:   newmcyb...@aol.com

Please try to make this change ASAP.

So once again:  allamericanlda is going to be shut down - start now and send all future emails to:   newmcyb...@aol.com

Thank you.

Michael Walden Smith

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JudicialMisconduct" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to judicialmiscond...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/judicialmisconduct/1150963962.1332309.1565070672493%40mail.yahoo.com.

[allamer...@aol.com]

This E mail was received at THIS email address:  allamer...@aol.com

The owner of this email address is Michael Smith.  Michael Smith is shutting down this email address (allamer...@aol.com).

Please in the future, send all emails (such as this one received below) to a NEW EMAIL ADDRESS.

Send ALL future emails to THIS address:   newmcyb...@aol.com

Please try to make this change ASAP.

So once again:  allamericanlda is going to be shut down - start now and send all future emails to:   newmcyb...@aol.com

Thank you.

Michael Walden Smith

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JudicialMisconduct" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to judicialmiscond...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/judicialmisconduct/2029663734.1562927.1565067553275%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.]