http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=38824
Compare the Candidates – Biographical Profiles and Positions on the Issues
August 9, 2016 Minnesota Republican Party State Primary
Candidates for State Senator District 64, Minnesota
Sharon Anderson - R
More information
Anderson, Sharon
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
View a list of all questions available to the candidates. Questions are included below only if at least one candidate responded.
CANDIDATE EXPOSING DFL
PARTY in MN aka Democracy,Faggots,Lesbians vs. Republican Sharon Anderson aka
Right,Equal,Politicans
NEWS
RELEASE
Under Construction WHY SHARON SUPPORTS
DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESS REALESTATE, MUST TRIGGER INVESTIGATIONS INTO MINNESOTA'S
REALESTATE PONZI SCHEMES
Widow Candidate Mrs. Sharon L.
Anderson Straight White Woman has been harmed,injured over 30 years, jailed
beaten, taking Realestate,Drivers License,
Forensic Files www.sharon4anderson.org
by
Gay Judge Alberto Miero,
putting Sharon in Jail aka Volunters of America concerning ownership of 2194
Marshall, approx 1983
What is Shocking that former
Ramsey Co. Attorney Darwin Looking bill is Gay, currently 2nd in Command of
Minnesota DHS
concerning Sharons
Homestead at 1058 Summit taken illegally via Lesbian Judges Joanne Smith,
Kathleen Gearin both now
Retired but for sitting on their Buttocks Retired
Judges on State Commitment Panels https://www.facebook.com/groups/SharonsFiles/
Sharons Mission
as Candidate is not to Win but notify the Public of Corrupt Judges, Lawyers,
Attorneys, triggering Death or Murder of Sharons 2nd Husband, Cpl James R.
Anderson, Silver Star, Marine
448 Desnoyer,
325 N. Wilder, 697 Surrey, Propertys Nashwauk, Aitkin, Sold Pine
City,
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtnZaIlfDg#t=26Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE CandidateMN Attorney General www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com 2014 2012Senate64 www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-_sharonscarrellaanderson_lawless-america/http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=608&utm_source=Sentry+-+3%2F21%2F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=emailhttp://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdfhttp://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.htmlhttp://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAndersonwww.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.comwww.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
NOTE:
If
in spite of all
the effort to circumvent
the glitch in word
processing or emailing
software that creates
“joinedwords”, this email
has them, kindly
overlook them and notify
the author at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net and CorderoRic@yahoo.com.
Filing a petition
for certiorari in the
Supreme Court
is an exercise in rigged gambling and waste
especially for pro ses, whose cases are weighted in
the Federal Judiciary as a third of a case
is an exercise in rigged gambling and waste
especially for pro ses, whose cases are weighted in
the Federal Judiciary as a third of a case
A realistic
alternative that takes
advantage
of presidential politics to inform the national public
about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing and
cause the public to demand
nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing
of presidential politics to inform the national public
about, and outrage it at, judges’ wrongdoing and
cause the public to demand
nationally televised hearings on judicial wrongdoing
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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
This
article may be
republished and redistributed,
provided it is
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
A. Barriers
to access to the
Supreme Court: the
booklet format, the
preference given to a
few lawyers, the 1
in 100 review chance,
and the cost of
representation
1. The
problem begins with the
format of the brief
and the record to
be filed. It can
cost $100,000 or more
just to pay a
specialized company to
transcribe and print the
record on appeal in
the booklet format
required by Rule
33(*>jur:47fn77) of the Rules
of the Supreme Court
because if you do
not qualify as indigent
to file in forma
pauperis, you cannot
file them on regular
8.5” x 11” paper.(jur:47§1)
All
(blue
text references)
herein are keyed to
my study of judges
and their judiciaries
titled and downloadable as
follows:
Exposing
Judges’ Unaccountability
and
Consequent
Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering
the news and publishing
field of
judicial
unaccountability reporting*
2. Even
so, since in the
last few years some
7,250 cases were filed
per year in the
Court, but it disposed
of an average of
only 78 cases, your
chances of having your
case taken for review
are roughly 1 in
100(cf. jur:47fn81a).
In the casinos of
Las Vegas, your odds
of winning are better.
3. Your odds
of having your case
reviewed by the Court
are substantially worse
if you are not
represented by one of
the “superlawyers”†, whose cases are
decidedly preferred by
the Supreme Court: 8
superlawyers argued 20%
of cases in the
nine years between
2004-2012. They command
whatever attorney’s fee
the law of offer
and demand allows, which
only a few, mostly
corporate parties, can
afford. In fact, taking
a case all the
way to final
adjudication in the
Supreme Court can cost
more than $1,000,000(jur:48fn83).
If it remands to
the trial court for
a new trial, you
start all over again.
†
a.
The Echo Chamber...At
America’s court of last
resort, a handful of
lawyers now dominates
the docket; Reporters
Joan Biskupic, Janet
Roberts, and John
Shiffman, Reuters Investigates,
Thomson Reuters; 8dec14;
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus/
b. Elite circle
of lawyers finds repeat
success getting cases to
the Supreme Court; Gwen
Ifill interviews Joan
Biskupic, Legal Affairs
Editor in Charge,
Reuters; PBS NewsHour;
9dec14; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elite-circle-lawyers-finds-repeat-success-getting-cases-supreme-court/
4. Judicial
review in the Supreme
Court is not only
discretionary with the
justices, it is also
illusory(jur:48§2; cf. 46§3).
5. If
you cannot download the
Rules of the Court(jur:47fn77b)
and pay attention to,
and comply with, their
hundreds of minute
details, you cannot
reasonably expect the
Court to take your
case for review.
6. Nor
can you expect the
Chief Justice and the
eight Associate Justices
of the august Supreme
Court of the United
States, sitting on the
high bench to hear
oral argument before the
national press and a
select audience of
guests, let a pro
se babble, ramble, and
rant about the facts
of the case and
his heartfelt pain at
so much injustice
visited upon him by
the adverse party rather
than knowledgeably and
authoritatively defend his
legal position based on
legal precedent and
firmly established or
proposed principles of
law. That scenario is
simply not possible, an
idea born of ignorance
of, or reckless
disregard for, the
applicable standards of
performance and court
decorum.
7. Do you
have the money to
retain a member of
the Supreme Court bar
to argue your case?
If you do not
have money to even
pay a lawyer to
review your papers
before filing them, you
don’t.
B. A case
filed by a pro
se in a federal
court is weighted as
a third of a
case
8. When you
file a case in
a federal district
court, you have to
file a Case Information
Sheet. It asks, among
other things, whether
you are represented or
pro se. You are
appearing pro se. The
consequences thereof at
the brief in-take office
of the clerk of
court are funereal
without the solemnity:
Your case was dead
on arrival and is
sent right away to
potter’s field.
9. In
the Federal Judiciary,
pro se cases are
weighted as a third
of a case(jur:43fn65a
>page 40). By
comparison, “a death-penalty habeas
corpus case is assigned
a weight of
12.89”(jur:43¶81). As a
result of such
weighting, a pro se
case is given some
39 times less attention
than a death penalty
case regardless of the
pro se case’s nature,
what is at stake
in it, and whether
the complaint was
written by joe the
plumber or a law
professor. Your brief is
likely not to be
read at all…that is
the whole purpose of
the Case Information
Sheet: to tell the
court on half of
one side of one
page what the case
is all about and what
relief the party wants
so that if the
court does not want
to grant it, why
bother reading the
brief?
C. Justice is
blind, but the judge
sees the incompetence of
pro se
pleadings
10. A federal
district judge has
hundreds of weighted
cases. In fact, “a judicial
emergency [is not
declared until there is
a] vacancy in a
district court where
weighted filings are in
excess of 600 per
judgeship”(jur36fn57).
11. Hence,
the judge is expected
not to waste her
time with a pro
se case that is
most likely poorly
written by an emotional
plaintiff who ran to
court to complain
without a clue whether
the law gave him
a cause of action
against the defendant
and, if it did,
without any notion of
the elements of the
cause that he must
prove and the admissible
evidence that he must
introduce to prove each
of them.
12. Indeed,
the pro se, ignoring
how to state a
case, is likely to
launch in his opening
paragraph a rambling
rant full of legally
irrelevant matters. Why
would the judge expect
the rest of the
complaint or other paper
to be any better?
She knows from
experience that pro ses
hardly ever cite cases
as precedential support
for what they say
and do not lay
out arguments of law,
but instead intone
articles of faith and
cries of pain caused
by an intuitive sense
of justice denied.
13. As
a result, your pro
se brief reaches the
judge tainted by the
presumption of irrelevancy,
inadmissibility, and incompetence.
The judge will give
it the perfunctory
attention that the
official weighting of
the case enables her
to give it. The
weighting works as a
self-fulfilling expectation: Because
upon your filing of
your case in the
in-take office it was
considered already not
worth a case, not
even half a case,
but merely a third
of it, the judge
will do a quick
job of disposing of
it as worthless.
14. Just because
paper holds everything
one writes on it,
the writing on it
by a pro se
does not produce a
brief of law. He
is likely to have
stated a case so
inadequately that it
will be considered
incapable of surviving a
motion for dismissal for
“failure
to state a claim
upon which relief can
be granted” by a
court, that is, a
Rule12(b)(6) motion under
the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure(FRCivP;
ol:5b/fn15e);
D. A pro
se is likely not
to have a clue
of what subject matter
jurisdiction is and how
its absence can doom
his case
15. Worse
yet, you have to
show something of which
you, as a pro
se and a lay
person at that, are
presumed not to have
the faintest idea:
subject matter jurisdiction(FRCivP
12(b)(1); ol:5b/fn15e). This means
that you have to
show that the federal
court has the authority
conferred upon it by
statute as interpreted
by case law to
entertain your type
of case and use
its judicial power to
adjudicate the controversy
that opposes you to
the defendant.
16. You
cannot run to federal
court and ask it
to intervene in a
purely state law matter,
such as family law
is. It is simply
not enough for you
to allege that the
state judge and a
host of other state
officials engaged in
what you, in your
law-untrained opinion and
your emotional state of
mind as a party
and a parent, consider
to be corruption.
17. The issue
of subject matter
jurisdiction is so
important that it cannot
be waived: The defendant
cannot confer upon the
court authority to hear
and decide your type
of case by merely
failing to raise an
objection to it in
its answer or by
motion to dismiss. At
any time, even in
the middle of trial,
the defendant can move
to dismiss the case,
thus terminating it, due
to the court’s lack
of subject matter
jurisdiction. What is
more, the court can
do so on its
own motion upon
realizing that it does
not have authority to
deal with the type
of matter presented to
it.
18. In fact,
when judges do not
feel like dealing with
a case, they take
the easy way out
by simply claiming that
they do not have
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s only remedy
is to go up
on appeal to argue
a highly technical issue
of law. Do you
have any idea how
to argue that the
court has subject matter
jurisdiction based on
common law, a statutory
provision, notions of
federalism, and the
equal protection of the
laws of the 14th
Amendment after analogizing
your type of case
to another type that
was held to fall
within the court’s
jurisdiction?
19. It is
logically sound to
assume that people who
went to law school
for three years know
something about the law
that people who did
not go there ignore.
The same applies to
those who successfully
conducted doctoral research,
analysis, and writing.
How do you think
the judge will react
if you tell her
that you consider the
above statement arrogant
and elitist?
E. A more
realistic strategy for
judicial wrongdoing exposure
and reform that takes
advantage of presidential
politics and the mood
of The Dissatisfied With
The Establishment, including
the dissatisfied with
the judicial and legal
systems
20. Presidential
politics offers the
opportunity to reach out
to Establishment-outsider Donald
Trump, who has already
dare criticize a federal
judge, and through him
the national media that
cover him so that
we, victims of
wrongdoing judges and
advocates of honest
judiciaries, may implement
a realistic judicial
wrongdoing exposure and
reform strategy based on
both the strategic
thinking principle “The
enemy of my enemy
is my friend” and
the first law of
interaction between two
or more people, i.e.,
horsetrading!...because social life
is a give and
take:
a. Inform through
Mr. Trump and the
media, each acting in
their own electoral or
commercial interest(†>ol2:416§B), the national
public about judges’
wrongdoing and cause
such outrage at it
as to stir up
the public to demand
that politicians, lest
they be voted out
of, or not into,
office, call for, and
conduct, nationally televised
hearings on such
wrongdoing as the first
step toward judicial
reform(jur:158§§6-8).
21. Therefore, I
respectfully invite you
to:
a. share the
below letter to Mr.
Trump(‡>ol2:437) as widely as
possible by sending it
to your emailing list
and posting it to
yahoo- and googlegroups
and blogs;
1) See a
list of yahoogroups(†>ol2:433);
b.
network(ol:231) with colleagues,
friends, and acquaintances
of yours who can
network with theirs so
as to reach Trump
campaign officers, e.g.
Campaign
Chairman and Chief
Strategist Paul Manafort,
General
Counsel Michael Cohen,
Esq.,
Mrs. Ivanka
Trump,
Mr. Donald
Trump, Jr., and
Mr. Eric
Trump,
to persuade
them to invite me
to present to them
how it is in
their own(ol:317¶28)
electoral interest for
Mr. Trump to denounce
judges’ wrongdoing and
thereby draw the
attention of the media
and The Dissatisfied
With The Establishment,
especially its huge(ol:311¶1)
untapped voting bloc of
the dissatisfied with
the judicial and legal
systems, including victims
of wrongdoing judges and
advocates of honest
judiciaries;
c. download‡ and print the
letter to distribute it
at political rallies to
the attendees, in
general, and to each
member of the campaign
staff and officers, in
particular; and
d. organize
a presentation to
professors, students, and
officers at journalism,
law, business, and
Information Technology schools
and similar entities(ol:197§G) so
that I may present
to them:
1) the give
and take letter to Mr.
Trump;
2) the
evidence of judges’
unaccountability and wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B);
and
3) the
way for them to
pioneer the multidisciplinary
academic(ol:60; 112-120;
255)
and business(jur:119§1;
ol:271-273) field of
judicial unaccountability
reporting.
22. So that
you may feel confident
in networking me with
others, I offer to
first make a
presentation at a video
conference or in person
to you, your colleagues,
friends, and acquaintances.
23. Let’s
not miss this window
of opportunity to make
of judicial wrongdoing
exposure and reform a
decisive issue of the
nominating conventions and
the presidential campaign(ol2:422).
Time is of the
essence.
I look
forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com
NOTE:
Given the suspicious
interference with Dr.
Cordero’s email addresses
described at *>ggl:1 et seq., when emailing
him place the above
bloc of his email
addresses in the To:
line of your email
to enhance the chances
of its reaching him
at least at one
of those addresses.
*********************************
How Trump can
benefit you by turning
criticism of a judge
into exposure of judges’
wrongdoing
NOTE:
If
in spite of all
the effort to circumvent
the glitch in word
processing or emailing
software that creates
“joinedwords”, this email
has them, kindly
overlook them and notify
the author at Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net and CorderoRic@yahoo.com.
How Donald Trump
can turn his
criticism of a federal
judge
into an opportunity
to
denounce federal judges’
unaccountability,
which gives rise
to the mindset of
impunity
that induces judges
to engage risklessly in
wrongdoing, including illegal,
criminal activity,
thus providing probable
cause to believe that
judges, fearing no
adverse consequences,
also abuse their
discretion
An opportunity for
Trump to emerge as
The
Voice of
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment,
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment,
The
Champion of Justice
of
the victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges, and
the victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges, and
The
Architect of
the New American
Judicial System
by
causing the investigation
of
two unique national cases of judicial wrongdoing
two unique national cases of judicial wrongdoing
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
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com, DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com,
This
letter may be
republished and redistributed,
provided it is
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Mr.
Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Trump,
On May 23, I
delivered at the
reception of Trump Tower
a letter(†>ol2:422) for you with
materials† proposing that
you denounce federal
judges’ unaccountability and
consequent riskless wrongdoing,
and reap benefits from
so doing, i.e.,
attracting the attention
and support of the
huge(*>ol:311¶1) untapped voting
bloc of all the
people who are
dissatisfied with the
judicial and legal
systems. They form part
of the dominant sector
of the electorate to
whom you have given
a voice and who
represent your key
constituency: The Dissatisfied
With The Establishment.
* See
Dr. Cordero’s study of
judges and their
judiciary, which is
titled and downloadable
as follows:
Exposing
Judges’ Unaccountability
and
Consequent
Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering
the news and publishing
field of
judicial
unaccountability reporting*
All
(blue
text references)
herein are keyed to
that study. There such
references are active
internal hyperlinks. By
clicking on them, you
can effortlessly bring
up to your screen
the referred-to supporting
and additional information,
thus facilitating substantially
your checking it.
A. Federal judges’
unaccountability and consequent
riskless wrongdoing raises
probable cause for
criticism of abuse of
discretion
1. Your
criticism of the
exercise of discretionary
power by Judge Gonzalo
Curiel, who presides
over the Trump
University case, offers
you the opportunity to
denounce judges’ unaccountability
that enables wrongdoing
and abuse of
discretion(*>jur:5§3):
2. You can
argue that judges have
granted themselves absolute
immunity from prosecution,
thus elevating themselves
above the law; and
are held unaccountable
in practice by the
Establishment politicians
who recommended, endorsed,
nominated, and confirmed
them to the Federal
Judiciary and protect
them there as
‘their men and
women on the bench’.
So the judges are
in practice irremovable:
3. In
the last 227 years
since the creation of
their Judiciary in 1789,
the number of impeached
and removed federal
judges –2,217 were in
office on 30sep13– is
8!(jur:22fn13,
14) As a
consequence, they do
wrong risklessly(jur:65§§1-3)
and even exercise their
discretion abusively: Those
who can do the
most –impeachable wrongdoing–
can do the lesser
–reversible discretion-abusing
decisions–.
B. Distinguishing between
abuse of discretion and
a charge of
wrongdoing
4.
You need not
prove that Judge Curiel
himself has engaged in
wrongdoing, not even
that he has abused
his discretionary power,
for which you would
have to meet the
exacting requirement of
proving that his
decisions were grossly
unsound, unreasonable, illegal,
or unsupported by the
evidence.
5. Convincing
appellate judges in any
case that a peer
in the court below
and friend of theirs
for years, who knows
of their own wrongdoing
and abuse, abused his
discretion is an uphill
battle; it is rendered
in this case all
but impossible because
the appellate judges as
well as all the
other judges have closed
ranks as a class
behind one of their
own under attack.
6. Instead,
you only need to
show the appearance(jur:68fn123a),
rather than prove based
on evidence, that the
Federal Judiciary and
its judges, of whom
J. Curiel is one,
engage in wrongdoing
involving illegal activity
so routinely, extensively,
and in such coordinated
fashion that they have
turned wrongdoing into
their institutionalized modus
operandi. Abuse of
discretion is only part
of the mindset that
develops in people who
know that they can
get away with anything
they want.
C. The mindset of
impunity: the policy
established by the
Supreme Court and its
manifestation in judges’
conduct
7. The
wrongdoers’ mindset has
been fostered by policy
established by the
Supreme Court itself. In
Pierson v. Ray(jur:26fn25),
it stated that
judges’ “immunity applies even
when the judge is
accused of acting
maliciously and corruptly”. In Stump v.
Sparkman(26fn26), the Court even
assured judges that
“A
judge will not be
deprived of immunity
because the action he
took was in error,
was done maliciously, or
was in excess of
his authority”.
8. Such assurance
has created the mindset
of impunity. Once on
the bench, forever there
no matter what.
Self-restraint is superfluous
because anything and
everything is condoned.
Self-indulgence has but
contempt for discretion.
9.
Unaccountable judges exercise
abusively, not merely
discretion, but even
power over people’s
property, liberty, and
all the rights and
duties that determine
their lives. They wield
absolute power, the kind
that ‘corrupts absolutely’(27fn28).
Abuse of discretion is
an institutional uninhibited
mental reflex.
10. As
a result, federal judges
abuse discretion for
their own benefit.
Indeed(*>Lsch:21§A):
a. Chief
circuit judges abuse
judges’ 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(jur:24§b).
By judges immunizing
themselves from liability
for their wrongdoing
they deny complainants
their 1st Amendment
right to “redress
of grievances”, making them
victims with no
effective right to
complain.
b. Up
to 9 of every
10 appeals are disposed
of ad-hoc through
no-reason summary orders(jur:44fn66)
or opinions so
“perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) that
the judges who
wrote them mark them
“not for
publication”
and “not
precedential”(jur:43§1). In their own
estimation, they are raw
fiats of star-chamber
power. They are as
difficult to find as
if they were secret;
and if found,
meaningless to litigants
and the public, for
most frequently their
only operative word is
the one that betrays
the expediency that
motivates them: ‘affirmed!’
They are blatant abuse
of discretion.
c. Circuit
judges appoint bankruptcy
judges(jur:43fn61a), whose rulings
come on appeal before
their appointers, who
protect them. In
Calendar Year 2010,
these appointees decided
who kept or received
the $373 billion at
stake in only personal
bankruptcies(jur:27§2). Money! lots
of money! the most
insidious corrupter. About
95% of those
bankruptcies are filed
by individuals; bankrupt,
the great majority of
them appear pro se
and, ignorant of the
law, they fall prey
to a bankruptcy fraud
scheme(jur:42fn60).
d. That
scheme was covered up
by Then-Judge Sotomayor,
e.g., DeLano(jur:xxxv, xxxviii), which she
presided over. Whether
it is one of
the sources of assets
that The New York
Times, The Washington
Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a,c)
suspected her of
concealing (65§§1-3) is
a query that you
can raise at a
press conference(jur:xvii) to
launch(jur:98§2) a
Watergate-like generalized media
investigation(ol:194§E) of her and
the Judiciary through
two unique national
cases (see
infra).
D. Wrongdoers and their accessories: What did they do or know and when did they do or know it?
11. Not
all judges are
wrongdoers; but they
need not be such
to be participants in
illegal activity that
requires their resignation(jur:92§d) or
impeachment. When they
keep silent about the
wrongs done by their
peers, they become
accessories after the
fact; when they let
their peers know that
they will look away
when the peers do
wrong again, they become
accessories before the
fact(jur:88§§a-c).
12. In
both cases, they breach
their oath of
office(ol:162§§5-6), show dereliction
of their collective
duty to safeguard
institutional integrity, and
contribute to denying
due process and equal
protection of the law
to all parties.
13. Thus, the
question is properly
asked of every judge:
What did he or
she know about their
peers’ wrongdoing and
when did he or
she know it?
E. Actions to expose judges’ wrongdoing and become the Champion of Justice of victims of wrongdoing and abusive judges
14. Former House
Speaker and Current
Republican Establishment Member
Newt Gingrich has called
your criticism of the
judge in the Trump
University case “your worst
mistake”; and
Republican Sen. Collins
has asked for you
to apologize to the
judge.
15. You can
defend your criticism by
showing that unaccountable
judges engage in
institutionalized wrongdoing as
part of their history,
policy, and mindset of
impunity, which provides
probable cause to
believe that they abuse
their discretion as part
of their way of
doing business.
16. What is
more, you can turn
your own defense into
that of the national
public, for ‘if judges
can treat me unfairly,
though I am a
presumptive nominee, represented
by the best lawyers,
and able to appeal
to the Supreme Court,
how much more abuse
do they heap on
you?’ So to become
the voice of the
Dissatisfied With The
Establishment and its
judicial and legal systems,
you can:
a)
denounce(jur:98§2) judges’ wrongdoing
at a press conference
and ask the media
to conduct a pinpointed,
cost-effective investigation of
two unique national
cases, stated below,
that can expose the
nature, extent, and
gravity of judicial
wrongdoing;
b) invite
the public to:
1) upload
their complaints about
judges to your site(cf.
infra 362), search them
for patterns of
wrongdoing supportive of
motions for disqualification,
remand, new trial, etc.,
and
2) demand
nationally televised hearings
on judicial wrongdoing
and reform;
c) propose to
the deans of Columbia
and NYU law schools
a course to
research(ol:60, 112-118; jur:131§b)
judicial unaccountability and
reform as an independent
third party(jur:128§4)
working to the highest
academic standards(infra 3647) to
produce the Report on
Judicial Unaccountability and
Wrongdoing in America
and the Required Reform;
and
d) pioneer
judicial unaccountability reporting
as a business
venture(jur:119§1;
jur:324.
17. By so
doing, you can turn
your criticism of a
judge into a master
strategic thinker’s move
to:
a. pack(ol2:422) the
Judiciary with your
nominees to replace
justices and judges
forced to resign or
removed;
b.
reform(jur:158§§6-8; ol:129§3)
the Judiciary to detect,
prevent, and punish
wrongdoing as warranted
by(ol:135§A) the wrongdoing
exposed; and
c. become thereby
the Architect of the
New American Judicial
System.
18. I respectfully request
an opportunity to
present this strategy to
you and your
officers.
Dare
trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and
you may enter
it.
Sincerely,
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com,
CorderoRic@yahoo.com,
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
NOTE
1:
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.
NOTE
2:
This letter and
supporting materials can
be downloaded through
this link:
The Two Unique
National CASes
of Judicial
wrongdoing
A. The P. Obama-J. Sotomayor case and the Follow the money! investigation
1. What
did the President(*>jur:77§A),
Sen. Schumer and Sen.
Gillibrand(jur:78§6), and federal
judges(jur:105fn213b) know
about the concealment of
assets by his first
Supreme Court nominee,
Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor
–suspected by The
New York Times,
The Washington Post,
and Politico(jur:65fn107a) of concealing assets,
which entails the
crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax
evasion(jur:65fn107c) and
money laundering– but
covered up and
lied(ol:64§C) about to the
public by vouching for
her honesty because he
wanted to ingratiate
himself with those
petitioning him to
nominate another woman
and the first Hispanic
to replace Retiring
Justice Souter and from
whom he expected in
exchange support for the
passage of the Obamacare
bill in Congress; and
when did they know
it as well as
any other wrongdoing?(ol:154¶3)
2. This
case can be pursued
through the Follow
the money! investigation(jur:102§a;
ol:1, 66), which
includes a call on
the President to release
unredacted all FBI
vetting reports on J.
Sotomayor and on her
to request that she
ask him to release
them. That can set
a precedent for vetting
judges and other
candidates for office;
and open the door
for ‘packing’ the
Federal Judiciary after
judges resign for
‘appearance of impropriety’.
B. The Federal Judiciary-NSA case and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation
3. To what
extent do federal judges
abuse their vast
computer network and
expertise –which handle hundreds
of millions of case
files(Lsch:11¶9b.ii)–
either alone or with
the quid pro quo
assistance of the
National Security Agency
(NSA) –up to 100% of
whose secret requests
for secret surveillance
orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by
the federal judges of
the secret court
established under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act– to:
a.
conceal assets –a
crime
under 26 U.S.C. §§7201,
7206(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically
transferring them between
declared and hidden
accounts(ol:1); and
b. cover up
their interception of
the communications –also
a crime under 18 U.S.C.
§2511(ol:20¶¶11-12)–
of critics of judges
to prevent them from
joining forces to expose
the judges?, which
constitutes a contents-based
interception, thus a
deprivation of 1st
Amendment rights, that
would provoke a graver
scandal than Edward
Snowden’s revelation of
the NSA’s illegal
dragnet collection of
only contents-free metadata
of scores of millions
of communications.
4. See
the statistical analysis(ol:19§Dfn2)
of a large number
of communications critical
of judges and a
pattern of oddities(ol2:395,
405,
425)
in those communications
pointing to probable
cause to believe that
they were intercepted.
5. This
case can be pursued
through the Follow it
wirelessly! investigation(jur:105§b;
ol:2,
69§C).
***************************************************
