131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
Join the demand for compensation from judges who have broken the law by hearing cases in which they have a financial interest and who abuse their power
NOTES: I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
You are encouraged to share and post it to social media as widely as possible in your own interest and that of the rest of We the People; e.g., click “Reply All” and send.
To subscribe to articles similar to the one hereunder go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New.
The article below had a consistent format when sent. If it shows irregularities when received, they crept in during transit and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them.
After The Wall Street Journal published its article on 28Sep21
“131 Federal Judges Broke the Law
by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest”,
scores of judges have recused themselves and opened the door for retrials
Outline of the webinar and consulting services
holding those judges, the peers who covered for them, and their supervisor, i.e., the Federal Judiciary, liable for the cost of retrials and the disentanglement of contracts and actions based on void and voidable decisions; judges’ failure to read the overwhelming majority of briefs; and their interception of people’s mail and emails to detect and suppress those of their critics;
exposing their coordinated abuse of power and financial criminality at
unprecedented citizens hearings
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
A. Top media outlets & a VIP have exposed law-breaking unaccountable judges
- The Wall Street Journal, published on November 2, 2021, “Hidden Interests – Federal Judge Files Recusal Notices in 138 Cases After WSJ Queries. Rodney Gilstrap initially argued he didn’t violate financial-conflicts law”; James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com. (See the articles referred to in this section here and at Appendix:6§C.22.)
- Thomson Reuters, with 2,500+ journalists and 600+ photojournalists, published on June 30, 2020, the first of its three-part report “The Teflon Robe”, John.Shiffman@thomsonreuters.com and Michael.Berens@thomsonreuters.com, on its massive investigation of state judges. It found that “hardwired judicial corruption” intertwines state judges and the state commissions on judicial performance that are duty-bound to supervise and discipline them. Reuters asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges…and it was “inundated” with them because those with stories want to tell them.
- The Boston Globe published on September 30, 2018, its investigative report “Inside our secret courts”, Jenn Abelson, Nicole Dungca and “Todd Wallack” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, in whose “private criminal hearings, who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”.
- Senator Elizabeth Warren, in her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too”, dare denounce judges’ unaccountability and their abuse of it by refusing to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in one of the parties before them in order to steer the cases so as to protect and/or increase the value of their stock. Sen. Warren refers to their grabbing as ‘abusive self-enrichment’.
- The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), in Washington, D.C., published on October 3, 2021, the Pandora Papers, that is, close to 12 million financial documents leaked to it. “More Than 600 Reporters Around The Globe Work With ICIJ On The Most Expansive Leak Of Tax Haven Files In History”. The expertise that ICIJ has gained in applying document scanning software and money tracking techniques can be applied to exposing judges’ illegal flow of money.
- See also my three-volume study of judges and their judiciaries based on professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking. The study is titled and downloadable thus:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
- Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.
- Many of the study articles have been posted to the website of Judicial Discipline Reform. They have attracted so many webvisitors and elicited in them such a positive reaction that 41,071+ have become subscribers as of 27Dec21(Appendix 3). You too can subscribe to the articles: go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New.
B. What the law and their Code of Conduct require from judges and their disregard of them
- The federal law that imposes on federal judges the legal duty to recuse themselves from cases in which they or their relatives have a financial interest is found in Title 28 of the U.S. Code (of federal law only) section 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge(28 USC §455). See also 28 USC §144. Bias or prejudice of judge.
- Title 18 USC contains the federal Criminal Code. It unambiguously imposes on everybody in general, and judges in particular, the duty to report crimes under federal law:
- 18 USC §4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
- Under §3057, federal law imposes a reporting duty on any judge “having reasonable grounds for believing [which is a standard lower than “probable cause to believe” –a cause that makes the belief more likely than not– and much lower than “evidence”] that any violation under chapter 9 [on bankruptcy, the classification of over 70% of all cases filed in the Federal Judiciary] of this title  or other laws of the United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or reorganization plans has been committed, or that an investigation should be had in connection therewith [which lowers the “reasonable grounds for believing” standard.
- Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges imposes on judges an even broader ethical duty by requiring that “Judges avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety”.
- Judges protect themselves by abusing the self-disciplining authority granted them by Congress in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(28 USC §§351-364): They dismiss 100% of complaints filed against them and deny 100% of petitions to review their dismissals. This is shown by their official statistics, which by law(28 USC §603(h)(2)) they must file with Congress as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts(§604(a)(3) and (4)), who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(§601).
C. Causes of action arising from judges’ abuse of power and financial criminality
- The demand for compensation will be supported by, among others, the following causes of action. They are part of the outline that I can elaborate on if lawyers, their clients, or pro ses retain me to present my webinar, consult, write a statement or a brief, or commission an article for publication. (See a list of articles already written and downloadable for review; Appendix 6§A.)
- conflict of interests resolved in self-interest b. fraud by misleading the parties into thinking that the judges would conduct a fair and impartial process, resulting in harm to the parties; c. concealment of assets d. tax evasion e. money laundering f. embezzlement of public power for personal gain g. breach of the oath of office to uphold the law, harming the parties h. intentional disruption of business relations (contracts foreseeably based on biased, void or voidable decisions) i. intentional waste and misuse of public resources
- filing misleading and false mandatory annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978(Appendix to 5 USC) k. dereliction of the duty requiring the judges on the all-judge-Committee on Financial Disclosures –appointed by the Chief Justice– of the Judicial Conference of the U.S.(28 USC §331) –presided over by the Chief– to review with due diligence reports that all judges must file annually with the Committee
- implicit or explicit conspiracy between her, a judge, to cover his crime, that of another judge -the principal offender- by not reporting him, whereby she became an accessory after the fact, and facilitated his commission of another crime by instilling in him the expectation that she would not report him, whereby she became accessory before the fact and a party to the complicit mutual protection agreement that either would cover for the other if need be.
- Tort liability can be predicated on the duty of a chief judge, the circuit judicial council, and the Judicial Conference to supervise and control the conduct of other judges; their abuse or criminality; and the resulting harm to the victim(28 USC §§331-332; 351-364).
- This applies the respondeat superior principle in a principal-agent relationship; and negligent/reckless hiring, supervision, and retention; e.g., the Chief Justice appoints the members of the all-judge disciplinary committee(§331); and each court of appeals vets, appoints, and removes the bankruptcy judges in its circuit(§152).
- Such application is justified on the grounds that judges themselves have developed to hold the Catholic Church liable for their pedophilic priests and its cover-up(91 Am. Jur. Trials 151; 101 A.L.R. 5th 1; Doe v. Apostolic Assembly of Faith in Christ Jesus, 452 F. Supp. 3d 503 (W.D. Tex. 2020).
- A familiar principle can be adapted: ‘[financial criminality] Too big [for the Judiciary] to fail to know’. That allows the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO; 18 USC §1961 et seq.) to the judges’ running the Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise. The coordination between judges and the judges on the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure that rubberstamp their reports can be charged as a racketeering activity.
D. IN-COURT filings that in addition discuss causes of action for compensation
- An individual’s demand for compensation from judges and their Judiciary is summarily dismissed by judges relying on the Supreme Court in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), (judges’ “immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”; and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), (“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”.) Such assurance by the Court has fostered judges’ impunity mindset: ‘Once on the bench, forever here no matter what.’ Yet, the Constitution contradicts the judicial immunity doctrine that judges have abusively concocted as a means of anticipatory self-exoneration.
- A class action, e.g., under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state counterparts, is very expensive; the lawyer bringing it may not be appointed class counsel; the proposed settlement may not be approved; and even if won, an appellate court may decertify the class by declaring that ‘the interests of the plaintiffs are not common enough to permit their formation of a class’.
- Joining with other similarly situated parties; and with journalists
- However, lawyers, their clients, and pro ses can join forces to collectively demand compensation from federal judges and their Judiciary. By applying a method, they can find those who have appeared before the same judge or in the same court. If they are disciplined enough to focus only on the single issue of compensation, they can form a local chapter of demanders. Progressively, the chapters can coalesce into a national movement. Its precedent is the Tea Party –Taxed Enough Already–, which went from local chapters advocating the single issue of no new taxes to a national party.
- Federal judges and their Judiciary are the model of their respective state counterparts; their jurisdiction is national, so they make decisions that affect everybody in our country. Concentrating to begin with on exposing their unaccountability and consequent abuse of power and financial criminality will outrage the national public and create the momentum to expose state judges and their judiciaries.
- Judges process complaints against judges secretly. Initially, they may also dismiss collective demands for compensation. But they will have to do so publicly, just as they dismiss any other demand in a case. Thereby they will expose the prerogative that they have arrogated to themselves: ‘Judges Can Do No Wrong, hence, we need not compensate anybody’. Making this known to a national public with no tolerance for political and socio-economic inequalities will cause outrage.
- To give publicity to their demand for compensation, the demanders can hire WSJ, Thomson Reuters, and Boston Globe journalists, those of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and others of similar high reputation as investigators of judges in one or many cases and in the same court; and as expert witnesses in judicial abuse and criminality. A new parties-journalists relation can develop.
- Motions can be filed to void judges’ self-interested decisions and disentangle contractual relations based on them. They can petition the recusal of judges in whom trust has been lost for breaking the law even in other cases, for ‘He who can break the law once can break it more easily twice’. A new niche practice for lawyers can develop.
- The demanders can claim standing based on their acting in the public interest to attain the common good of an honest judiciary. They can demand that judges disgorge any benefits received from breaking the law, invoking to that end Son of Sam principles and the successful forcing of former Vice President Spiro Agnew to give up the bribes that he had grabbed as Governor of Virginia.
- Discussion based on the Constitution’s “equal treatment” clause
- Defendants, parties, and abusees can invoke the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to demand “equal treatment” under law:
- Defendants can demand to be treated equally to the 131 judges who broke the law by hearing cases where they had a financial interest, none of whom has been investigated. None will be prosecuted(jur:81§C.1), lest judges individually and as a class devastatingly retaliate against the prosecutor and her office(Lsch:17§C). Far from it, once a judge resigns, all in-vestigation by their Judiciary ends and he collects his full pension. Yet, under Const., Art. III, §1, judges hold office and have a salary guarantee only “during good Behaviour”:
1) Former 9th Cir. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski resigned on December 18, 2017, to end a sexual harassment investigation that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., had directed the 2nd Circuit to conduct. He is even practising as a lawyer.
2) Circuit Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of President Donald Trump, resigned on February 11, 2019, upon being informed that she was under investigation for participating in her father’s distribution of assets to his children through an inheritance tax-evading fraud scheme.
3) No investigation, never mind prosecution, of fellow judges will be authorized by Attorney General Merrick Garland, the former chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and as such their peer, colleague, principal and/or accessory, and thus accomplice. Defendants can object to A.G. Judge Garland’s and DoJ’s selective prosecution that gives the class of judges protection from the law.
- Parties can claim a privilege to equally evade the disclosure and discovery duties and sanctions of Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as would do judges if sued for compensation by claiming that the judicial immunity doctrine concocted in self-interest protects them with a privilege against disclosure and discovery.
1) Judges claim would show their disregard for “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”; cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), which provide, among other things, for trials to be a process for producing not only “the truth”, but also “the whole truth” as a requisite for applying the law in a just and fair way.
2) The fact is that Chief Justice Roberts, who presided over the impeachment trial in the Senate of President Trump, condoned the defending party’s refusal on a claim of privilege to produce a single piece of evidence requested by the prosecuting party. He set a precedent.
3) Such claim by judges upheld by fellow judges would provide the precedent for parties to claim an established privilege, e.g., attorney-client privilege, or even make one up, e.g., ‘private corporation executive officer privilege’, and pretend that it justifies the denial of any disclosure and discovery whatsoever…or even dispense with the need for a privilege and simply self-servingly characterize the suit as “a hoax”, “a witch hunt”, or “abuse of process”.
4) If the precedent is recognized, allowing all parties greater scope to deny disclosure and discovery will gravely disrupt the system of justice. If it is not recognized so that only judges are unequally protected from disclosure and discovery, the outrage will stir up the public to demand transformative reform of the system of justice to ensure that judges are held equally liable to the compensatory sanctions of Rule 37 as well as all other kinds of damages.
- Abusees can claim an equal right to claim against judges as the right given abusees to sue pedophilic priests and the church that covered for them by the lookback laws adopted in the several states. The lookback either extends the number of years from a key event that the statute of limitations allows for suing the defendant or suspends the statute completely and allows suing during a certain future period of time.
- OUT-OF-COURT strategy to inform and outrage the national public
- A more promising course of action for lawyers, their clients, and pro ses to demand compensation from judges and their Judiciary is by implementing the out-of-court inform and outrage strategy. They can inform the national public of, and outrage it at, judges’ abuse, criminality, and cover-up so as to stir the public up to compel politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to investigate judges officially, and hold them accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their misconduct.
1. Informing the public through politicians and abusees’ stories
- The compensation demanders can seek out allies of result: Principled and opportunistic politicians running in the primaries for the 2022 mid-term elections who may be convinced that they can benefit electorally if at every rally, townhall meeting, and interview they vow and call on all politicians and journalists to:
- investigate judges for advancing their financial interests by failing to recuse and for other abuses that cause many more victims:
1) their failure to read the majority of briefs, each of which costs $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce and generates compensable waste; and
2) their interception of people’s emails and mail to detect and suppress those of their critics;
- petition President Biden to release the FBI’s secret vetting reports on judicial candidates;
- ask everybody who ever filed a complaint against a judge or has a story of abuse by judges that they have suffered or witnessed to email a copy to the journalists and members of the Biden Commission for the reform of the Supreme Court below. Let every storyteller apply the two-phase method for writing in up to 500 words their story.
1) In sharing their complaints and stories about judges, the storytellers will be exercising We the People‘s most cherished rights, namely, those guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution to “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including through the payment of compensation]”.
2) They can copy and paste the following blocs of email addresses in the To: and cc: boxes, respectively, of the email containing their complaint or story.
To: [the members of the Biden Commission]
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, mramsey@SanDiego.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
cc: [journalists, students, and professors]
James.Grimaldi@wsj.com, Coulter.Jones@wsj.com, Joe.Palazzolo@wsj.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Thehill@email.thehill.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, info@AP.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, MCoyle@alm.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Opencourt@cnn.com, email@example.com, Matt.Rocheleau@globe.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jackie.Botts@thomsonreuters.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jaimi.Dowdell@thomsonreuters.com, email@example.com, Evan.Allen@globe.com, Vernal.Coleman@globe.com, Brendan.McCarthy@globe.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
- cause media outlets and students and their professors to join forces to hold the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings. At media stations and auditoriums of journalism, law, business, Information Technology, and social sciences schools, and via video conference they can hold hearings to give people the opportunity to tell the national public their story of judges’ abuse of power and financial criminality that they have suffered or witnessed.
- An investigation to gain information from “little people” and confidential informants; and pioneering its reporting
- Through a mutually reinforcing process the information provided through politicians and the stories will strengthen journalists’ commercial and reputational interest in investigating judges’ abuse and criminality: “Scandal sells” and reporting it can win Pulitzer Prizes.
- Journalists can:
- conduct a focused and cost-effective investigation by starting off from the abundance of leads already gathered(OL:194§E);
- interview ‘little people’, such as waiters, waitresses, maids, bartenders, bellboys, drivers, and receptionists at conference centers, hotels, yachts, and private/country clubs, whom the judges deemed too dumb to understand their bragging in the presence of other judges and VIPs about their latest or most daring way of grabbing gain and convenience by disregarding due process requirements and taking advantage of confidential information discussed in chambers by the parties; ex-parte; submitted under seal; and revealed for a bribe;
- search for Deep Throat(jur:106§c) in Court: former and current court and law clerks, judges, and lawyers, who driven by idealism signed on to be Workers of Justice only to be disgusted by becoming ‘Three Monkey’ enforcers of abuse and can now redeem themselves by becoming confidential informants.
- Disseminating the information obtained can lead to Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. It can open the way to the investigation and publication of an Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Consequent Abuse of Power.
- Developing this outline at a webinar or by consultation; and other services
- If you would like to have me either via video conference or in person develop the above outline at a webinar with slides for you and your colleagues and guests or by consulting with me, you can let me know by using my contact information below.
- To ascertain my capacity to make a presentation you may want to view my video and follow it on its slides.
- You can also let me know if you wish to:
- retain me to write a brief or a statement for you;
- publish one or a series of my already written and downloadable articles(Appendix 6§A) judicial abuse of power and financial criminality exposure, compensation of abusees, and reform through transformative change(¶77); etc.(¶48);
- commission an article;
- hold together with journalists, students and professors, media outlets, and specialized schools the proposed multidisciplinary unprecedented citizens hearings. There the testimony of those who have suffered or witnessed judges’ abuse and criminality will be taken in person and inexpensively wherever they are via video conference, and broadcast multimedia nationally;
1) promote the citizens hearings by sponsoring a tour of presentations at schools and other venues(OL:197§G); and
2) organize the first-ever conference on judges’ abuse in connivance with politicians, who fear their devastating power of retaliation(Lsch:17§C). There the citizens hearings report will be presented interactively to a national and international audience. This can launch a global MeToo!, BLM-like movement where people shout the rallying cry so expressive of their self-assertive mood:
Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse from anybody anymore.
- join the investigation into judges, to be focused and cost-effective by starting off from the abundance of leads already gathered(OL:194§E);
- invest capital or expertise in the development of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org to monetize its public appeal, proven by its 41,071+ subscribers, and make the site the center of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture, as described in its business plan, which is guided by the motto “Making Money While Doing Justice”. The investment can turn the site from an informational platform into:
1) a clearinghouse for complaints against judges that anybody can upload;
2) a research center for fee-paying clients auditing judges’ decisions and searching many other writings from many sources that through computer-assisted statistical, linguistic, and literary analysis can reveal the most persuasive type of evidence: judges’ patterns, trends, and schemes of abuse of power; and
3) the showroom and shopping portal of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture(jur:119§§1-4). It can evolve into the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy, to be attached to a university or a news network.
- help form a national, single issue, apolitical, civic movement for We the People, the Masters of all public servants, to hold judicial public servants accountable for the exercise of the public power entrusted to them for the good of the People and liable to the victims of their abuse.
- With their informing and reporting recognized as work in the public interest, demanders of collective compensation and journalists investigating judges can become acclaimed as the People‘s Champions of Justice. So can you.
- Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement;
none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money
- Lip service advances nothing; but it continues to enable the abusers.
Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.
- Support the professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking of:
Judicial Discipline Reform
by making a deposit or an online transfer
through the Bill Pay feature of your online account
to Citi Bank account # 4977 59 2001, routing # 021 000 089;
or TD Bank account # 43 92 62 52 45, routing # 260 13 673.
Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd
Bronx, New York City 10472-6506
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com
NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, 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.