Subject: City of Saint Paul - File #: RES 18-2100SharonAndersonClaim1/2Millre ConstitutionalityExcessiveConsup697SurreyAve
Wed. 19Dec2019
To the Mayor Melvin Carter,City Attorney Lyndsey Olson,Council Amy Brendmoen aka Mrs. Mike Hahn en banc, Media,et al
OBJECTIONS AND CLAIM to the 2019 Final Budget.
PLEASE TAKE LEGAL AND COMMON LAW,CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
THAT QUITAM RELATOR HAS/AND CONTINUE'S TO EXPOSE YOUR PONZI TAXING FEES, VIA INSPECTOR DSI ED SMITH,???
AFFIANT HAS NE VER SEEN OBJECTS TO FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL unsigned LETTERS,SENT VIA US MAILS, TO CREATE A DEBT.
FURTHER THE ABOVE NAMED; Who endorse Muslin Keith Ellison apparantly also endorse Sharia Law.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law
ARE AT WAR WITH CITIZENS OF STATE OF MN AND SANCTUARY CITY ST. PAUL.MN.
https://twitter.com/DeplorableKel2/status/1061502088595664896
https://twitter.com/DeplorableKel2/status/1061502088595664896
City of Saint Paul - File #: RES 18-2100
| Sponsors: | Amy Brendmoen |
| Attachments: | 1. 2019 Legislative Agenda_Submitted 12 18 2018_final |
|
Mon.3Dec2018
Appreciate, Dr.Richard.Cordero-Esq@verizon.net
Affiant Loyal Trump Supporter alleges the System is broken because of a few Rotten Lawyers in High Places.
Apology if in duplicate
In my heart its not the Russian but 4 Muslin Influx in USA.
Quran Sharia Law, Allah vs. Constitution,Christians,Rule of Law.
 | |
Tom Perez KingPin DaddyoftheDFL Lawyer must be brought to the Bar of Justice 4 his Deception re USSC 10-1032 TITLED Magner vs. Gallager http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to
Newell’s lawsuit against the City The effects of withdrawing Magner will be felt by the minority tenants in St. Paul who, due to the case’s challenge to the City’s housing code, continue to live with rampant rodent infestations and inadequate plumbing. The effects of sacrificing Newell’s case will cost American taxpayers the opportunity to recover up to $200 million and allow St. Paul’s misdeeds to go unpunished. Far more troubling, however, is the fundamental damage that this quid pro quo has done to the rule of law in the United States and to the reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.
| Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:28:21 -0500 |
The filing of a test complaint about judges’ abuse of power
and their sham changes to their complaint processing Rules;
and the initiative for schools and the media
to hold fact-finding hearings
where people can testify to
the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity
of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse,
leading to We the Masters holding our judicial public servants
accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse
and their sham changes to their complaint processing Rules;
and the initiative for schools and the media
to hold fact-finding hearings
where people can testify to
the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity
of judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless abuse,
leading to We the Masters holding our judicial public servants
accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse
ByDr. 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 Cityhttp://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Corderoric@yahoo.com
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 Cityhttp://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Corderoric@yahoo.com
You may share and post this email and the test complaint
in their entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
in their entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
To publish it commercially or in a commercial publication, contact Dr. Cordero.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:801, 792.
Dear Deans, Professors, Students, Journalists, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
1. This is a proposal in line with the posture that many of you took on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh –including 2,000+ Mothers in the Legal Profession and 2,400+ law professors who took out ads in The New York Times- and/or the changes by federal judges to their Rules for processing complaints about them.
2. This proposal seeks, not to revisit sexual abuse allegations, but rather to expose judges’ abuse of power by you supporting:
a. the test complaint about J. Kavanaugh(infra and at OL2:792), filed with Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., just as 15 complaints on other grounds have been, for having dismissed together with his peers and colleagues in the District of Columbia Circuit 100% of the 478 complaints about them and denied 100% of the petitions for review of those dismissals during his 11-year tenure there. Those are statistics(infra Test Complaint §D) that they submitted to Congress.
1) The statistics submitted by the judges of the other circuits and reporting courts reveal the judges’ changes to their complaint processing Rules and Code of Conduct as a sham(†>OL2:791). Their one single hearing thereon in the whole country rather than locally in each of its 200+ federal courts, held on October 30 in Washington, D.C., was convened and held in bad faith by making it too costly to attend and limiting testimony time to only five minutes!(OL2:783, 796).
2) Judges will keep self-exonerating from 100% of complaints, just as they did from their adoption of the Illustrative Rules in 1986 and before the 2000, 2008, and 2015, changes and have done since. That shows a pattern of deception. They seek the reputational benefit of pretending to be disciplining themselves while having no intention of delivering on those changes anything other than 100% abusive disregard of them. Hence, their conduct constitutes fraud on the public.
This is shown in my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which contains the materials corresponding to the (blue text references). The study is titled and downloadable thus:
Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* †;
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 number up to OL:393
† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394
and
b. the investigation of Judge Kavanaugh announced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler when he went on the ABC program “This Week” and said that if the Democrats retook the House, he was slated to become the chair of its Judiciary Committee, and if so, he would investigate him.
1) You can support the proposal to Rep. Nadler(OL2:799) that he base the investigation on the judges’ official statistics submitted to Congress and the public. The latter are bound to inform and outrage(†>OL2:714§B) the national public(OL2:719¶¶6-8), not only opposers to the Judge, by revealing that for their gain and convenience, judges dismiss 100% of complaints about their abuse of power over people’s property, liberty, and their rights and duties.
3. To support this proposal you can share and post this email and its attachments, and forward them to C.J. Roberts and Rep. Nadler. This is their contact information:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the U.S.
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (NY-10th District)
c/o: District Office Assistant Clara Dorfman
201 Varick Street, Suite 669
New York, NY 10014
In NYC tel. (212)367-7350; Clara.Dorfman@mail.house.gov,
In Washington, D.C., (202)225-5635;Michael.Cronin@mail.house.gov
4. Your support can be decisive in inserting judges’ abuse of power among the issues of the 2020 presidential campaign and investigating an issue that will outrage the national public: judges’ interception of their critics’ communications(†>OL2:781, 796).
5. To succeed we can seek the support of:
a. the 2,000+ Mothers in the Legal Profession and 2,400+ law professors who published in The New York Times(NYT) their ads to protest the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh(†>OL2:774);
b. the Harvard and Yale students, deans, and professors who took a position on him(OL2:785¶15a);
c. the new members of Congress(OL2:722), who want to change its way of doing business so that it serves We the People, not the people in power; and
d. the MeToo! national public arising from the NYT and The New Yorker’s Harvey Weinstein exposés and self-assertively shouting”
Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore(OL2:719§C).
We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore(OL2:719§C).
6. I respectfully ask that you invite me to make A Programmatic Presentation to you and your group of peers, colleagues, friends, and guests: It is titled and covers as follows:
a. Joining forces to cause academic research(*>OL:60, 115, 255) and unprecedented fact-finding citizen hearings: conducted by and held at, law, journalism, business, and Information Technology schools and media entities to establish the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse, where people testify to the abuse that they have experienced or witnessed(†>OL2:585§1);
b. the facts found are so outrageous that they set off a generalized investigation by professional and citizen journalists(OL2:713);
c. some judges and clerks, disgusted by the abuse that they have committed, tolerated, or witnessed, are driven by a NotMeAnymore! attitude to whistleblow confidentially or publicly(OL2:788¶37);
d. thus justifying now unthinkable reform proposals(*>jur:158§§6-8) and
e. so outraging current, former, and prospective parties to cases as to cause the emergence of local chapters and a national movement to demand the refund of filing fees and compensation for, and guarantees against, judges not reading the required briefs –the preparation of which costs $1,000s and even $10,000s- and instead dumping the overwhelming majority of cases out of their caseloads through clerk-filled out dumping forms: unresearched, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like summary orders(OL2:760; 457§D);
f. leading to the first ever conference(OL2:97§1) on judges’ abuse of power, one multimedia so that it can be participated in locally and attains the scope of a national event(*>dcc:11);
g. which can in turn lead to the constitutional convention petitioned since April 2014 by 34 states, thus satisfying the 2/3 of states requirement of Article V of the Constitution for amending it, where We the People can assert our status as the sovereign source of all political power and exercise our power as masters of all public servants, including judicial public servants, to hold all of them accountable for the performance of their duty and liable to compensate the victims of their abuse.
6. By helping to implement this program, you can be recognized by a grateful national public as one of its Champions of Justice.
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
Visit the website at,
and subscribe to its series of articles thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New
and subscribe to its series of articles thus: www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New
Put your money
where your outrage at abuse
and passion for justice are.
where your outrage at abuse
and passion for justice are.
here
I look forward to hearing from you; meantime, kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506 tel. (718)827-9521
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506 tel. (718)827-9521
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b
NOTE: 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.
****************************************
****************************************
TEST COMPLAINT
that you can support by filing it too
to expose how judges intentionally deceive the public
by pretending that it can complain about them
although the judges know that
they will dismiss 100% of its complaints
so that the proposal to change the complaint Rules is
a sham
that confirms
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
that you can support by filing it too
to expose how judges intentionally deceive the public
by pretending that it can complain about them
although the judges know that
they will dismiss 100% of its complaints
so that the proposal to change the complaint Rules is
a sham
that confirms
unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power
You may download this test complaint through this link
to print, join, and mail it to (also infra §E):
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
I and the people assembled with me, exercising our 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(*>jur:111§3), which no statute or self-interested required ‘confidentiality’ can abrogate, file publicly this complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. §§351-364(jur:24fn18a) about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and their peers and colleagues on the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (the complained-about judges or the judges; DCC) for dismissing 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed under the Act in DCC, and denying 100% of petitions for review of such dismissals during at least the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period.
That is a fact established by the official statistics(infra §D; †>OL2:748) that the judges were required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(*>jur:26fn23a) to submit, and did submit, to Congress and the public.
The materials corresponding to the (parenthetical references in blue) are contained in my 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, which is titled and downloadable thus:
Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting* †
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 OL:393
† Volume 2:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394
A. The Act is to be construed broadly
1. The Act does not require complainants to show standing to file a complaint about a judge, whether by having suffered injury in fact as a result of the judge’s misconduct or disability complained about; meeting any residence requirement relative to the judge’s workplace or residence; or otherwise. Rather, it provides under §351(a) this:
"Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct."
2. The 15 complaints filed in DCC(infra §E) about Judge Kavanaugh in the wake of his Senate confirmation hearings in September 2018 were transferred under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings(*>jur:125fn264;†>OL2:778) by Chief Judge Garland, who disqualified himself, to DCC Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who in turn transferred them to you, Chief Justice Roberts, and you assigned them on October 10 to Ten Circuit Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich(infra §E) for processing.
3. We respectfully petition you and all other officers to likewise transfer and process this complaint together with the other 15 so that their processing may be informed by each other; all be used to detect judges’ patterns and trends of misconduct and the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi; and their processing may lead to the independent investigation of the Judiciary’s unlawful interception of their critics’ communications.
B. The facts of the complained-about judges’ prejudicial conduct
4. Through their 100% dismissal of the 478 complaints about them and 100% denial of the petitions for review, the judges have “engaged in §351(a) prejudicial conduct”. Indeed, they have:
a. arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect that Act of Congress, which it is “the business of the courts” and its judges(¶c infra) to enforce together with all other congressional acts;
b. abused the self-disciplining power entrusted to them under the Act by exonerating themselves from all complaints so as to evade any disciplinary action, thereby resolving in their favor the conflict of interests arising from being the target and the judges of the complaints;
c. breached their oath of office under 28 U.S.C. §453 whereby:
"[We] solemnly swear (or affirm) that [we] will administer justice without respect to persons [like our peers, colleagues, and friends 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, colleagues, and friends who dismissed complaints about us], and that [we] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [us] as judges under the Constitution and laws of the United States”.
Instead, the judges administered ‘unequal protection from the law’ with respect to relationship to them by being 100% partial toward their peers, colleagues, and friends when they became the target of complaints, 100% of which they dismissed;
d. disregarded their duty under the Code of Conduct, Canon 1, which requires them to “uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary”. They have shown that how they “discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] as judges under the…laws [such as the Act]” depends upon whether the person whose conduct they are judging is their peer, colleague, or friend, on whom they dependent for cover-up of their own misconduct and disability;
e. prejudiced through such interdependent partiality “the integrity of the judiciary”, of whose essential character for the “effective…administration of the business of the courts” they have imputed knowledge because the Commentary to Canon 1 provides thus:
"Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law";
f. failed to maintain the “good Behaviour” required of them under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution “to hold their Offices”; defined by what their oath singles out, i.e., their pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [under the] laws”, such as the Act; and reiterated by Canon 1 in its Commentary “they must comply with the law”;
g. committed “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” prohibited by Canon 2, for under Canon 2A “reasonable minds with knowledge of the relevant circumstances after reasonable inquiry would conclude” that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ impossible for all the judges to independently deem that 100% of the 478 complaints about them filed over 11 years were properly dismissible but for a complicit reciprocal complaint dismissal agreement;
h. denied complainants the benefit intended for them under the Act of redress for the prejudice that they had suffered or witnessed relating to the judges’ misconduct or disability;
i. deprived complainants and the rest of the public of the working mechanism for complaining that the Act had provided for their protection from misconducting and disable judges;
j. showed reckless disregard for 100% of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability complained about in the 478 complaints filed about, and dismissed by, them, whose recklessness was aggravated by their systematic failure to investigate the complaints through the appointment of special committees, provided for under §353;
k. showed reckless indifference to the rights and well-being of complainants and the rest of the public by leaving them exposed to 100% of the prejudice already caused by the misconduct and disability complained about, and any additional prejudice at the hands of the exonerated judges, who were left free of any deterrent to further committing misconduct and indulging in disability; and at the hands of other judges who, realizing that misconduct and disability had no adverse consequences for judges, also committed misconduct and indulged in disability;
l. disregarded Canon 3 providing that “The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities”, given that the number of extra-judicial activities highlighted on their individual page on the DCC website allows ‘the math of perfunctoriness’(†>OL2:760) to demonstrate how lack of time accounts for 93%(OL2:457§D) of appeals being disposed of through the clerk-filled out, reasonless, arbitrary, fiat-like dumping forms of summary orders(*>jur:43§b);
m. intentionally “prejudic[ed] the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and the persons to whom they swore to administer justice, We the People. It is a torts tenet that“people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their acts”. By dismissing 100% of the complaints and denying 100% of review petitions, the judges rendered their misconduct and disability riskless, which enabled their further prejudicial misconduct and disability. Worse yet, they emboldened themselves and others to commit misconduct and indulge in disability of ever more diverse nature, to a greater extent, more frequently, and of higher gravity. While dismissing and denying for over a decade, they saw their foreseeable prejudice become a fact, whose continued occurrence they intended;
n. deceived potential and actual complainants by pretending that their complaints would be fairly and impartially processed under the Rules and the Act although the judges intended to dismiss 100% of them, thus running their regulatory and the statutory complaint mechanism as a sham that works fraud on We the People.
C. Action requested
5. Therefore, we respectfully petition the judicial officers processing this complaint to:
a. deem and treat this complaint as the public document that it already is; and make it available to the public easily and widely as it progresses through the stages of its processing;
b. communicate to us and the public the judges’ answers; and afford the opportunity to reply, for it would constitute partiality toward the judges to take their answers at face value;
c. in the interest of justice for the complainants and public confidence in judges, make the 478 complaints and their dismissal orders, review petitions, and denials public, and transfer them under Rules 25 and 26 to be processed impartially by DCC-unrelated §353 special committees, whose members need not be judges or lawyers (next) and which can replace the failed mechanism of judges –cf. priests and police officers- judging their peers, colleagues, and friends;
d. hold fact-finding public hearings on this and all other complaints to ascertain the causes for complaint, which hearings Judge Anthony Scirica, Chair of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, stated at the October 30 hearing on Code and Rules proposed changes are conceivable as part of the Committee’s work; and let independent fact-finders, i.e., news anchors and editors, investigative reporters, and journalism school deans and professors(†>OL2:777¶21c), conduct them to find whether dismissing complaints regardless of the nature, extent, frequency, and gravity of the misconduct and disability turned into all judges’ pattern of action, which then became the Judiciary’s institutionalized policy of misconduct as its modus operandi(OL2:756¶¶9-11);
e. have independent Information Technology, mail, and phone forensic experts investigate the Judiciary’s interception of its critics’ communications(OL2:781), such as mine by email, mail, phone, my website, PayPal, GoFundMe, LinkedIn, and Facebook accounts(*>ggl:1); and make their findings public:
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@gmail.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com , Dr.Richard.Cordero.JDR@gmail.com ,Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq.JDR@gmail.com , CorderoRic@yahoo.com ; tel. (718)827-9521
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b
D. Links to official court statistics on complaints about judges and their analysis
6. Article on official statistics on complaints about J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers and their analysis using "the math of abuse": http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf
7. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf
8. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf
9. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 15 reporting courts: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf
10. Article on statistics and math: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through 'dumping forms': unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, and fiat-like orders; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf>OL2:760, 457§D
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
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
NOTE: 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.
I, [your name]_____________________________ am forwarding this complaint to you in support of it.
[your contact information]__________________
E. In support of this complaint, print and mail or email it to:
Mr. Mark Langer, Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, Rm 5205
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, Rm 5205
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
tel. (202)216-7300
Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street, Room 102G
Denver, CO 80257-1823
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street, Room 102G
Denver, CO 80257-1823
tel. (303)844-3157
************************************
Current Candidate MNAG LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: HEALTHCAREhttp://blogitbabe.blogspot.com
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdf
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogsbd pot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4andersonHomestead Act of 1862| ScriDocument's are based on SEC filings,| www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson
