The request that he release the FBI vetting report on his justiceship nominee J. Sotomayor
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Former President Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to resign because he had lied to Congress and had lost its trust.
Now, an ever-greater number of Americans believe that President Obama lied to them when he said that under his Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare, they would be able to keep their current health insurance.
Instead, the insurance of millions of them has been cancelled and they have been left by insurers with no more option than a more expensive insurance with features that they may not need but that are in compliance with Obamacare as now the President pretends to understand what his own signature piece of legislation offers.
His motive for lying to them would have been to induce them to support the passage and implementation of Obamacare.
Many Americans think that he is untrustworthy.
A. The President’s graver lie about Then-Judge/Now-Justice Sotomayor’s honesty
How would Americans react if they learned that the President also lied when he vouched for the integrity of his first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge Sotomayor, although he knew that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[107a] suspected her of concealing assets of her own. Concealment of assets is a crime in itself and is undertaken either to evade taxes or launder them of their illegal provenance, both of which are also crimes(id. >ol:5fn10).
*NOTE: All (parenthetical) and [bracketed] blue text is references to supporting passages and footnotes, respectively, found in the study, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. That study is in the file downloadable through the external link http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf. In the study and everything else in the file, the blue text represents active cross-referential internal links that facilitate jumping to supporting passages and footnotes to check them.
Unlike those preeminent and trusted media outlets, the Department of Justice and its FBI had subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers to conduct a more intrusive investigation when vetting all candidates being considered as replacement for Retiring Justice Souter.
By exercising those powers, the FBI could both confirm such suspicion and even find the whereabouts of the concealed assets. It could do so because the very documents that Then-Judge Sotomayor submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Judicial Nominations and that it posted on its website[107b] showed that she could not account for the income that she herself had declared[107c]. The FBI could inform thereof the President in its vetting report on Justiceship Candidate Sotomayor before he nominated any of his candidates for the Supreme Court(jur:77§5).
After his first election, the President disregarded the known tax evasion of Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer and nominated them to his cabinet.
So it was in character for him to disregard the incriminating information about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets, nominate her, and lie about her honesty. He had a motive: to cater to those petitioning for another woman and the first Latina for the Supreme Court, and receive in exchange their support for passing Obamacare.
By so doing, President Obama in self-interest saddled the American public with a life-tenured dishonest justice who for the next 30 or more years can be shaping the law of the land with one hand and covering her concealed assets with the other, for she cannot declare them, but must keep them concealed(68§3) to avoid incriminating herself and risking calls for her resignation.
Just as felons cannot serve as jurors, a judge who breaks the law shows contempt for it and cannot be expected to respect it enough to apply it fairly and impartially.
Indeed, the revelations by Life magazine of the financial improprieties of Justice Abe Fortas forced him first to withdraw his name for the chief justiceship and subsequently to resign on May 14, 1969(92§d).
B. The Obama-Sotomayor story can reveal graver lies and wrongdoing
Whether one is for or against Obamacare is utterly irrelevant as is whether one is Democrat or Republican.
What matters is how revealing the involvement of a sitting president and a sitting justice nominated by him in concealment of assets and its cover-up for personal and political gain can reveal their unfitness for office. That revelation can so outrage the national public as to convince the media that there is a large and avid audience for the Obama-Sotomayor story(jur:xxxv) that justifies making the necessary investment in manpower, money, and public relations to:
a. conduct a Follow the money! search(102§a) for the concealed assets of J. Sotomayor, which can be facilitated by obtaining the unique expertise therein of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists(ol:1,2), and lead to a bankruptcy fraud scheme(66§2);
b. investigate the circumstances in the Federal Judiciary that enable her to conceal assets despite her duty to file publicly her annual financial disclosure report; and
c. determine how many of her peers engage through coordination(88§a) in financial wrongdoing(102236-237) and other kinds of wrongdoing(5§3), which can lead the media to
d. conduct a Follow the wire! investigation(105§b) of the extent to which the Federal Judiciary –whose judges rubberstamp up to 100%(ol:5fn7) of NSA’s annual secret requests for secret orders of surveillance– either has abused its own vast Information Technology infrastructure and expertise(Lsch:112b.ii) or in exchange for its approval of NSA’s requests has benefited from NSA’s IT resources to interfere with the communications of complainants of judges’ wrongdoing(ol:19§D). The judges have a motive: to prevent their incriminating exposure and secure the continued stream to themselves of wrongful benefits.
Unlike surveillance, interference with third-party communications is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §2511(ol:2011-12).
Revealing that the Judiciary and its judges interfere in crass self-interest with complainants’ communications would stir up a scandal more intense than that of NSA’s snooping on millions of Americans in the interest of national security.
This investigation can reveal whether the President lied about not knowing that NSA was snooping on 35 foreign heads of state or government:
It is inconceivable that he has been briefed on security every morning for years, but has never blurted ‘How did you get that information?!’ It is precisely the most privacy-breaching information that the briefers would disclose to him and boast about because ‘With $X we got this; if you give us $X x 2, we will get more and you, Mr. President, will gain an informational advantage over world leaders’.
The power and prestige of any bureaucracy is directly related to its budget, which determines its means and capabilities. NSA has managed to increase its budget from $5.5 billion under President Bush to $10.8 billion under President Obama(ol:5fn11).
C. Scandal in the Presidency and the Judiciary leading to judicial reform
An Obama-Sotomayor scandal can launch an unprecedented, Watergate-like generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges.
Emboldening the media would be the fact that while the judges, whether individually or as a class through explicit or implicit coordination(90§§b-c) among themselves, can retaliate against a single journalist or media outlet that is investigating one of them, the judges cannot retaliate against all journalists and media outlets at the same time, for thereby they would reveal their non-coincidental, intentional, wrongful motive for sending the abusive message, ‘This is what happens to you(Lsch:17§III) when you mess with us!’
The ever more numerous journalists and media outlets revealing ever more blatant wrongdoing by judges can so intensely outrage the national public as to make it politically unavoidable for Congress and DoJ-FBI to conduct official investigations, even hold nationally televised public hearings, such as those on the Watergate Scandal(jur:410-14) and those held by the 9/11 Commission.
That historic investigation of the Federal Judiciary and its judges can embolden the media to investigate state judges and judiciaries too. The revelations of their wrongdoing can likewise so outrage a state public as to make it unavoidable for the state authorities to investigate them.
That is the strategy for advocates of honest judiciaries and even political partisans and visceral enemies of President Obama who nevertheless search for solid grounds on which to stake their call for his resignation or impeachment:
To take advantage of current widespread disbelief in the trustworthiness of the President and distrust of government(ol:11) by investigating the Obama-Sotomayor story of personal wrongdoing and inter-branch connivance so as to provoke in the public ‘reformative outrage’(83§§2-3).
Reformative outrage will be the public’s reaction to revelations that judges engage in even criminal wrongdoing(133§4), not excusable as the exercise of judicial discretion, because they are held by politicians unaccountable, who have also allowed them to cloak their activities in pervasive secrecy(27§e).
So judges do wrong risklessly and in coordination.
Risklessness renders their wrongdoing more alluring and profitable since costly detection-prevention and defensive measures are unnecessary.
Coordination makes it more effective and expands its reach.
The President knew that, for to cover for herself and her peers(4380), J. Sotomayor perjuriously withheld from the Senate a case that would have exposed them(68§3). Let the President deny it and then demand that he order all FBI vetting reports on Then-Justiceship Candidate and Now-Justice Sotomayor released.
D. Your choice: suffer, whine, be one of many or become a Champion of Justice
Exposing judges’ wrongdoing can lead to its positive objective: to cause an outraged public to force politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to undertake historic judicial reform(158§§6-7). The precedent for this is what the Tea Party has forced politicians to do.
The reform can impose concrete, non-discretionary duties on judges and judiciaries to attain:
1. transparency, for “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”; so the secrecy of their closed-door adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings and no press conferences must give way to their being forced to function on the same open-door basis as Congress, legislatures, and the Executive;
2. accountability, to terminate Judges Above the Law by bringing them down to where the People, their masters, can hold them accountable as what they are: their public servants;
3. discipline, administered by independent citizen boards(160§8) after removal of the immunity that judges have arrogated to themselves(26§d) by self-applying the undemocratic, by-the-grace-of-God-ruling principle “The King Can Do No Wrong”; and
4. liability, so that judges and judiciaries can be held by the boards subject, as the rest of government is(ol:5fn9), to compensate jointly and severally their wrongdoing victims.
The application of those principles to judges and judiciaries forced by the public’s reformative outrage at their objective wrongdoing can be ever more expansively applied to the other branches. This can bring about a new We the People-government relation where the People exercise ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:17) on their servants: the People’s Sunrise.
As one of the People, you have a choice: You can remain a silent journalist, other professional, or a student among thousands or a judicial complainant among millions screaming at judges to no avail.
Or you can choose to be a courageous, principled, unique person and thinking strategically, take advantage of proper timing, when the audience is most receptive to a scoop.
If the latter, you can set in motion a process of exposure that leads to historic reform, first in the Federal Judiciary, then in the rest of government at the federal and state levels.
Even if acting as this generation’s Deep Throat of Watergate fame(106§c), you can become to a grateful nation its Champion of Justice.
To that end, you can help organize a presentation(Lsch:2) by this author to expose judges’ wrongdoing, set forth the Obama-Sotomayor story, and lay out a plan of action(Lsch:10§B) reasonably calculated to lead to reform. It can be held at a law, journalism, business, or Information Technology school, a media outlet, or a civil rights organization.
By developing the number, experience, and skills of those who help you organize that presentation, you can thus end up as the Producer of the Coalition for Justice(Lsch:12§C).
Dare trigger history!(dcc:11)
©2013 Richard Cordero. All rights reserved. A non-exclusive license is hereby granted for distributing and reprinting this article, provided it is distributed and reprinted in its entirety, without addition or modification and with inclusion of this copyright note; proper attribution is made to the author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.; and its link accompanies it: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:63-65.