Dr. Richard Cordero offers tips to pro se litigants.

dr-richard-cordero-esq-judicial-discipline-reform-orgDr. Richard Cordero, Esq., has been one of the very few lawyers who are taking on the judicial branch of government. He has studied and published articles that go into great detail based in years of research of the corrupt tactics and ways judges and lawyers use their power to serve their own self-interests, protect each other and avoid accountability.

Judges do wrong in such regular, widespread, and coordinated fashion as to have turned wrongdoing into their institutionalized modus operandi and the Judiciary into the safe haven for judicial wrongdoers. Their abuse of power entrusted to them by We the People is a betrayal of trust. Engaging in it and giving priority to covering it up to protect themselves and their peers injure in fact people’s rights, property, liberty, and life; and deprive the People of their fundamental human, civil, and due process right of access to fair and impartial courts. Exposing the existence, scope, and gravity of their wrongdoing to the national public will cause such outrage as to enable the media and voters to force legislated, rather than voluntary, judicial reform, lest politicians be voted out of, or not into, office.

Just recently Dr. Cordero has argued before the NY Appeals Court. In this ‘test case’, as he calls it, Dr. Cordero briefed the court how judges fail to read briefs, refuse to allow oral argument, never study the facts, and ignore the law. He says this is typical practice by nearly all judges in cases in which a party is pro se, or unrepresented by a lawyer. Dr. Cordero says this conduct by these judges cause such suffering and harm to those ‘slighted by these judges’ that they need to be “legally accountable” for their misconduct and be made to compensate their victims. While this case was just argued last week, the appellate court decision is not expected for months.

Today I received an email from Dr. Cordero in which he offers a “Template to use when arguing before appellate judges on appeal charging a lower court judge with wrongdoing‏” and I’ve reprinted it below — the “references” used throughout this Outline are to sections to the pleadings in that particular case, which I don’t have to provide you the source material. Sorry.

<blockquote>Template that Advocates of Honest Judiciaries can use
to argue the equivalent law in their respective jurisdiction,
rather than their emotions or notions of “what’s not right”,
when appearing before appellate judges on an appeal
charging a judge below with disregard for the law and the facts
that has caused a party injury in fact


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@cantab.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com, RicCordero@verizon.net


Outline for Oral Argument
held by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
before the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department,
of the New York State Supreme Court [a trial court]
on April 16, 2015

A. Civil Practice Law and Rules†(CPLR, similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 105(d): “A “civil judicial proceeding” is a prosecution…of an independent application to a court for relief.” Plaintiff-Appellant (P) is applying in this court for relief from a grievance against conduct that the judge below adopted on his own given that Defendants (Ds) neither answered nor appeared, thus defaulting

† CPLR stands for New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the model for many state civil practice codes.

1. Summons & complaint(A:41,45) mailed under CPLR 312-a, received 4oct12

2. Letter(A:60-64) of 31oct12 of Ds’ attorney to P acknowledged receipt

a. The key factor in service is whether the notice was “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections”, Court of Appeals (highest court in New York) in Ruffin v. Lion Corp.(A-9)

b. CPLR 306(e): “A writing admitting service by the person to be served is adequate proof of service”; 312-a(b) attorney can acknowledge receipt

3. No answer to summons/complaint: Morrissey v. Sostar: “The fact of service conferred jurisdiction. Once proper service was made, any deficiency in the affidavit did not take away jurisdiction which was obtained.”(A:10)

4. P paid the filing fee and acquired a contractual right to court enforcing summons notice: “Should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint”(A:41).

5. No answer to the motion for default and declaratory judgment(A:3), defaulting

6. No appearance at 11mar13 hearing on the default and declaratory judgment motion

B. Judge denied P due process and equal protection of the law when he:

1. refused to hear P at hearing: “I don’t want to hear about it! You have to file an affidavit under 308”(A:269)

a. Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, Part 131, Audio-visual Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, §131.1(a) “These rules are promulgated to comport with the legislative finding that an enhanced public understanding of the judicial system is important in maintaining a high level of public confidence in the Judiciary”.

1) One cannot understand the irrationality of a judge holding a hearing who does not want to hear the parties or of a court allowing that to happen without holding the judge liable for showing contempt of process.

b. Part 100 Judicial Conduct (JC) 100.3(B)(6): “A judge shall [not ‘may’, a duty, not a matter of discretion] accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding…the right to be heard according to law”

2. denied P the benefit of CPLR 312-a by prejudging 308 as the only applicable rule

a. ignored CPLR §312-a: “As an alternative to the methods of personal service authorized by section…308”

b. disregarded CPLR 102: to apply the rules so that they are “not inconsistent with the constitution, [or] act of the legislature. No rule …shall abridge or enlarge the substantive rights of any party”

c. disregarded his duty under CPLR §104 to “apply the rules liberally” by limiting service to only one of the 14 CPLR service provisions

d. disregarded CPLR 103: to give substance priority over form by ‘not dismissing a proceeding not brought in the proper form, rather “the court shall make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution”

e. disregarded priority to be given under CPLR 2001 to parties’ rights rather than their deficiencies in procedural compliance or their papers: “At any stage of an action, including the filing of a summons…the court may permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity…to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced [it] shall be disregarded.”

f. closed his mind to contrary views, revealing a temperament unfit for judicial office

3. denied(A:1a.iii) without reading the motion for default and declaratory judgment
a. said “I will take a look at it”(A:269), either misleading P if he had no intention to take any look at it or failing to keep his word

b. claimed without stating any reason that he was denying the motion due to P’s “failure to submit proof of service in accordance with CPLR”

1) failed to notice P’s Affidavit of Service(A:6) and its listing as the first item of the motion’s Table of Contents(A:3)

2) disregarded CPLR 2101(f): “A defect in the form of a paper, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced[Ds were served, A¶2], shall be disregarded by the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given”

3) disregarded CPLR 3026, which concerns the substance of: “Pleadings[, which] shall be liberally construed. Defects shall be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced”

c. irresponsible and unprofessional for the judge to deny a motion without reading it in an unjustified rush to take it off his workload

1) did not give himself the material time necessary to read it(A:269) when scribbling his denial on a form while still on the bench and having it mailed to P the same day of the hearing

d. denial of P’s constitutional due process right to opportunity to be heard in defense of his view on service under CPLR 312-a rather than 308

4. disregarded P’s CPLR 105(d) “application for relief” in the declaratory judgment branch of the motion for default and declaratory judgment(A:3)

a. did not even mention it in his denial, though that branch was in the motion’s title(A:1c) and the Relief Requested(A:32)

b. disregarded CPLR 3001: “If the court declines to render such a declaratory judgment it shall state its grounds”

c. breached the contract for judicial adjudicative services in exchange for which P had paid court fees as consideration for forming a contract for adjudicative services

1) the Administrative Judge for Civil Matters of the Supreme Court, Kings County, states in the opening statement of the Court’s official website, http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/2jd/kings/Civil/index.shtml: “It is our intention to provide quality service to attorneys and all litigants, whether or not you are represented by counsel”.

5. discriminated against P for being pro se

a. but had heard at length two couple of parties on hearing morning

b. disregarded JC §100.3(B)(4) to “not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice” when he asked P whether he was pro se(A:269)

c. disregarded the Standards of Civility, Judges’ Duties To Parties: “1. A judge should be patient, courteous and civil to lawyers, parties and witnesses”, putting an end to the hearing in less than two minutes

6. denied benefit of diligence duty, taking 5 months to deny reargue motion

a. disregarded duty under CPLR 104 “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every civil judicial proceeding”

b. disregarded JC §100.3(A): “judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities”; and 100.3(B)(7): “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.”

7. denied(A:1b.iii) reargue motion(A:121,124) without allowing P oral argument

a. in 5 months did not find 10 minutes to talk to P

b. pattern of not hearing party to evade challenge to his preconceptions

8. disposed of P’s motion to reargue with:

a. reasonless, conclusory, lazy statement: It “is without merit”(A:1b.iv)

b. quoted Ds’ attorney, “Nobody considers himself or herself served”

1) being served is not D’s subjective state of mind, but the legal consequence of objective act of delivering summons according to any service provision of CPLR, including 312-a, used by P

2) disregarded his JC 100.3(B)(1) duty to “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it”

3) showed gross incompetence because he ignored the law

4) was too arrogant to admit that he had made a mistake

9. knew he could treat P’s motions perfunctorily because it means nothing in practical terms if this court merely reverses him, given that ‘due to their relationship’(next) it will not hold him accountable and liable to anybody

C. Court’s duty under JC §100.1 “to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and its independence…from undue influence of relationships” to their peers, and, §100.3(B)(1), “shall not be swayed by…fear of criticism” of them, but, §100.3, “shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently”, not being partial to their views, but open to those of others

1. The law lacks the power to bend judges’ minds to its rules or guide them to justice.

2. Judges are bent on going to Court of Appeals or Federal Judiciary and guided by the fearsome cry of mutually interdependent survival: ‘If you bring me down, I’ll take you with me!’

3. Newsday’s investigation of judges in Suffolk richly rewarding supporters, by Editor D. Henley and Reporters S. Peddie and Will Van Sant; 4oct14; http://data.newsday.com/projects/long-island/melius-receivership/; audited thousands of judicial documents; Chief Administrative Judge opened an investigation

4. Court should hold judge liable to P for injury in fact, e.g., prolonged penury due to D’ breach of contract, fees, caused him since 11mar13

a. apply to him: ‘a person intends the reasonable consequences of his acts’

b. just as Newsday did, Court should audit judge’s decisions(A:314¶ 122g3) to determine pattern of disregard of judicial and contractual duties by being irresponsible, incompetent, and unprofessional

c. hold public hearings to hear parties, lawyers, clerks, and judges on whether judge has failed “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, JC 100.2

d. do audit/hearings and make history just as Supreme Court ordered bussing in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 because ‘separate education is an inherent violation of the Equal Protection clause’

e. if it cannot grant this relief, certify this question to Court of Appeals:

1) Is it a denial of due process and a violation of the equal protection of the law to maintain the separation between, on the one hand, Judges Above the Law, who are immune from liability to those whom they harm by violating the law and their contract for judicial services, and on the other hand, the people, who are held liable to compensate those whom they harm?

D. Relief should be granted: “no substantial right of Ds was prejudiced”, CPLR 3026; P’s right to default Ds and to “a speedy and inexpensive determination”, 104, denied; and injury in fact

1. grant the relief requested(A:314§H), including, but not limited to this:
a. reverse the two orders(A:1a.iii; A:1b.iii) and remand to a different judge
b. grant the declaratory judgment branch of the motion for default and declaratory judgment(A:314¶122f), including, among other things:

1) P is a citizen of NY and is entitled to the protection of its courts and the benefit of its laws; so the case will not be removed to Ds’ jurisdiction and their influence on it(A:14§§D,E)

2) under CPLR 306-b “the court, upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, [will] extend the time for service”(A:32¶g) if need be

2. refund all court fees below beginning with that of reargue motion(A:315¶h) and hold Ds and judge jointly and severally liable to pay P attorneys’ fees –pro se is “attorney”, CPLR 105(c)– and the expenses incurred during years of litigation since 11mar13

3. reverse the denial of P’s motion for a waiver of the filing fee in this court and refund the fee because its payment was occasioned by the failure of a Judiciary’s agent, i.e., the judge below, and the Judiciary itself to perform or supervise him properly, so that to charge that fee amounts to profiting from their own failure to deliver the contracted-for services.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.