Activity

Defamation specificity; and Indictments fabricated and covered up by NY police, prosecutors, judges, and public advocates; and a call for unprecedented citizens hearings to expose similar abusers everywhere, to be held by lawyers, journalists, professors, and students at media stations and universities

The need for specificity in a defamation case;
and arguing by analogy and distinction‡

‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_defamation_specificity_analogy_distinction.pdf

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
[email protected] , [email protected], [email protected]

A. The demand for a more definite statement and the consequences of failing to provide it

Thank you, Sheriff SH, Ms. Phelan, Ms. Powers, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries for your emails.

1. I would like to suggest that you, Sheriff SH, state with specificity the passages of Reporter BC’s article that you consider to be defamatory or erroneous.

2. A plaintiff in a defamation suit cannot reasonably expect the defendant to withdraw a whole article, whereby the defendant would be admitting that he stated falsely or incorrectly the plaintiff’s name, address, relation to the defendant or other persons; the date, location, and nature of the facts; their background;…in other words, the article was the product of fabrication or of a total incompetent.

3. If the defendant did so, she would totally impair her credibility by implying that she did not get a single detail right. That is impossible, for at least the defendant got a sufficient number of details right for the plaintiff to assume that the readers of the article would understand that it referred to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff’s demand for an apology and withdrawal needs to be made with specificity so that the defendant may know what statements to deny, apologize for, or correct.

4. If Rpr. BC disregards or denies your demand for a published apology and withdrawal and you sue him, he can file a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP; 28 U.S.C. Appendix) or its equivalent under state law (all the states have incorporated into their system of justice those federal rules practically word for word). So, if you sue under Nevada law, download the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and look up the rules bearing the same number as the FRCP. Consider also the rules of the court where you filed your case.

5. You will lose the motion if you cannot produce a more definite statement or if the passages alleged to be defamatory or erroneous are shown to be true, which is a complete defense; insignificantly rather than “materially” incorrect; or ambiguous so that a reasonable person examining them fairly and impartially can conclude that they caused no harm to your reputation. If the passages are not harmful, the most you can ask is that Rpr. BC correct them, not that he withdraw the whole article.

6. This note does not discuss the requirement that you, a public figure, show malice on the part of Rpr. BC, namely, that he knew that the statements were false or recklessly disregarded their truth or falsity and simply published them. See New York Times v. Sullivan and the cases that apply it.

7. If you fail to produce a more definite statement that makes a “prima facie” -a more likely than not- case that Rpr. BC defamed you; he can move for summary judgment under Rule 56. To decide it, the judge must give you, the respondent, the benefit of the doubt by interpreting the contested passages in the article by Rpr. BC, the movant, in the light most favorable to your claim of defamation. But in this scenario, you failed to state the specific passages in the article and/or point out the corresponding facts showing that it contains materially erroneous and defamatory statements. The judge may find your case frivolous and vexatious, and assess punitive damages against you.

8. If you lose the summary judgment motion, there is no trial and the court can enter judgment for Rpr. BC and even grant his request for sanctions against you for violating Rule 11(b): “a party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: …(3) its factual contentions have evidentiary support…”

9. The sanctions may include your reimbursement of all expenses incurred by Rpr. BC. Since you sued him as an employee, his company must be represented by a lawyer. The judge may order you to pay his attorney’s fees, court costs, discovery expenses; and compensation as asked in his counterclaim for defaming him as an incompetent reporter. You risk losing more than you asked for.

B. The folly of self-representation; and arguing by analogy and distinction

10. I invite you all to read two articles that show specificity, beginning with their titles, which consist of contents-summarizing specific details:

A call to join forces
to people denied their rights by Medicare and related entities,
to class action law firms, and to investigative journalists:
Appeal M-23-386 to the Medicare Appeals Council, filed on 28oct22,
is still pending by means of a cover-up. It illustrates how a stand-alone person barely has a chance against the coordinated abuse of power of hospitals, medical practitioners, equipment and laboratory services providers,
health insurance companies and health management organizations (HMOs), the medical decisions reviewers,
the administrative law judges, Medicare, Medicaid, and
the Medicare Appeals Council.‡
‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ALJ/23-8-28DrRCordero_class_action_v_Medicare.pdf

Fabricated indictments based on false and insufficient evidence presented to grand juries by prosecutors, police, and judges who abuse the jurors’ ignorance of the law and untrained and uncritical judgment, and reciprocally cover up their dereliction of honest services and due process duties.
The proposal to expose the abusers through unprecedented citizens hearings

http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero_fabricated_indictments-public_officers.pdf

11.Those articles give a hint of what a complaint, a brief, and a motion look like. Consider whether it is you or Rpr. BC who can use them as a sword in motion practice, discovery, or at trial, that is, as a means of establishing one’s stance on the law and rules, and defeating the opponents’, and justifying one’s demand for relief. Those articles may alert you also to what you need to raise a shield to in order to protect yourself. In either case, suing him in court is not the same as emailing him.

12. In court, you need to comply with the law and the rules of procedure regardless of whether you appear without a lawyer, to wit, pro se, or a lawyer represents you by arguing your case. Appearing pro se is folly. For proof, see in §C the sources of law and rules that you must consult to write a brief or present oral argument in court…and you must know how to argue what you read.

13. Your claims against Rpr. BC allege that his article contains defamatory and erroneous statements. The above articles deal with claims of that kind. They allow you to engage in the key exercise of arguing precedent: Our system of justice arises from common law: Parties assert their claims or defend against the opposing party’s and judges decide them by applying the law -if any was in force at the time of the facts of the case- and/or citing precedent, that is, how cases previously applied the law; and if there was no applicable law, they cite principles of law established in decided cases -rather than listed in a code- that they apply to the new legal issues arising from the facts.

14. Arguing precedent involves two opposite elements: analogy and distinction. You try to establish your claim by discussing how your case is the same as, or similar to, i.e., analogous, a previous case; or you defend against a claim by distinguishing it from a previous case that the opposing party or the judge alleges controls how your case should be decided to abide by this tenet of justice: “To the same or similar facts, the same or similar results”. This tenet provides notice to everybody of what the system of justice holds to be right or wrong; predictability of the results of one’s con-duct in another situation with the same or similar facts; restraint on judges’ decisional power to prevent decisions that are arbitrary, capricious or rooted in personal notions of right or wrong; and consistency because “The Law Applies Equally to Everybody” so that “Nobody is Above the Law”.

15. If you do not understand the preceding, retain local counsel and do not appear pro se against Rpr. BC or anybody else for that matter, lest the saying apply: Plaintiff went in for milk and came out without cheese.

16. I respectfully encourage you to advance your interest in exposing abuse of power by distributing the above and similar articles of mine: post them or open an email from me and click “Reply All” and “Send”. Even if my emails bear the same Subject: line, each has a different set of email addresses in its To: box.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dare shout “I accuse!”…You may trigger history and enter it.

Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, New York City, USA 10472-6506
Judicial Discipline Reform
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Ref
tel. 1(718)827-9521

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

************************************

NOTES: Kindly 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 the website of Judicial Discipline Reform Add New; or fill out the New User form at https://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/wp-admin/user-new.php . As of 18 September 2023, that website had attracted so many webvisitors and impressed them so positively that it had turned into subscribers 48,835 of them.
The text below had a consistent format when sent. If it shows irregularities when received, such as:

a. joinedwords,
b. fonts of different sizes and faces,
c. varying interlinear spacing,

d. headings and paragraphs with indents not corresponding to the letter or number identifying their hierarchical level, or

e. sentences with words [missing] that appear at the end of the paragraph missing,

they crept in during transit through the Internet and are beyond my control. Kindly overlook them. A pdf version of the emails hereunder -as such likely to be free of irregularities- is downloadable here and through the link below.‡

Fabricated Indictments
based on false and insufficient evidence
presented to grand juries by
prosecutors, police, and judges
who abuse the jurors’ ignorance of the law and
untrained and uncritical judgment
and reciprocally cover up their
dereliction of honest services and due process duties.
The proposal to expose the abusers through
unprecedented citizens hearings
http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero_fabricated_indictments-public_officers.pdf

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
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

A. Jointly exposing those who have fabricated indictments or covered them up, and their dynamics

1. This is a call by a grand juror lawyer to abusees, class action lawyers, investigative journalists, professors, and students to join forces to expose those public officers who have participated in the fabrication of indictments based on false and insufficient evidence and/or its cover-up, including