Activity

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]

26 October 2023

Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, Associate Judges, and Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas,‡
NYS Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207
tel. (518)455-7700

Dear Chief Judge Wilson, Associate Judges, and Judge Zayas,
1. In the materials for your webinar at the NYS Academy of Trial Lawyers on October 24, 2023, you, C.J. Wilson, wrote that “the common law is meant to be grounded in principles of fundamental fairness and justice [so that] judges’ job is arriving at a just result”.

2. No “just result” can be arrived at when it begins with judges covering for indictments fabricated on false and insufficient evidence by assistant district attorneys and police officers who abuse their power to exploit the jurors’ ignorance of the law and untrained and uncritical judgment.

3. I, a lawyer with a Ph.D. in law, witnessed such fabrication as a grand juror at the Supreme Court, Bronx County Criminal Term, 265 E 161st St., Bronx, NY 10451, on May 23 and 24, 2022. After the presentation of the indictment, I asked critical questions in the grand jury room. Thereupon, the presenting and the supervising assistant district attorneys, namely, ADA Burim Namani and ADA Diana Jetta, respectively, referred me to Grand Jury Justice Laurence Busching. He discharged me on May 25, 2022, peremptorily without even allowing me to confront the accusers, whether those ADAs, any of the other 20 grand jurors, or the grand jury warden.

4. I complained in an 8-page, 4,743-word sworn statement of facts dated May 28, 2022, to Administrative Justice Alvin Yearwood, who did not even reply or take any of my calls.

5. I filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which dismissed it on the patently false allegation that it lacked jurisdiction over those two judges because “they are not members of the NYS Unified Court System”!1

a. If CJC resorts to such falsehood to dismiss a complaint filed by a lawyer, does such conduct give you probable cause to believe that CJC uses all sorts of even more preposterous allegations to dismiss the complaints filed by lay people so that CJC itself must be investigated to determine whether it cares at all about “principles of fundamental fairness and justice…and arriving at a just result”?

b. To protect your colleagues, do you condone such dishonesty by CJC, regardless of the injustice that the complained-about judges have already inflicted on complainants, are emboldened by such protection to inflict on others, and persistently inflict on the administration of justice?

6. By way of an answer, note that I complained in writing to you on February 23, 2023, and by phone, to your fellow CA judges, and to the NYC and NYS administrative judges repeatedly.2 Neither you nor they replied.

7. Are you so committed to “fundamental fairness and justice” that you will investigate how as a result of judges’ pattern of condoning fabricated indictments likely thousands of individuals have had their lives devasted by being jailed; forced to incur burdensome debt to make bail; and tainted or ruined domestically, socially, and professionally by a criminal record?

8. You have the duty and the authority to expose the judges’ non-coincidental dereliction of duty and abuse of power and their reciprocal protection through an explicitly or implicitly coordinated cover-up.3

9. Action requested: Thus, I respectfully request that you investigate this matter, and to that end:

a. call Judge Yearwood, tel. (718)618-3700, to ask for a copy of my May 28 sworn statement and the transcript of the court reporter’s record of Judge Busching’s May 25 discharge of me;
b. based on your authority to investigate this kind of cases, issue me with an order to produce that statement, which will entitle me to disclose it without risking statutory penalties; and

c. ask me to discuss this case with you, in person if in NYC; otherwise, via video conference.

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

2165 Bruckner Blvd.

Bronx, New York City 10472

tel. (718)827-9521

‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/IAB/DrRCordero-Judges_IAB_IGs.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
>
> 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:
>
> a. former NY State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore; former acting Chief Judge Anthony Cannataro; Bronx Administrative Justice Alvin Yearwood; Grand Jury Justice Laurence Busching; et al.;
>
> b NY Police Department (NYPD) Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) Chief Miguel Iglesias and Commissioner Edward Caban;
>
> c. former NYPD captain and current NY City Mayor Eric Adams; and
>
> d. NY City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and his county counterparts; et al.
>
>
> 2. Since 28 May 2022, some thirty public officers, including entities, have been informed by letter , email, and telephone of the fabricated indictments. A sample of email headers and text is collected in a pdf file; the addressees’ email addresses are in the bloc of addresses below. Nevertheless, the officers have failed to even reply to them.
>
>
>
> 3. Their failure reveals that they have engaged in coordination consisting in harmonious conduct in furtherance of common interests. Circumstantial evidence is as sufficient to establish such coordination as it is in a criminal case where it provides the predicate for the jury to find the defendant guilty and punishable by death.
>
>
> a. A key interest is to avoid retaliation from judges, who would close ranks to protect any fellow judge implicated in admitting into evidence or covering up fabricated indictments; and strike back at the implicators. Such implication may derive from the judges’ possessing actual knowledge of the fabrication or committing willful ignorance or blindness.
>
> b. Prosecutors and police officers are interested in maximizing the number of plea bargains favorable to them by using fabricated indictments to coerce suspects into entering them: The more cases they win, the better their chances of being reelected or promoted.
>
>
>
> 4. In purpose and effect, whether implicitly or explicitly, for their gain and convenience, the coordinated public officers run a corrupt and racketeering enterprise. By so doing, they violate the Enterprise Corruption Law, NY Consolidated Laws, Penal Law-PEN §460; and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§1961 to 1968. They have committed:
>
>
> a. abuse of the public power entrusted to them for the benefit of the sovereign source and destination of all public power in a democracy: We the People;
>
> b. dereliction of duty to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and enforce the law, resulting in denial of equal protection under law;
>
>
> c. obstruction of the administration of justice;
>
>
> d. denial of honest services to be rendered through due diligence;
>
>
> e. deprivation of liberty and property of those falsely accused of committing a crime, who incur expense to make bail, lose their jobs, and suffer reputational impairment by having a criminal record;
>
>
> f. a cover-up to ensure reciprocal complicit protection: ‘I don’t investigate you and you don’t investigate me’; and
>
> g. deprivation of the right to be a member of a grand jury, confront accusers, present evidence, etc.
>
>
>
> 5. The exposure of coordinated abuse of power, public unaccountability, and need for justice system reform can turn those issues into decisive ones of the presidential debates, the primaries, and the general election campaign.
>
> 6. An informed and outraged public can incentivize the holding of the proposed unprecedented citizens hearings.
>
>
> a. The citizens hearings are to be held by journalists, media outlets, Information Technology (IT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) experts, and journalism, law, and IT students and professors.
>
>
> b. Their venue will be media stations and school auditoriums.
>
> c. They will be transmitted via the Internet so that wherever abusees and the audience are, they can tell and listen to the stories of the abuse that they have suffered or witnessed by those who have fabricated indictments or covered them up. See the two-phase method for writing your story in up to 500 words and in a way so that it is accurate, significant, and verifiable.
>
> d. At the hearings, the abusees will shout self-assertively the rallying cry:
>
> Enough is enough!
> We won’t take any abuse by anybody anymore.
> e. Thus informing and outraging state and national audiences, the hearings will encourage ever more people to tell their story. A self-reinforcing process will snowball.
>
>
> 7. The citizens hearings can give rise to both a multidisciplinary academic and business investigation; and the development of a national, civic, Me Too!-like movement. Both will contribute to implementing a plan of action.
>
> a. The hearings and the plan are aimed to spark the formation of a powerhouse centered on the media and academe that compels politicians, lest they be voted out of, or not into, office, to join the exposure of those who fabricate indictments; the collective demand for compensation for the abusees; and the pursuit of judicial reform.
>
>
>
> b. That powerhouse can grow so strong as to bring about transformative change in American society and government to carry out the will of the People.
>
> 8. This is the most propitious time to respond to the call to join forces because the national public is receptive to it and resentful of public abuse of power and unaccountability:
>
> a. Supreme Court justices have been exposed for engaging in unethical and illegal conduct; and failing to ‘disqualify themselves in proceedings where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned'(28 U.S.C. §445), e.g., due to conflict of interests arising from their decades-long beneficial personal relationship with ‘Friends of the Justices’, such as billionaire Harlan Crow, as revealed by ProPublica. Consequently, public trust in the justices has plummeted;
>
> b. the judicial treatment of President Biden’s son and former President Trump has sparked allegations of double judicial standards and the politization of the Department of Justice; and
>
> c. the current electoral season will allow politicians, whether principled or opportunistic, to turn judicial abuse, unaccountability, and reform into the distinguishing issues of their platform in an effort to earn public recognition as the People’s Champions of Justice.
>
>
> B. Hundreds of emails have been, and continue to be, sent to officers and entities duty-bound to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, who do not reply
>
> 9. A representative sample of the headings and text of the hundreds of emails sent since 7 June 2022 to the following officers and entities is contained in a downloadable file‡: