Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2016

Share this article with your facebook friends


Al-Jazeerah History


Mission & Name  

Conflict Terminology  


Gaza Holocaust  

Gulf War  




News Photos  

Opinion Editorials

US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)




A Plea to US Republican Presidential Candidates to Stop Fear Mongering and Exaggerating the Threat of Terrorism

By Richard Cordero

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 1, 2016

Zionist puppets compete about who is tougher in his promises to destroy the Middle East for Israel


A proposal to the US Republican presidential candidates to reassuringly place the risk of death by terrorism in perspective by comparing it with other causes of death in America so that one of them who thinks strategically may emerge as the enlightening leader that leads an enlightened People and as the Champion of Justice

Dear US Presidential Candidate,

This is a proposal for you to emerge as the leader who enlightens and reassures the national public when as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino some presidential candidates have misled the public into thinking that terrorism is the main death risk that it runs. You can put terrorism in perspective by comparing itwith other leading causes of death that have mortality rates indisputably and even surprisingly higher, e.g., hospital infections and lightning.

By thinking strategically, you can responsibly use comparative statistics, as illustrated in the supporting table(* >ol:365), in a novel way: to reassure the public and attract it to your website through crowd fact-checking and posting.

To that end, you can reassuringly comment at rallies, debates, and interviews on the need to confront terrorism with a sense of proportion so as not to be unduly impressed by the day to day events or even exploited by demagoguery for political gain at the expense of the public peace of mind. Then you can unfold a paper and read the table’s title aloud: Facts against Fear a table comparing terrorism with other causes of death in America*.

* All end note and blue parenthetical references are keyed to my study of judges and theirjudiciary titled and downloadable as follows (this letter is at page * >ol:362 and the table at 365):

Exposing Judges ’Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting*




If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser’s search box, and press ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 830 pages and is more than 57 MB in size, does not download, try using the other links and then the other browser:

Google Chrome:

or Mozilla-Firefox:

That table will be only the first of many on a widespectrum of subjects and serve as a template for the presentation of verifiabledata.

So you can invite the public to contribute to researching the incomplete entries of the table and submit their findings to your website for verification.

You can announce that the most prolific submitters of verifiable and enlightening statistics and analysis [1]* will be publicly recognized and invited to become members of your campaign’s virtual teams of enlighters. Their task will be toturn your website into the most trusted and visited source of presidential election information and the most reliable fact-checking entity. Their mission will be to provide the truth-in-fact foundation for your motto: An enlightening leader leads an enlightened people [2].

You can portray the table(s) as your means of running a campaign based on facts, as opposed to fear mongering, other negative emotions, and hyperbole. This will illustrate how you as president will run a transparent, honest administration based on facts actively shared with, and verifiable by, We the People.

Naturally, the public that is attracted to your website to post and check facts will also find there information about your platform and upcoming rallies, and have the opportunity to donate to your campaign.

The above proposal further illustrates the potential of strategic thinking. Indeed, the latter has given rise to another proposal(ol:311):

You can draw electoral support from the huge [3]untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems. Their dissatisfaction derives from judges’ self-disciplining authority, their abuse of it by systematically dismissing complaints against them [4],and their secretive functioning [5].By so doing, they are able to disregard the facts and the law applicable to cases to gain benefits risklessly, to the dismay of one or more parties.

You can tap the bloc’s support [6]by presenting at a press conference and rallies the evidence [7]thereof contained in the above-mentioned study.

You can invite the public to post on your website its judicial complaints so that it can analyze them for coordinated wrongdoing patterns [8], thus attracting Republicans and Democrats alike; and to join you in calling for nationally televised hearings on judges’ wrongdoing (to be known as your hearings), and journalistic and official investigations even as your teams of enlighters conduct their own(ol:194§E).

Judges who give “even the appearance of impropriety” [9] can be led to resign [10]. As president, you can nominate the irreplacements to secure your legislative agenda’s constitutionality [11].

By leading We the People’s “petition for a redress of grievances” [12], you can emerge as their Champion ofJustice [13].

I offer to make a presentation [14] of these proposals to you and your officers at a video conference or in person.

Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.


Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq.



[1][1].     You can post the accompanying table(ol:365) and ask people to use it as a template whensubmitting their research findings. The latter will be subject to an initialphase of vetting by the public. Findings that survive such vetting will beposted as your campaign’s official facts.

[1][2].     After presenting to your audience the Facts Against Feartable, you can ask it and the rest of the American public poignant rhetoricalquestions to cause them to perform a balancing test:

a.  Given thecomparative statistics already presented, would you prefer to take your chanceswith falling victim to terrorism or becoming a victim of any of the othercauses of death in America whose chance of occurrence is 10s, 100s, or 1,000sof times higher?

b.  When a member ofyour family, a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a workmate or fellow Americandies in a car accident, a house fire, a drive-by shooting, or by foodpoisoning, do you say that their deaths do not count because they did not die avictim of terrorism?

c.  The federal government spends more than itcollects in taxes, which explains why its borrowing limit has to be raised sooften; otherwise, it would run out of funds and have to close down. Imaginethat the government manages to gather $5 billion to reduce the mortality of oneof the causes of death in America. If you could vote on how to allocate thosefunds, would you vote to allocate them to fight terrorism or to combat any ofthe other causes of death with significantly higher mortality rates, such ascancer or car crashes?

[1][3].     In the federal and state courts, 50million new cases are filed annually(jur:8fn4, 5).They involve at least 100 million parties, each of which may consist of two,ten, a hundred persons or the thousands of members of a class. In addition,every case affects the parties’ relatives, employees, clients, shareholders, similarlysituated people, etc. To those cases must be added the scores of millionspending and those deemed by parties to have been wrongfully decided by judgeswho risklessly took their property, liberty, and the rights and duties thatdetermine their lives.

[1][4].     Official statistics cited in my study(jur:21§1) show that federal judges dismiss 99.82% of complaintsagainst their peers and deny up to 100% of petitions to review such dismissals(jur:10-14). Theycover for each other due to the principle of mutually dependent survival(

In the last 227 years since thecreation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of its judges –2,217 werein office on 30sep13(jur:22fn13)– impeached andremoved is 8! So they not only are appointed for life “during good Behaviour”, but also know based on that historical record that they are in effectirremovable. Impeachment is a useless mechanism for judicial integrity. They also rely on the constitutionalprovision that prohibits diminishing their salary(jur:22fn12).

Federal judges dispose of around75% of appeals to their circuit courts with reasonless summary orders, and ofup to an additional 15% with decisions so “perfunctory”that they mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”, turning them into arbitrary, ad hoc fiats of raw unaccountable power.They are in practice secret because hardly findable, but if found, they areuseless since they do not establish a precedent; hence not worth looking for. Theyare anathema to a legal system based on precedent as a means of keepingjudicial power in check and predictable.

If you were in their position,would you be irresistibly tempted to abuse your power for your benefit and thatof your peers, other insiders, and your protectors since to do so was riskless?

[1][5].     The Federal Judiciary and its judges are themost secretive(jur:27§e) branch and publicofficers, holding all their policy-making, administrative, adjudicative, anddisciplinary meetings behind closed doors.Wrongdoing festers in secrecy, which makes it infectious. This requires ‘thebest disinfectant, sunlight’, as Justice Brandeis put it(jur:158¶350b). Today, the sun of information andknowledge shines through the Internet. A presidential candidate can out ofprinciple or opportunism use his or her website, in addition to stump speechesand access to journalists, to shine light onjudicial wrongdoing and cause an outraged national public to follow his or herbright lead toward Equal Justice Under Law.

[1][6]      People feel offended by judgeswho took advantage of their ignorance of the law, inability to afford lawyers,lack of access to the media, and impotence before judges who abused them becausethey could get away with it. For them, vindicating their position is a drivingpersonal matter. They make for passionate supporters of one who canhelp them in their quest for justice.

[1][7]      Official statistics from the Administrative Office of theU.S. Courts and official reports, and statements from justices and judges arepresented and their implications analyzed at jur:21§§1-3.Those sections contain the most compelling general evidence of judges’wrongdoing. For evidence concerning specific justices, see jur:65§§1-4. For the enabling circumstances ofwrongdoing, i.e., unaccountability, secrecy, coordination, and risklessness,see ol:191¶6.

[1][8]      Judges can be unfair,partial, and dismissive of the rule of law because doing so does not constitutein practice a breach of their oath of office and dereliction of duty that carryadverse consequences; rather, it is merely an option. Hence, they do wrong individually,and worse yet, engage in wrongdoing coordinated among themselves(jur:86§§4-c) and with other insiders of the judicial and legal systems. Among the latterare the politicians who recommended, endorsed, nominated, confirmed, appointed,and co-opted them into their party list, and who protect them as ‘their men and women on thebench’. Coordination renders their wrongdoing more secure, routine, susceptibleof extension into more areas, apt to develop the complexity of schemes, e.g., abankruptcy fraud scheme and concealment of assets(jur:65§§1-3),and thus more profitable.

[1][9]          Their Codeof Conduct enjoins them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:68fn123).

[1][10]        Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas failed tomeet this standard and was led to resign on May 14, 1969, even though he hadbeen nominated to the chief justiceship by Pres. Johnson(jur:92§d).

[1][11]           Packingthe courts due to vacancies is different from what P. Roosevelt tried to do(jur:23fn17a).

[1][12]        Only a national figure with ample access tojournalists can lead an enlightened and outraged(ol: 333§G) national public in successfully exercising its1st Amendment right to assemble, and topetition the Government for a redress of grievances(jur:130¶b)against judges who self-exempt from any responsibility, e.g., by invoking theirunconstitutional doctrine of judicial immunity.

[1][13]        Thisrequires strategic thinking: being perceptive, nimble, and astute to quicklydetect even slight developments, such as the above proposals, and reactpromptly to change one’s plan of action as required to turn those developmentsinto opportunities to advance one’s interests.

[1][14]        I offer to present also to groups interestedin a multidisciplinary academic(jur:128§4) andbusiness(jur:119§1) venture to research thenature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and expose it to outrage thenational public and cause it to assert its status as We the People, the masters of ‘government, not of men and women,but by the rule of law’, where none of their public servants, such as judges,is above the law, so that all are accountable to the People and liable tocompensate the victims of their wrongdoing. Exhaustive private,electoral, journalistic, and official diagnostic exposure must precede comprehensivejudicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) treatment.


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,,,


Share this article with your facebook friends




Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & &