Sunday, March 02, 2008

The Vast Judicial Conspiracy, Continued:

Dr. Cordero is the first speaker in [this video]


Informing the Media, the Public, and Congress
About the Judges’ Revised Rules
For Immunizing Themselves From Any Discipline
the Systematic Dismissal of
Misconduct and Disability Complaints
Filed Against Them

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

The Revised Rules are procedural rules to replace the
current ones for processing misconduct and disability
complaints against a federal judge filed by anybody.
They were drafted by the judges on the Committee on
Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial
Conference. The latter is the highest policy-making
body of the Federal Judiciary, whose pressing officer
is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and its
other 26 members are all the chief judges of the 13
circuits and two national courts as well as
representative district judges.

The Revised Rules are the materialization as a set of
official rules of the doctrine of judicial immunity
applied systematically to dismiss all judicial
misconduct and disability complaints and thereby
exempt all judges from any discipline.


The Revised Rules will allow judges to continue doing
what they have been doing under the current rules:
According to the Official statistics of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in the
10-year period 1997-2006, out of the 7,462 complaints
filed against judges’ misconduct, such as abuse of
power, bribery, conflict of interests, prejudice,
corruption, bias, etc., and mental or physical
disability that prevents the discharge of official
duties, the judges disciplined only 9 of their peers!

Such self-immunization from any discipline was
effected by the judges systematically given that out
of those 7,462 complaints they only had 7 investigated
by appointing a special committee. This means that
they dismissed without any investigation 99.88% of all

The Revised Rules were announced to have been
submitted to the Judicial Conference. It is all but
certain that the Conference will adopt them at its
next meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 11. This
expectation is reasonably based on the fact that
adopting the Rules will be in self-interest given that
all the members of the Conference are judges.
Moreover, the chief circuit judges are the officers to
whom the complaints must be first submitted and the
first to dismiss them systematically.

See links to the Revised Rules and the complaint
statistical tables as well as the graphs representing
them and a detailed analysis of the Rules at


The fact that the Revised Rules are all but certain to
be adopted next March 11 narrows the window of
opportunity to protest the judges’ continued misuse of
their rules to commit fraud on the people: The judges
pretend that they entertain the people’s exercise of
the Constitutional right “to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.)
by filing complaints against judges as members of the
Third Branch of Government, only for the judges to
render it into the exercise in futility of an illusory
right through the systematic dismissal of such

Thereby they also deprive the people of the means that
Congress provided to exercise that right under its
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C.
§§351-364). Consequently, in practice the judges have
arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in
self-interest a Constitutional act of Congress.

As shown below, you can voice your protest by not only
contacting the judges themselves, but also by alerting
Congress, the media, and the general public to the
insidious nature of the Revised Rules as a license
that the judges self-grant to continue systematically
dismissing complaints against themselves and thereby
free the way to engage in unethical and even criminal
conduct without fearing any adverse consequences.

The announcement and the Rules can be downloaded


The files below contain a very large number of email
and postal addresses as well as fax numbers to which
you can send either your own criticism of the Revised
Rules or the concise statement against them found at

1. To news media and journalists

(also at

2. To the U.S. Senators

3. To the members of the U.S. House of Representatives

(also found at

To mail the newsrelease or the comments, the mailing
labels of the H.R. members can be retrieved in Word,
WordPerfect, Excel, and ASCII through

4. To the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Presiding Officer
Judicial Conference of the U.S.
Supreme Court of the U.S.
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Supreme Court Public Information Office: 202-479-3211;

Clerk's Office: 202-479-3011

You can write your own statement of protest to the
Chief Justice and the other members of the Judicial
Conference, or you can forward to them the one that I
wrote at

5. To the other members of the Judicial Conference of
the U.S.

The names of the members of the Conference are found
(The membership is partly renewed every October 1.)

I have provided contact information about the
Conference members at

6. To the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

You can send the concise newsrelease or the detailed
comments to the Secretariat of the Judicial Conference
at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and
request that the Secretary to the Conference, who is
also the Director of the Office, submit them to the

Judicial Conference of the U.S.
Att.: Mr. James C. Duff
Conference Secretary & AO Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20544; tel. (202) 502-2400

This opportunity should not be missed to outrage the
media, the public, and Congress by exposing the judges
as the only class of people in our country that
through their abusive exercise of official power have
in effect elevated themselves to an “Unequal Position
Above Law”.

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

* * * *

To share this video, click on white envelope below


Blogger KaySieverding said...

Chief federal judge investigated for alleged involvement with prostitutes
"The driver told 9NEWS he took prostitutes to meet Judge Nottingham at two locations in the Denver area about 10 times during the summer of 2007.

One of those locations is a condo in Denver listed as the residence of Edward Nottingham III, the judge's adult son. The son's name is listed on the condo directory at 1489 Steele Street, apartment #307, Denver.

The driver says the prostitutes would mention Judge Nottingham by name before and after their appointments with him and frequently referred to the judge by his nickname: "Naughty."

The driver described one conversation with a prostitute about Nottingham. "She was like, well, 'It's Naughty.' I said, 'Who's that?' She said, 'A federal judge.' She said, 'He's on some big trials and stuff like that.'"

The driver also told 9NEWS he met the judge in person, then later looked him up on the Internet and saw his picture.

The driver says he saw Judge Nottingham outside the condo complex on Steele Street interacting with the prostitutes several times.

"They always seemed pretty affectionate, you would almost think they were a couple by the way that they acted together," the driver told 9NEWS. "They would hug each other and almost kiss on the cheek and then they would go inside."

The driver says the women returned from their meeting with the judge with $300 or $400 in cash per visit. "

Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:02:00 PM  
Anonymous wiredbrain said...

google "wiredbrain"
Contingency fee of 50% of $850,000 to 1.5 million
Executive Summary
Defendant will be arraigned and tried at this hearing in conformance with Rule 3.840(d). Criminal Contempt of this court ???

Executive Summary

“We may not know the truth when we see it because we haven’t seen it for so long.” .

Is this why the state licenses attorneys? They are given powers and these powers are abused. James Madison

If men were angels, judges would not be necessary. If judges were angels in their control of other men, neither external nor internal controls on judges would be necessary. In framing a judicial system which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the judges to control the courts; and in the next place oblige judges to control themselves. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the judges; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
http://www. constitution. org/fed/federa51. htm

The issues have been under appeal since fall of 2005.

CASE NO: SC07 655 Case Number: 1D07-6102
The petitioner is entitled to mandamus relief. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (stating that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, petitioner shows clear legal right to performance of requested act of probate according to the last will and testament of Melanie Pflaum,, that respondent has indisputable legal duty to fairly perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists). To the extent that the petition seeks issuance of a writ prohibiting the Honorable Toby S. Monaco from presiding over further proceedings involving petitioners, the petition is facially sufficient.

"continuing torts doctrine."

The lower court and the court of appeals have denied the plaintiff a fair hearing and due process of law. The lower court has beaten up on the plaintiff and now has charged him with criminal contempt for his attempt to gain a hearing on the facts and the law. There is not only a gross miscarriage of justice but an outrageous use of the legal system that needs remedy.

Under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.840, the Defendant PETER PFLAUM is ordered to show cause why he should not be held in indirect Criminal contempt of court. A hearing on the criminal contempt will be held on Monday March 24, 2008 at 9:30 AM before Circuit Judge Robert Roundtree, Room 304

Defendant will be arraigned and tried at this hearing in conformance with Rule 3.840(d). The Defendant PETER PFLAUM may be represented by counsel, have compulsory process for attendance of witnesses, and testily in his own defense.

Reply to order to show cause

Motion to strike

No cause of action

Lack of jurisdiction

Hearing March 24th 9:30 AM Monday TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sanctions were made in another case not the one cited:


PROBATE DIVISION File No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A


Honorable Toby S. Monaco

I am the beneficiary of my mother’s estate.
In 1978 Melanie Pflaum agreed with her attorney and youngest son Thomas Pflaum to make a last will and testament. She was clear in her intent to make the settlement of her estate as simple, efficient, effective and inexpensive as possible. Thomas promised her and Irving Pflaum, his father, that the will he drafted would take care of the estate without problems. In this transaction Thomas was dishonest and guilty of gross malpractice. In the operation of the enterprise to take all of the estate Thomas involved his wife, Leanne Pflaum who engaged Merrill Lynch to set up a false Joint account. The fraud has been run by Mr. While, the attorney Thomas hired to help him embezzle the property and Mr. Hoppe to harass the other beneficiary, Brother Peter.

Then what happened?

Days after my mother, Melanie, died in March 2004 my brother, Thomas, wrote that he and his wife, Leanne were “going to play for the whole deck of cards” and would hire really mean lawyers, Mr. White for the estate and Mr. Hoppe to be the attack dog, to enforce this illegal taking of money put in trust to Thomas as Melanie’s personal representative.

Thomas Pflaum Esq. an appellate attorney working out of his home in Micanopy, Florida was named as personal representative (PR) in the will of his mother, Melanie, when she died on March 5th 2004, leaving an estate of about two million dollars. He hired Mr. Richard White as the attorney for the estate. In or before 2003 Thomas formed a joint enterprise to defraud his Mother and brothers. Leanne Pflaum was added by Mr. Robert Hayward of Merrill Lynch to an account in order to pervert Melanie’s will. Mr. White filed a bogus claim of domicile in Micanopy as part of this conspiracy of constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. There has not been two minutes during the last four years when the issues were heard on the merits. For the reasons stated in , the case as a matter of fact and of law, is so clear that no jury could find that Thomas and Leanne have a right to the whole of Melanie Pflaum Estate and nothing left for brother John and Peter, nor that they have not infringed the duties of personal representative nor have not actively induce and engaged in a campaign of harassment.


Appellants, v. CHARLES McADAM, III, and FRANK GANNETT McADAM, individually, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Charles V. McAdam, Jr., and as Trustees of The Charles V. McAdam, Jr.

As such, plaintiffs sought, among other things, recompense for all “avoidable probate expenses” and disgorgement of all fees paid to White and Hoppe by Thomas and Leanne Pflaum.

Plaintiffs sought relief not available to them in probate and therefore could, collaterally attack the appointment of Merrill Lynch. See Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen & Heilbronner, 586 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding testator’s estate can maintain legal malpractice action against attorney who prepared the will of the deceased in order to address issues not remedied in probate court); there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.”); see also Lane v. Cold, 882 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding action for breach of fiduciary duty may be maintained where, “A relationship exist[s] with respect to the acts or omissions upon which the malpractice claim is based,” and a party may demonstrate this relationship by showing that his attorney implicitly agreed to undertake these responsibilities); in making an award under the “wrongful act doctrine.” See In re Amendment to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar, 605 So. 2d 252, 309 (Fla. 1992) (providing that rules of professional conduct “are not designed to be a basis for civil liability”); see also Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Amster, 511 So. 2d 595, 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (“Where the wrongful act of the defendant has involved the claimant in litigation with others, and has placed the claimant in such relation with others as makes it necessary to incur expenses to protect its interests, such costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees upon appropriate proof, may be recovered as an element of damages.”) (quoting Baxter’s Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. v. Liberty County, 406 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)), quashed on other grounds, 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982). Plaintiffs showed that their mother’s intent, as expressed in her will, was frustrated by the negligence of Thomas Pflaum and that, as a direct result of such negligence, their legacy was diminished. See Hewko v. Genovese, 730 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the final judgment and we also affirm as to all other issues raised on appeal.

FL SCT: Florida will-drafting attorney at center of $1.5-million estate battle has law license suspended After reading the Referee’s Report my impression of the case is that the facts smelled sooo bad to the Florida Bar’s investigators that they were determined to nail Watson for something and succeeded.

Lesson learned: Play with fire and you’re going to get burned.
Whether the product of negligence, malfeasance, good intentions or some combination of all of the above, any attorney who puts himself in the position that Watson did in this case is looking for trouble. If you dabble in estate planning/probate, this case is a warning to be careful. When that little voice in your head tells you that maybe something aren’t right - STOP and listens to it! If estate planning/probate is your niche, this case is a good example of what NOT to do when an elderly client with a substantial estate asks you to draft to a will that is bound to be challenged in the future. Forewarned is forearmed.

Special thanks to Tampa attorney and frequent contributor to this blog, Russell R. Winer, for bringing the suspension order to my attention.

What ii. Melanie’s will divided the estate into equal shares among her three sons, John, Peter, and Thomas. Thomas e-mailed his brother, Peter, on March 27th 2004, when Peter returned for taking care of his dying Mother in Spain; Thomas wrote that he and his wife Leanne Frank Pflaum, Esq. were going to take everything for themselves; it came as a great shock to Peter and his family because it was completely unexpected. Thomas was trusted because he did a good job of pretending to be trustworthy. He replaced honor with legal tricks and lies when he monumentally betrayed the trust placed in him as a citizen, as a lawyer, as a son and as a brother. He hired a really mean lawyer, Mr. Bill Hoppe to torment and make miseries for Peter and his family, including a civil suit for extortion and defamation and having him arrested on a bogus criminal charge of making a false report to DCFS (Family and Children’s Services).


iii. Melanie lived, since 1969, in El Tosalet, a private community in Javea, Alicante, Spain. Thomas perjured himself by swearing under oath that Melanie lived with him in Micanopy. This ridiculously false claim of domicile allowed Thomas to pick a very favorable local probate judge, The Hon. Toby S. Monaco, in Gainesville.


iv. Thomas has embezzled all the property in the estate by spending a million dollars to corrupt, abuse, pervert the court. The probate was closed on Nov. 29th 2007 with an inventory of $100 and expenses of $700,000. The motive is greed, maybe revenge for imagined family issues, but who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Thomas and Leanne? The last four years show a pattern of irrational behavior, a total disregard for his duties to his mother or brothers, his legal or professional ethics, and is guilty in the breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment.


v. The letters of administration were filed in June 2004 and time ran out in June of 2006 but the court ignored time limits, and the law and the facts including a grotesque conflict of interest Thomas being both the PR and beneficiary who believed all the property belonged to him. The IRS estate taxes in 2005 show 1.5 million with spurious accounting. Peter claims interest charges over four years of 30% on the original property and direct financial costs and damages adds up to 1.5 million with punitive damages. By September 2005 it because absolutely clear that the court was fixed and only made judgments in favor of Thomas and none for Peter. The score is 30 to 0. Peter has been excluded Peter from claims of his inheritance, ordered a useless mediation, and subject to a series of sanction orders written by Mr. Hoppe, harassment that continues today. Thomas has made a mockery of the practice of law, the judicial system, and common sense.


vi. The road to appeal or finding a neutral court to hear the case is very tough. Peter, going Pro Se, because he was driven into poverty tried the best he could to get a fair hearing – and now coming to believe that juries are the salvation of the legal system. The judges have allowed Thomas and his nasty legal team to torment Peter and his family for four years and “pile on” with Mr. Hoppe’s lies to harass the innocent Peter, who only wants justice and a fair hearing to claim his inheritance, by the guilty Thomas who has stolen the property of his brothers, and gets away with it becaue they are lawyers and have money. Justice is denied when process overrules substance and there is not even the appearance of equal treatment.

vii. The last will and testament is a basic contract within civilization requiring due respect for the traditional foundations of property, families, estates and the law. The customs of decency are the source of all laws, but often violated in the practice of American commercial law.

viii. Civilization declines without the traditions of respectful behavior, to others, to knowledge, to institutions, to family, and to the law. Our liberty and freedom of action according to our will “within the limits of the law” must be impartially and equably applied. When common decency has no meaning in practice, we all will be found to be in contempt of court. This case is a blatant example of legal abuse where lawyers exploit the system with a shocking lack of a decent respect for morality and ethics.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats