Judicial Misconduct Complaint (Rule 26) Outside Circuit

AO 310 (Rev.
i,3116)
Judicial C*uncil of the Seventh Cir*uit
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY
To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement of facts described in
item 4 (below). The Rwrs roR Juolcnt-Coxpucr aNo Jtrorcrar-Drsaert-ny PnocssDtNGS, adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on what to include in a complaint (Rule 6), where
to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The Rules are available in federal court clerks' offices,
on individual federal courts' websites, and on w1r1v.u"sqau$g,gsv.
Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must be legible. For the number
of copies to file, consult the local rules or clerk's office of the court in which your complaint is required to be filed.
Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked "COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT" or
"COMPLAINT OF DISABILITY" and submit it to the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the name of any
judge on the envelope.
l. Name of Complainant: Mark Bochra

Contact Addrsss: 5757 North Sheridan Road
Apt l3B
Chicago IL 60660
Daytirne teleph**e: { 773 } 95 l-2420

2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit Judges & Sara Ellis, Virginia Kendall e?.g".."-E*L\Uy*
Cl;urt: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals / Northern District of IL
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?
trf
mYes ru-s*
"yes," give the following inf*rmation abaut each lawsuit:
Caur-t: Northern District of Illinois
Case Number: l:21-cv-06223 Re: Mark Bochra & related case 1:21-cv-03887
Docket number of any appeal to the 7th Circuit: 22-1815,2-2903 & 23-1388
Are {ll.ere) you a parly or lawyer in the law.suit? ZLI * lf{Z-
If you are (were) a party and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyer's name, address, and telephone
number:
Opposing Counsel Lawyer for the Department of Education
Sarah F. Terman
office: (312) 469-6201 llcelt (312) 771-7167 ll [email protected]
Page 1 of 2
A* 330 {i{"*r'. *3i3S}
Jree$i*in* C*uncil *f th* Seventh ilirc*it
{:#e,gPLAflNY #S: .} tuffi5ffXih$- IkX.ISC#Nffi{-rCT, {}${ ffigS&ffi'$LEYY
c F9 Brief Statement of Facts. Attach a brief statement of the specific facts on which the claim ofjudicial
misconduct or disability is based. Include what happened, when and where it happened, and any
information that would help an investigator check the facts. If the complaint alleges judicial disability,
also include any additional facts that form the basis of that allegation.
tU*
N
Declaration and signature:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statemenls made in this complaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge.
$ig**{$r*: /s/ Mark Bochra {}a{r: 0712212024
Pag* ? *f' ?
“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ
Contents
I. MOTION SEEKING OUTSIDE CIRCUIT UNDER RULE 26........................................................................ 11

II. THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL CAN’T FORM A QUORUM DUE TO MANY 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES
BEING THE SUBJECTS OF THE COMPLAINT INCLUDING CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES. ................................. 12
III. CERTIFIED MISCONDUCT OF THE COMPLAINT ............................................................................... 15
A. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE DIANE SYKES AND HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORDS OF
JIM RICHMOND: THE 7TH CIRCUIT DID REMOVE JIM RICHMOND FROM HIS SUPERVISORY ROLE. JIM
RICHMOND SAID “WE AND JUDGES” TYING THE ENTIRE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES TO HIS WORDS WITH
REGARDS TO FIXING MARK’S FUTURE APPEAL AND RETALIATING AGAINST HIM. ................................ 19
B. TO INVESITGATE THE REPORTED MISCONDUCTS BY FORMER JUDGE RICHARD POSNER, “THEY
TREAT PRO SE LITIGANTS LIKE TRASH AND DESTROY APPEALS WITH MERIT.” NEITHER JUDGE RICHARD
POSNER NOR THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEEE ARE FRIVOLOUS
ACCORDING TO CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES ........................................................................................... 28
C. TO INVESTIGATE JUDGE SARA ELLIS OF WHAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT GARY FEINERMAN
RESIGNATION, THE SEALING OF DOCKET ENTRY 78 IN MARK’S CASE, AND WHY THE LIES BY HER OWN
COURTROOM DEPUTY MS. RHONDA JOHNSON BECAUSE THIS WAS A PRETEXT FOR DISCRIMINATION
WITH RETALIATION CANON 4(A)4 “RETALIATION FOR REPORTING DISCRIMINATION” ........................ 33
D. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF JUDGE REBECCA PALLMEYER BEING A DIRECT WITNESS SEEKING THE
IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF GARY FEINERMAN WHO USED FORMER U.S MARSHAL JEROME SLIVA
TO TARGET MARK’S PLACE OF WORK AT CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL. THIS HAPPENED AFTER MARK
PUBLISHED IN ECF 103 IN BOCHRA V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1:21-cv-03887) THAT OCR IS
INVESTIGATING CPS. ............................................................................................................................... 49
E. TO INVESTIGATE NEXT TO BECOME CHIEF JUDGE VIRGINIA KENDALL A FORMER MEMBER OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. CANON 4(A)4 “RETALIATION FOR REPORTING DISCRIMINATION” ............... 53
F. FEAR OF RETALIATION DESTROYS PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH................................................................................................................................................... 60
IV. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND CHARACTER LYNCHNG MARK THE COPTIC BY THE 7TH CIRCUIT
JUDGES ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
V. A CONVERSATION WITH THE LORD, GOD ....................................................................................... 67
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 72
RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................................................... 73
Page 1 of 79
Mark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL
The Honorable John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
[email protected]
The Honorable Christopher G. Conway The Honorable Diane Sykes

Clerk of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Chamber Phone: (414) 727-6988
[email protected] [email protected]
Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

Circuit Executive Deputy Circuit Executive
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780
CC
The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

Chairman Ranking Member
2157 Rayburn House Office Building 2157 Rayburn House Office Building
The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

2138 Rayburn House Building 2138 Rayburn House Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
[email protected]
Attorney General Hon. Mr. Merrick Garland Honorable Benjamin C. Mizer

Via Chief of Staff Mr. Matthew Klapper Acting Associate Attorney General
Page 2 of 79
The Honorable Mr. Corey Amundson The Honorable Mr. Jeffery Ragsdale
Chief of the Justice Department General Counsel of the Justice Department
Public Integrity Section Office of Professional Responsibility
The Honorable Ms. Rachel Rossi The Honorable Ms. Kristen Clarke
Director of the Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of the Justice
Office for Access to Justice Department, Civil Division
[email protected]
The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

Inspector General of the Justice Department FBI Deputy Director Mr. Paul Abbate
[email protected] FBI Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
July 22, 2024
A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT WITH RETALIATION
Re: Investigator Ms. Diane Schwerm Sykes conflates her duties as a Jurist vs. an Investigator.
Ms. Sykes not only covered up many crimes violating 18 U.S. Code § 1512 but she
threatens Mark the Coptic with retaliation for reporting misconducts; see Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) Rule 4(a)(4). She showed hate and degraded
Mark using her power by claiming “this pro se litigant and this restricted filer” an image
they wanted to create for Mark the Coptic but she couldn’t spell out the word “C-O-P-T-
I-C” Official vs. Individual Capacity [Motive]. Money extortion under duress 2404
Hobbs Act. See also Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and
1986, and Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241 in 22-1815 (1:21-cv-06223)
ECF Nos. 56-57, 59 & 61 vs. 22-2903, 23-1388 ECF Nos. 43, 45, and 48. See Justice
Department “dear colleague letter” to all Judges.1 Mark reported crimes pertaining to Jim
Richmond’s threats and judges fixing Mark’s future appeal in Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) came to pass and the 7th Circuit tried to cover it by saying
employees are beyond the purview of the Act, this is wrong according to the Judicial
Conference Committee in C.C.D. No. 22-01 (July 8, 2022); employees are covered under
the act because it is a reflection of the Judges inner work and line of thoughts and
motives whether good or evil.2 “Deliberate indifference” toward Mark.
1
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-and-
fees-youth-and
2 nd
See Democratic House Judiciary Committee in a 22 pages letter to the Judicial Council of the 2 Circuit and the
Judicial Conference Committee https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwedegzvw/pryor-
Page 3 of 79
Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-22-90048 through 90041. (The origin)
Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043. (The cover up)
Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063. (The cover up)
Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, No. 07-24-90072. (Ongoing but they will try to destroy it
however, the Lord God is in its midst)
Re: Investigator Ms. Diane Sykes declared both former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner
reporting misconduct inside the 7th Circuit and the Judicial Conference Committee letter
dated August 7, 2017 to retired Judge Diane Wood frivolous3; rather than addressing the
long reported misconducts by staff attorneys controlling pro se appeals and destroying
many appeals with merits with the approval of the Circuit Judges; the greatest sin of the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals to date. The 7th Circuit needs a new Chief Judge who will
shine light into darkness; a new prayers to the Lord, God.
Re: To find the truth related to discrimination with retaliation and pertaining to Gary
Feinerman’s immediate resignation and his connections to the crimes that took place at
Chicago Public School one must interview: Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer who asked
him to resign, Next to become Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall who is a former member
of the Executive Committee, and Judge Sara Ellis in handling of Mark’s case in Bochra
v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) especially pertaining to the sealed
docket entry No. 78. Everything started with the appointment of Judge Sara Ellis by the
Executive Committee to manage Mark’s case and she also ruled against Jim Richmond
saying “good cause shown” in ECF No. 94. Mark’s case was originally assigned to Judge
Robert Gentleman but the judge shopping changed the process and with it Mark was
targeted by Ms. Rhonda Johnson who the judges used her as a pretext to target Mark’s
home and his place of Work at Chicago Public School; discrimination with retaliation.
Re: One Chief Judge Hon. Rebecca Pallmeyer promoted another Judge Hon. Sara Ellis to the
7th Circuit Judicial Council.4 One Circuit Chief Judge Hon. Diane Sykes granted senior
status absent misconduct to another Chief Judge Hon. Rebecca Pallmeyer under 28
maze_response_letter-1.pdf See Judicial Conference Committee order in C.C.D. No. 22-01 ordering a special
committee should be assigned to investigate disputed facts is needed to be formed pertaining to the hiring of a
racist clerk by a Judge. Clerks were covered because employees reflect the personality of the judges whether they
are good or evil. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf Jim Richmond was the evil
th
seed who revealed the future plan of the 7 Circuit Judges in conjunction with the Executive Committee
3
See Letter by the Judicial Conference Committee https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules-
procedures/Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf See Richard Posner Book about the inner work of staff attorneys at
th
the 7 Circuit, book on amazon “Reforming the Federal Judiciary: My Former Court Needs to Overhaul Its Staff
Attorney Program” https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1976014794/ see the news the Washington post calling
it “this is bat shit crazy” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/21/richard-
posners-bats-crazy-new-book/ See ABA Journey “they fix cases with merits and treat pro se litigants like trash”
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_most_judges_regard_pro_se_litigants_as_kind_of_trash_nor_
worth_the_t See also “Helping the Helpless” https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-
Handbook/dp/1721263225
4
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_clerksoffice/rules/admin/pdf-
orders/General%20Order%2023-0020%20-%207th%20Circuit%20Judicial%20Council%20At-
Lge%20Members%20(Ellis).pdf
Page 4 of 79
U.S.C. § 371. Each Judge with power helped elevate another in status cheering for their
success among the public while many tried to crush Mark the Coptic, his educational
career, his identity, and his character just like Caryn Strickland in Caryn Strickland v. US,
No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022). Was this fair and just or only fair to those who attain
power? And where is the Lord, God in all of this?
Re: Mark denied employment with the 7th Circuit “Generalist Clerk” position. They wanted
to create a different reality for Mark just like Strickland. See Caryn Strickland v. US, No.
21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).5 On 7-11-2024 Mark filed a new application for Generalist
Clerk after his place of work was targeted at Chicago Public School; his source of income
and he emailed EEO/EDR Coordinator Ms. Michelle Hennings about his application for
employment on 7-11-2024.6
Re: Next to become a Chief Judge for the Northern District of Illinois is Hon. Virginia
Kendall. Judge Kendall is a Christian Catholic with mixed reviews on the Robing Room
with a 6.0 out of 10 ratings.7 Mark briefly knew Judge Kendall through former DOJ
Prosecutor Andrew Boutros who goes to Saint Mark Coptic Church and Saint Paul
Coptic Church and he and Judge Kendall write legal articles from time to time. The
question about sin and confession of sins; Judge Virginia Kendall judged Edward M.
Burke with 2 years in prison for corruptions.8 This was a Christian judge judging a
Christian man with power; you often won’t find a Jewish judge judging a Jewish person
because the Talmud teaches otherwise9, not the Torah. Now turning to Hon. Judge
Virginia Kendall, a former member of the Executive Committee because “the next judge
to become a chief judge is a member of the executive committee”10 hence she knows the
sins of Gary Feinerman. Can Judge Virginia Kendall reveal the truth and heal this
journey before leading the Northern District of Illinois or would her legacy be shaped and
defined by the past of injustice to be kept a secret among the titans?
Dear Mr. Christopher Conway,
I want to thank you for processing my judicial misconduct complaints and mailing me previous
letters confirming their receipts. Due to the nature of the cover ups by Chief Circuit Judge Diane
Sykes who often claim “she doesn’t understand” not once but 3 times. I am going to draft this
complaint in a simple form but the rest will be based on Exhibits which Chief Judge Diane Sykes
is very well aware of them because they were e-mailed to her as well, she keeps reading the e-
mails just as she read my letters. The only difference she tries to jump between official and
individual capacity in order not to heal but to shield the sins of others and cover up the truth.
5
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html See docket
history case went to Trial awaiting final judgment https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16921419/roe-v-united-
states-of-america/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
6
See https://www.ilnp.uscourts.gov/pdfs/EEOEDRPlan2020-07.pdf Equal Employment Opportunity Plan
7
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1194
8
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-city-chicago-alderman-convicted-federal-racketeering-bribery-
and-extortion and see https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/06/24/former-ald-ed-burke-sentencing-corruption-
case/
9
See https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1987506518
10
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ViewRuleDetails.aspx?aqd9D9VmBc0=
Page 5 of 79
The bible teaches us:
And sadly, history has shown when the oppressed gained power, they often become
oppressors themselves.11
In a deleted paper by Ms. Diane Elizabeth Schwerm now known as Judge Diane Sykes, she took
pleasure in retelling her story, how she was raised by a compassionate judge who helped her all
the way until she became the 7th Circuit Judge. She also shared how that judge tells the audience
how courts discriminated against her because she was a minority. All in all, she received her
chance in life, employment, and help from a powerful Judge and she gave this speech.12
One of the great joys for me in joining this court was the opportunity to work with Terry
again. He boosted my judicial career and was present at every important step along the
way. He administered the judicial oath of office to me three times: In 1992 as a newly-
elected state trial judge; in 1999 as a newly-appointed state supreme court justice; and in
2004 as a newly-confirmed circuit judge on this court. Here is what he told the assembled
dignitaries and guests at my supreme court investiture in the Assembly chamber at the
State Capitol in 1999: “Some of you know that Diane was my law clerk back in the early
1980s. At that time, she was in a minority; some of you may not know that she was an
affirmative action appointee. She was a member of a group that had been discriminated
against, certainly in my court and in some other courts in our building. And I thought it
11
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4&t=248s
12
See letter https://web.archive.org/web/20120304101552/https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/wp-
content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/images/JudgeDianeSykesonJudgeTerryEvans.pdf
Page 6 of 79
was high time that the discrimination should come to an end. So I bit the bullet and hired
a conservative Republican.”
But the tragic irony repeats itself when the bible said “these redeemed people went to commit the
same injustice against the vulnerable.”
And sadly, history has shown when the oppressed gained power, they often become
oppressors themselves.13
When Ms. Diane Scwerm Sykes became Chief Circuit Judge Diane Scwerm Sykes, she
discriminated against Mark the Coptic, she didn’t want to reveal the truth and she was a witness
to it too (a great conflict of interest) and she threw every roadblock to prevent the truth from
coming out, but rather also she demeaned Mark by saying “this pro se and this restricted filer” in
Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 and 07-24-90049 through 90063 without conducting a
preliminary inquiry and writing her findings in her memorandum but not only that, she like the
retired Judge Ms. Diane Wood threatened Mark “file a new complaint again and I will ask for
you to pay $1000 fine for every complaint I have to read.” So here the investigator is threatening
Mark the Coptic with future intimidation and retaliation and the Devil tempted her to do this but
Mark told her “she needs more love”.
This is not how a preliminary inquiry is written, but rather a cover up. A Chief Judge usually
examines the docket history of any case to determine bias or disputed facts and then invites the
13
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4&t=248s
Page 7 of 79
subject judge(s) to answer the complaint either orally or through a written testimonies, usually
not under oath, only when a special committee to investigate disputed facts would a judge be
subject to a testimony under oath and only then is when the truth gets revealed. Similar to In re
Complaint of Judicial Conduct Judge Joshua M. Kindred, No. 22-90121 (9th Cir.)14; this Order
“reprimand[s]” a federal judge for misconduct, including sexual harassment, and undermines
gender- based tropes and victim. See id. at 16 (rejecting harassing judge’s attempts to “blame the
law clerk and portray her as the aggressor” and “cast blame on others”).
Judge Kindred maintained that he “never had any sexual contact with [the law clerk].”
Only when asked under oath during the Judicial Council meeting of April 5, 2024, did he
admit that he had deliberately lied to the Special Committee. No. 22-90121 (9th Cir.)
The truth only and often gets revealed when a Judge is under oath, in all previous Judicial
Misconduct Complaints, Circuit Chief Judge Diane Sykes tried to eliminate any investigation by
failing to assign a special committee to investigate disputed facts while also failing to properly
write a preliminary inquiry memorandum pertaining to the subject judges.
Imagine if an OCR investigator enforcing civil right law threatens a complainant, imagine a DOJ
investigator enforcing civil right law threatening a complainant, and imagine an FBI agent
enforcing civil right law threatening a complainant.
Same thing with Chief Judge Diane Sykes, her misuse of power as an investigator not a judge
anymore was misplaced but that also this defines her character as a judge as well; is she the
parable of the unjust judge? Judge Sykes lost her purpose and cause to lead the 7th Circuit Court
14
See https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ce9/2024/22-
90121%20News%20Release%20&%20Order%20and%20Certification.pdf
Page 8 of 79
of Appeal because she could not be the Queen that hears, corrects, and heals but the Queen that
condemns and hides the truth.
Where there is love, there is life “Go and Sin no more” was the parable taught by Jesus Christ.15
From beginning to the end, there is always a carpenter.16 In my Judicial Misconduct Complaint I
have given Chief Judge Diane Sykes the easiest form of relief when Mark spoke to the deputy
Circuit Mr. Alex Castaneda.
However, Mark saw Circuit Chief Judge Diane Sykes wants to win a battle rather than heal and
Mark is often reminded “we must master the art of peace in addition to the art of war” meaning
those who attained power should use their powers for healing not for bullying the weak and
taking pride in their powers; Judge Sykes did just that repeatedly.
This is a complaint of an ongoing unlawful Judicial national origin and religion discrimination
with retaliation and raises concerns of pattern and practice of ongoing retaliation which violated
the Rule of Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 4(a), Judicial Code of Conduct
Canon 1, Canon 2(A), Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2), and Canon 3(A)(3) and retaliation for
reporting discrimination Under Rule 4(a)(4).
Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(a)(3) states “Discrimination. Cognizable misconduct

includes intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, [...] religion, national
origin, age, or disability” and Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(b)(4) states “Retaliation.
Cognizable misconduct includes retaliating against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees,
or others for participating in this complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial
misconduct or disability”17 and one or several judges from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
violated this canon several times with intent and possibly malice.18
15
See https://youtu.be/w5GXnM_TxSQ?si=UeGnDr7Nm0FxMJls
16
See https://youtu.be/UW1-lSC_AjU?si=ZxnMweGhEIvx_Vfn See
https://twitter.com/BishopAngaelos/status/1127194630276165635
17
See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
18
The goal of this complaint is reform https://youtu.be/A14THPoc4-4?t=130 (Restorative Justice)
Page 9 of 79
Under Rule 4(a)(4), a judge‘s efforts to retaliate against any person for reporting or
disclosing misconduct, or otherwise participating in the complaint process constitute
cognizable misconduct. The Rule makes the prohibition against retaliation explicit in the
interest of promoting public confidence in the complaint process.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated retaliation against civil rights complainants
as a form of intentional discrimination. The Court has held that “retaliation offends the
Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right” and “is thus
akin to an unconstitutional condition demanded for the receipt of a government-provided
benefit.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Chandamuri v. Georgetown Univ., 274 F. Supp. 2d
71, 81 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing Court’s approach to retaliation in Crawford-El).
When a Complainant reports discrimination in Nos. 07-22-90048 through 90041 (the origin), he
or she is protected from being retaliate against and when one is retaliated against after reporting
discrimination, it turns into intentional discrimination with retaliation.
The idea of a system of self-policing and absolute perceived “immunity” has allowed far too
many Judges with power, evil hearts, and endless pride with no fear of God to use that power not
for good to heal a society in pain but rather to retaliate against many individuals without any care
in order to satisfy their own motives.19
The Subjects of this Complaint are: Chief Judge Diane Sykes and all remaining 7th Circuit
Judges because they came en banc in both appeals (22-1815 Executive Committee and 22-2903,
23-1388 consolidated Department of Education and Jim Richmond) in official and individual
capacity and denied re-hearing without appointing outside circuit, while they also participated in
the judicial misconduct proceeding complaints and also denied re-hearing and outside circuit.
They further followed the action of the judge or judges who were seeking money extortion from
Mark under duress in 24-1592 ECF 4, they had the option to grant appointment of outside circuit
judges just like in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022) but Chief Judge Diane
Sykes refused in 22-2903, 23-1388 ECF 41 and 22-1815 ECF 29 , so the latter option was not to
retaliate and not to fix Mark’s case based on the threatening words of Jim Richmond. There was
a solution that would have brought peace to many but they refused it because they wanted to
control the future path of Mark’s case but who knows the future, humans or God? Much worse,
they proved that they were afraid of Kenneth Marcus and the Israeli lobby by erasing Kenneth
Marcus’s name from existence within their fixed order even though he was part of Mark’s
lawsuit in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) ECF Nos. 9 and 54. The
other subject is former member of the Executive Committee next to become a Chief Judge, Judge
Virginia Kendall pertaining to the chain of events leading up to the date Gary Feinerman
19
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pervasive-judicial-misconduct-raises-question-whos-charge-
here-2021-10-06/
Page 10 of 79
resigned; she knew the truth.20 A judge to become the next chief judge is a member of the
executive committee.21 Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, she asked Gary Feinerman to resign
immediately after my docket entry ECF 103 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-
cv-03887). Because I love Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer but not the evil that took place, this
complaint was filed after she gained her senior status which would be August 1, 2024 rather than
last year. So you can process this complaint also after August 1, 2024. It is a sin what evil took
place but it is not the end of the world, “go and sin no more”. The other subject Judge is Judge
Sara Ellis who knew why docket entry 78 was sealed in her official and individual capacity, why
Gary Feinerman resigned and why my case hearing was canceled in Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) ECF 80 and the case was fixed/dismissed without addressing the
crimes of Kenneth Marcus within her order and of course the targeting started through her own
courtroom deputy who denies knowing anything i.e., Ms Rhonda Johnson, so it is the words of
Rhonda Johnson vs. Judge Sara Ellis. The Executigve Committee removed Mark’s ECF account
in the middle of his litigation knowing too well Judge Sara Ellis will fix Mark’s case and dismiss
it while Mark was targeted at Chicago Public School so that in the end they all would say “see
what happened, we have nothing to do with it” There is a reason there is an Illinois Bar
Complaints against Camie Pratt, Udeme Itiat, Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant, their crimes
were many. They all knew about my court case during my EOCO CPS discrimination complaint
and they were stalking its outcome and timing the retaliation with Judge Sara Ellis court hearing
date.
I. MOTION SEEKING OUTSIDE CIRCUIT UNDER RULE 26
I am filing this Judicial Misconduct Complaint and seeking under Rule 26 for the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals to handle the preliminary review of the complaint and any and all procedures
pertaining to this complaint and when an honest preliminary inquiry investigation reveals
disputed facts which needs a special committee to investigate it, I am seeking under Rule 26 of
the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) for the 5th Circuit to conduct the
complete investigation.
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council

selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case
of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original
judicial council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken
public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result
of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a
complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals. The
power to affect a transfer is lodged in the Chief Justice to avoid disputes in a judicial
council over where to transfer a sensitive matter and to ensure that the transferee council
accepts the matter.
20
See Magistrate Judge Young B King replacing Judge Sheila Finnegan on January 3, 2023
https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/Presiding%20MJ%20Kim01032023FINAL.pdf and see Gary
Feinerman resignation https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
21
Page 11 of 79
In the past, Ms. Melissa Shanklin an administrative assistant of the 5th Circuit advised Mark that
if he seeks the 5th Circuit to investigate his Complaint, he can use Rule 26 at any given point in
the complaint process by including it in writing or within his filed complaint. Chief of the
Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts makes the determination where to send the complaint for
all procedural handling. This Judicial Misconduct Complaint contain many disputed facts subject
to a special committee to investigate under 28 U.S.C. § 352(a) (“The chief judge shall not
undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute”).
In February 2024, the Judicial Conference Committee released a 200 pages document under the
title “Digest of Authorities on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”.22 Most Circuit Chief
Judges should be well aware of it and receive the adequate training in conducting investigative
work because congress delegated to a Judge (3 jobs): a Jurist, a Manager, and an Investigator.
While members of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council used ruled 25(f) to allow Chief Judge Diane
Sykes to handle depose my complains on the merits even when she is one of the main subjects of
the complaints. They all ignored many rules to appoint outside circuit under rule 26.
II. THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL CAN’T FORM A QUORUM DUE TO
MANY 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES BEING THE SUBJECTS OF THE COMPLAINT
INCLUDING CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES.
June 4, 2024 the 7th Circuit Judicial Council previously met.
22
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/digest_of_authorities_judicial_conduct_and_disability.pdf
Page 12 of 79
Mark took notice that the 7th Circuit Judicial Council to which Judge Virginia Kendall is a
member of, she canceled her hearing days on June 4, 2024 for the vote with the 7 th Circuit
Judicial Council, when the 7th Circuit was notified that Mark’s appeal before the Supreme Court
an extension was granted for his appeal on June 4, 2024. Same day the 7th Circuit Council met.
Page 13 of 79
Members of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council can’t form a quorum because many of them are
subjects of the pending complaint. Ignoring this rule:
“In the unlikely event that a quorum of the judicial council cannot be obtained to consider
the report of a special committee, it would normally be necessary to request a transfer
under Rule 26.”
Members of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council included members of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal,
District Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, and Judge Sara Ellis who presided over Mark’s case in
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).23 Next to become Chief Judge, Judge
Virginia Kendall. They all can’t vote to form a quorum like last time as step (1) and in the
second vote as step (2), they voted to appoint Chief Judge Diane Sykes to handle this complaint,
i.e., investigate herself and them when possible. The investigator cannot investigate themselves.
Other noted rules under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) are as followed:
While a subject judge is barred by Rule 25(b) from participating in the disposition of the
complaint in which he or she is named, Rule 25(e) recognizes that participation in
proceedings arising under the Act or these Rules by a judge who is the subject of a
special committee investigation may lead to an appearance of self-interest in creating
substantive and procedural precedents governing such proceedings. Rule 25(e) bars such
participation.”
Commentary to Rule 25: “[A] judge is not disqualified simply because the subject judge
is on the same court. However, . . . there may be cases in which an appearance of bias or
prejudice is created by circumstances other than an association with the subject judge as a
colleague. For example, a judge may have a familial relationship with a complainant or
subject judge. When such circumstances exist, a judge may, in his or her discretion,
conclude that disqualification is warranted.”
Rule 25(f): “If the chief judge is disqualified from performing duties that the Act and
these Rules assign to a chief judge (including where a complaint is filed against a chief
judge), those duties must be assigned to the most-senior active circuit judge not
disqualified. If all circuit judges in regular active service are disqualified, the judicial
council may determine whether to request a transfer under Rule 26.”
Rule 25(e): “Upon appointment of a special committee, the subject judge is disqualified
from participating in the identification or consideration of any complaint, related or
unrelated to the pending matter, under the Act or these Rules. The disqualification
continues until all proceedings on the complaint against the subject judge are finally
terminated with no further right of review.”
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council selected by
the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious
complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original judicial council, where
23
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judicial-council7.htm
Page 14 of 79
the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process,
where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the complaint render disposition by a
less involved council appropriate, or where a complaint calls into question policies or
governance of the home court of appeals.
This Judicial Misconduct Complaint needs an outside circuit under Rule 26 and the 7th Circuit
Judicial Council can’t form a quorum and re-appoint Judge Sykes who is the subject of this
complaint. The judges who uphold Title IX and gender equality in order not to lead to sex
discrimination, “deliberate indifference” toward Mark the Coptic, can’t be the same judges who
allow an investigator to investigate herself and her colleagues.
Please re-read my 124 pages brief in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887)
ECF Nos. 120 and 121 or appeal 22-1815 Nos. 56-57.24 That is the evidence. The 7th Circuit
Court of Appeal through Judge Frank Easterbrook and later en banc can say “oversize brief”
“failure to prosecute” but the process is different here because I am using it now as evidence for
the judicial misconduct complaint investigatory process.
III. CERTIFIED MISCONDUCT OF THE COMPLAINT
When I wrote the chain of events with facts and exhibits in my previous complaints, investigator
Ms. Diane Sykes always tried to downgrade the allegations by claiming she doesn’t understand
reading my complaints, and then she proceeds with discrediting the victim i.e., me by using her
status.
However, the original complaint was proven with time 07-22-90048 through 90041 in
subsequent complaints i.e., 07-24-90029 through 90043, 07-24-90049 through 90063, and 07-24-
90072. There is a rule which says:
Rule 11(c)(2): “A complaint must not be dismissed solely because it repeats allegations
of a previously dismissed complaint if it also contains material information not
previously considered.”
To the simplest mind, the facts went as follow:
Mark before he initiated his lawsuit in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) sent 3 big e-mails to the entire Court’s Courtroom deputies, the Northern District
of Illinois telling them he is looking for an angel not a judge, of course everyone knew
who Mark the Coptic was by that time because no one did that before and they read
Mark’s letters to President Biden because they were attached via his 3 e-mails and he also
told them about his settled fair housing case in Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd
Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66). Mark wasn’t targeted when he did that
because he was speaking in broad day light and often when people wants to commit
crimes, they do things in the shadow, don’t be surprised when a federal judge commit
crimes, we will get to that later on. So the day Mark spoke about Jesus Christ alone via e-
24
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-
22-1815-121-Cv-06223
Page 15 of 79
mail to Ms. Rhonda Johnson the courtroom deputy of Judge Sara Ellis, was the day it was
their chance to target Mark. This was the pretext for discrimination with retaliation. And
so the trial of targeting began and we all read Mark’s brief related to the Executive
Committee in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) ECF Nos. 120
and 121 or appeal 22-1815 Nos. 56-57.25 So the crime here is for the former members of
Executive Committee not only to target Mark’s home and later his place of work at
Chicago Public School but to time their retaliation with CPS targeting and remove his
ECF account so he won’t be able to properly litigate his case knowing too well Judge
Sara Ellis was working on destroying Mark’s case while Mark was being targeted at CPS:
Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986, and Conspiracy
against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241. A very well thought plan and a reality with facts and
evidence. Look at the docket history. This was the evil work of Gary Feinerman linking
him to CPS. He is the one who used the idea “let’s remove Mark’s ECF” account when
they heard about what is happening to Mark at CPS, and so that way their ruling would
be independent from CPS but the Lord, God took all their trials and put it to vain. That is
why you see a first attempt and a second attempt. Refer to Complaint 07-24-90072.
Because no one removes someone ECF account in the middle of his civil right litigation.
Who doubled down on this scheme? Not only judge Sara Ellis but also the 7th Circuit
Judges, all of them when they were handling Mark’s appeal related to the Executive
Committee, they came and didn’t provide Mark with an ECF account to make all his
filings harder to file not easy (motives), they rejected the idea of appointment of council
and mediation as well and they tried so hard to eliminate the evidence for discrimination
using the court system, they wanted to read Mark’s brief first and anyone knows a brief is
a testimony of the person, and they never allowed the Executive Committee to respond to
Mark’s brief and they all ruled en banc in that appeal 22-1815 knowing about Mark’s
future appeal related to the Department of Education.
But who committed the serious crime? The Executive Committee or the 7th Circuit
Judges? The 7th Circuit Judges when they fixed Mark’s appeal. Jim Richmond
threatening words were the reported crime but the crime happened at the hands of the
Judges and not Jim Richmond per se in the future and God allowed it that way to show
the evil within because they all ruled en banc to leave the appeal fixed as is, Appeal Nos.
22-2903, 23-1388 consolidated.
The one who connects the Executive Committee with the 7th Circuit was Jim Richmond. So they
all went after him and removed him from being a supervisor and Mr. Frank Insalaco a good
supervisor told Mark “did you see what happened to Jim?” and he added “Mark they are more
powerful than me, my opinion does not matter”, “Mark they removed my power to assign judges
to cases”, “Mark you were suppose to receive 3 panel judges, the judges know what happened.”
Jim Richmond might and power caused him to speak up of what the future evil plan was to “get
rid of Mark’s case and later retaliate” and so there is a lot of serious crimes that took place
25
22-1815-121-Cv-06223
Page 16 of 79
between two courts and their judges with power and no one appears to care; selective
enforcement. It is the same thing that happened in law school.
Angelina Jolie said.26
That somewhere in my head, this idea of good guys and human rights but as I watched
the world is not these are human rights, it is simply not the world. The world is not these
are human rights. It is these are human rights sometimes for these people and never for
these people. Justice for these people, but not these people. Civil right for these people
but not so much for these people. Equality for these people but not these people. Help
these people but not these people.
Of Course, an independent and neutral investigator when conducting a preliminary inquiry the
first thing he or she looks at is the docket history of the case, from there they determine the truth
and the causes and then they invite the judges subject to the complaint for a response orally or in
writing, when disputed facts arise, the judge calls for a special committee to investigate disputed
facts and under oath. None of this happened by Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes because she is a
witness to the crimes that took place, her interest in this journey would be cover up not healing
and for that reason Jim Richmond was ragging “judge Sykes is 10 times smarter than you” but I
replied “people could be smart in being evil”.
In a recent Complaint 22-90121, the 9th Circuit investigated Judge Joshua M. Kindred for nearly
a year. He lied when he was never under oath but when a special committee was formed to
investigate him, he couldn’t lie under oath with regards to having sex with his law clerk who
later became an assistant US attorney. But take a look at his words:
“Quid pro quo” Request: The Order cites “many examples” of inappropriate
communications by the judge to judicial colleagues, including telling “his law clerks,
‘Who gives a fuck about ethics, we need to get you paid,’ [and] joked about ‘punching
multiple Supreme Court justices.’” Order at 18–19.27
Don’t be surprised when Judges speak like that behind closed doors, it is often the norm, or we
wouldn’t have a website which reviews judges and a site called the Robing Room.28 Judges are
26
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQJ12FMCPXQ
27
See Order 22-90121 News Release & Order and Certification.pdf (uscourts.gov)
28
See www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
Page 17 of 79
human too who sin every day, no one is righteous, no one gets to be called “honorable” as a
granted status, the word “honorable” is said out of respect for the judge status but it is not a
granted title. “Why do you call me good? No one is good says God alone, you know the
commandment.” said Jesus Christ who was the lord in a flesh trying to teach humans that no
human is righteous.29 So a bit of humility is needed for God loves the humble.
In the news recently, the federal judiciary is considering whether new ethical guidance on the
hiring of law clerks is needed after two judges hired a clerk who was accused of racist conduct
while at a conservative advocacy group and went on to land a prestigious clerkship with U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.30
The U.S. Judicial Conference, the judiciary's policymaking body, in a report released Friday,
opens new tab on its closed-door March 12 meeting said it had referred the question of whether
new guidance was needed to its Committee on Codes of Conduct.31
Another panel, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, was meanwhile asked to
examine whether any rules should be modified to address the potential incompatibility of current
policies governing judicial misconduct cases.
One rule allows that committee to review orders by a circuit's judicial council dismissing
misconduct complaints to determine whether an investigative committee should be appointed.
Yet a statute states that a council's order upholding a chief judge's dismissal of such a case is
final.
Those conflicting policies were cited in a decision last year ending a misconduct case involving
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S.
District Judge Corey Maze in Birmingham, Alabama.32
The case concerning Pryor and Maze was prompted by a letter by seven Democratic members of
the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021 requesting an investigation into the judges' decision to
hire as a clerk Crystal Clanton, the former national field director for the conservative student
group Turning Point USA.33
In a New Yorker magazine story in 2017 examining the group, journalist Jane Mayer reported
that Clanton had sent a racist text message to a colleague stating “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE ... I
hate blacks. End of story.” After resigning from Turning Point, Clanton was hired by Ginni
Thomas, Thomas' wife, to assist in media ventures, lived for a time with the Thomas and went on
to attend George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. She then lined up successive
29
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0feZQkHbCkM&t=3977s
30
See recent news https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judiciary-consider-new-ethical-guidance-law-
clerk-hiring-2024-07-15/
31
See report https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klpynmmlbvg/jcus_mar_2024_proceedings_-
_final.pdf
32
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxrwqobpx/11012023pryor.pdf
33
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgpdwnozovo/house_chairs_letter_2_11.10.21.pdf
Page 18 of 79
clerkships with Maze and Pryor. Thomas, who subsequently also hired her, has said that he
recommended Pryor hire Clanton.
The lawmakers argued that if Pryor and Maze were aware of Claton's history, their hiring
decisions could be perceived as approving of discrimination, diminishing the judiciary's integrity
and running afoul of ethical rules.34
The 2nd Circuit in January 2022 initially cleared them of wrongdoing, but the Judicial
Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability in July 2023 directed the panel to
appoint a committee to investigate the matter.35
A. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE DIANE SYKES AND HER

RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORDS OF JIM RICHMOND: THE 7TH CIRCUIT DID
REMOVE JIM RICHMOND FROM HIS SUPERVISORY ROLE. JIM RICHMOND
SAID “WE AND JUDGES” TYING THE ENTIRE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES TO HIS
WORDS WITH REGARDS TO FIXING MARK’S FUTURE APPEAL AND
RETALIATING AGAINST HIM.
Our story here is a bit different from the hired racist law clerk that was reported by the house
democratic judiciary committee, when it comes to the threatening words of Jim Richmond, is
that he revealed the evil plot by the Judges of the 7th Circuit and Former members of the
Executive Committee; especially when he said “we and Judges”.36
o File your appeal, when are you filing it? Oh you will see what action we will take, and
then you can go to your favorite Supreme Court justice and see how they will rule for
your case. Said Jim Richmond.
o Don’t send a 3rd supplement, that will enrage all the judges; you really want to be put on
our restricted list; you take it as a badge of honor, do you? Are you trying to delay the
process, tell me? Said Jim Richmond.
o Do you think you got everything figured out? What makes you think the Judicial
Conference has jurisdiction over us? That is Robert's committee” i replied in part “there
is a recent 2022 case ruling” Later i emailed him a copy of the case ruling c.c.d._no._22-
01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov).37 During several follow up conversations because he knew it
was the Democrats who initiated the Judicial Misconduct Complaint which triggered the
Judicial Conference Committee to rule on the case, he added in part “they need to shut up
over at DC, I am a democrat myself but you have **** (I don’t remember the
inappropriate language he used) in DC.” Said Jim Richmond.
34
See letter https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwedegzvw/pryor-maze_response_letter-1.pdf
35
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpomxmwdpd/07082022pryor_misconduct.pdf
36
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717275139/Judicial-Misconduct-Reporting-Jim-Richmond-of-the-7th-
Circuit
37
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf
Page 19 of 79
Jim Richmond even said “Mark leave the judges alone, we will take care of you” the evidence is
in Mark’s brief that Hon. Judge Frank Easterbrook and en banc ruled as “oversize brief” in
appeal 22-1815.
It didn’t matter that the ruling came as “oversize brief” because the truth is the truth, the process
only changed from a court system to an investigatory process under the judicial misconduct
proceeding. This was the evidence, is that all 7th Circuit Judges knew what Jim Richmond said
and did, and knew about Mark’s future appeal related to the Department of Education.
There was no need to fix Mark’s appeal, if all the 7th Circuit Judges wanted to stay neutral, they
could have appointed outside circuit but they all came en banc and affirmed the ruling leaving
Mark’s appeal fixed “as is” fulfilling the words of “Jim Richmond” and not only that proving the
words of Judge Richard Posner that the 7th Circuit “treat pro se litigants like trash and destroy
appeals with merits.”
Page 20 of 79
There is no need to attach 124 page brief to this complaint, the 7th Circuit Judges are aware of it.
Page 21 of 79
The one who fixed Mark’s future appeal related to his Department of Education case were
indeed the entire 7th Circuit Judges because they denied it en banc leaving the appeal fixed as is
while Mr. Frank Insalaco told Mark “you were suppose to be assigned a 3 panel judges, the
judges know what happened.”
The letter sent by the House Judiciary pertaining to a clerk with racist remarks.38 In that letter of
22 pages, they wrote and gave examples:
a) A Black employee sues her employer for racial discrimination, alleging, among
other things, that she was fired on the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday; that the
supervisor who fired her regularly exchanged racist remarks with coworkers; and
that the employer attempted to cover up the supervisor’s misconduct by falsely
blaming another employee. The judge assigned to the case had himself hired an
employee with a similar record as the supervisor. The judge rules against the
employee.
b) An employer is sued for negligent hiring and retention. The plaintiff alleges that
the employer had actual notice of the employee’s record of antisemitic conduct;
failed to adequately investigate that record by relying, among other things, on
implausible and self-serving claims from the employee’s previous supervisor; and
later ignored clear evidence that the investigation was flawed and that the
employee’s antisemitism presented a clear risk to the employer’s customers and
workforce. The judge assigned to the case had himself hired and retained an
employee under similar circumstances. The judge rules for the employer.
38
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwedegzvw/pryor-maze_response_letter-1.pdf
Page 22 of 79
c) An investigative journalist and his publication are sued for defamation by

someone seeking revenge for an article disclosing evidence of their xenophobic
and illegal conduct. The judge assigned to the case previously stated in strong
terms that he distrusted the journalist and the publication. The judge rules against
the journalist.
d) A whistleblower has strong evidence that her employer acted illegally. The
employer’s defense hinges on the argument that the whistleblower held a grudge
against the employer. The whistleblower does not want her identity made public
because she fears retaliation. The judge hearing the case had previously decided
to discount evidence of his employee’s misconduct because the employee’s
coworkers had asked for confidentiality and because the judge doubted their
motives. The judge refuses to protect the whistleblower’s identity and rules
against her on the merits.
e) The CEO of an organization has been sued for making false statements. The judge
hearing the case recently relied on the CEO to have a judicial misconduct
complaint dismissed. The judge rules for the CEO.
f) A litigant is deciding whether to file a motion to recuse a judge. The judge had
previously lashed out at the people who questioned the propriety of his decision to
hire a law clerk with a widely publicized record of hateful conduct. The litigant
had strongly condemned the judge’s actions. The judge rules against the litigant.
In each of these examples, a reasonable observer could question the judge’s impartiality.
Depending on the other circumstances of the case, the judge could have a statutory obligation to
recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455.136. These hypotheticals are by no means exhaustive, but
they illustrate how the Chief Judge’s blanket statement absolving the subject judges of any
recusal issues cannot be correct. The House Democrats went on to say:
But these hypotheticals, though illustrative, are unnecessary because the Chief Judge
should not have issued an advisory opinion regarding 28 U.S.C. § 455 at all. In doing so,
the Chief Judge exceeded both her statutory jurisdiction and her authority under the
constitution. Congress has not authorized the judicial councils to construe 28 U.S.C. §
455 in a judicial misconduct proceeding, and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act
cannot be used to evaluate the merits of a judge’s recusal decisions, let alone
preemptively endorse a judge’s decision not to recuse.
The Chief Judge also exceeded the limits of Article III’s grant of judicial power, which
prohibits federal judges from issuing advisory opinions.138 Federal courts are “without
power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before
them.”139 Here, the Chief Judge’s order prejudged how 28 U.S.C. § 455 would apply to
a hypothetical case, prejudicing future litigants’ rights to fair treatment before an
unquestionably impartial judge.
Page 23 of 79
In response to the democrats’ letter, the Judicial Conference Committee sent the case back to the
Circuit Court to appoint a special committee to investigate disputed facts pertaining to the hired
racist law clerk in C.C.D. No. 22-01.39
Clerks and Court staff are covered under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”)
when their words connect them to the evil act of the judges; either being an accomplice or not.
Take for instance, a clerk told a person A “this judge is selling narcotic drugs and committing
some crimes” Person A goes and files a judicial misconduct complaint telling the chief circuit
Judge that this judge is selling narcotic drugs. The Chief Circuit judge knowing about the crimes
goes and uses the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) and say employees’ words
are beyond the purview of the act. Now we have a chief circuit judge who covers up a potential
crime and possible obstruction of justice as an investigator when hiding the truth about a
reported crime.
It is the same situation here with Jim Richmond, his threatening words pertaining to fixing
Mark’s future appeal by saying “we and judges” and the reported crime happened in the future
39
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf see news
https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-clarence-thomas-wife-hired-ex-tpusa-staffer-known-for-saying-i-
hate-blacks/
Page 24 of 79
and was endorsed en banc by all 7 circuit judges; that is the evidence on the record, not an
illusion. Words + Act = Committed Crime.
“It was shocking to me how often I heard from people all over the country who had tried to
blow the whistle on judges ... and who had been either disregarded or in some cases had been
retaliated against, or had felt completely unable to do anything,” Olsen said.40
Mark knows Judge Virginia Kendall briefly when she authored an article with Andrew Boutros,
a former DOJ prosecutor. Andrew Boutros knew Mark from the past, Saint Mark Coptic Church
when Mark was dealing with a fair housing litigation.41
Here both the judge and the former prosecutor wrote an article about the leaker of the abortion
case saying that leaker should be prosecuted for leaking an order before it came out. 42 But in
parable, what about the Judges who target the weak or the words of Jim Richmond telling Mark
how his future appeal would be fixed and it was indeed fixed, would they invest an article
writing about it as well?
40
See https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/10/22/shocking-to-me-investigative-reporter-lise-olsen-
talks-new-book-about-judicial-misconduct/
41
See https://www.dechert.com/people/b/andrew-s--boutros.html
42
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/betraying-the-bench-could-the-scotus-leaker-face-criminal-
charges
Page 25 of 79

They both argued with the following:
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) makes it criminal to, among other things, corruptly influence an
“official proceeding.” Wasn’t Jim Richmond corruptly influencing an official proceeding
when he threatened Mark how his appeal would be fixed? Long before it was even filed.
They added: In 1919, Ashton Embry, a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna,
sent an opinion to Wall Street financiers ahead of a judgment involving a railroad
company. He was indicted for having violated 18 U.S.C. § 371.
The words of Inspector General Michael Horowitz come to many mind:
The Department’s Office of Inspector General itself describes that ‘[i]n light of today’s
wide-spread lack of trust and negative views of government, a key facet of the
Department’s challenge of strengthening public trust is ensuring that DOJ personnel
fulfill their duties without any actual or perceived political influence or partisan
consideration.44
As Mark continues to reach out to all members of the Judicial Conference Committee via e-mail
and letters, came the reforms and the news and this was the Lord, God work’s through the weak.
So when Jim Richmond told Mark “God doesn’t rule this Court, Judges do” Jim Richmond can
see who is working, the Lord, God or Judges.
o Study recommends US judiciary improve workplace misconduct systems.45

o Report: Judiciary plagued by systemic failures to protect employees.46
o U.S. Judiciary Considers Ethical Overhaul in Law Clerk Hiring.47
43
44
See TMPC-2023.pdf (justice.gov)
45
See Study recommends US judiciary improve workplace misconduct systems | Reuters
46
See Report: Judiciary plagued by systemic failures to protect employees | Courthouse News Service
47
See U.S. Judiciary Considers Ethical Overhaul in Law Clerk Hiring (legal.io)
Page 26 of 79
o Workplace Misconduct Practices Vary by Court, Report Finds.48

o Federal prosecutors: Resigned Alaska federal judge had conflict of interest in 23 criminal
cases.49
The words of Governor Pritkzer also come to many mind:
The best way to spot an idiot, look for the person who is cruel. Let me explain. When we
see someone who doesn't look like us, or sound like us, or act like us, or love like us, or
live like us, the first thought that crosses almost everyone's brain is rooted in either fear
or judgment or both. That's evolution. We survived as a species by being suspicious of
things that we aren't familiar with. In order to be kind, we have to shut down that animal
instinct and force our brain to travel a different pathway.
Empathy and compassion are evolved states of being. They require the mental capacity to
step past our most primal urges. This may be a surprising assessment because somewhere
48
See Workplace Misconduct Practices Vary by Court, Report Finds (1) (bloomberglaw.com)
49
See Federal prosecutors: Resigned Alaska federal judge had conflict of interest in 23 criminal cases - Anchorage
Daily News (adn.com)
Page 27 of 79
along the way in the last few years, our society has come to believe that weaponized
cruelty is part of some well-thought out Master plan. Cruelty is seen by some as an adroit
cudgel to gain power. Empathy and kindness are considered weak. Many important
people look at the vulnerable only as rungs on a ladder to the top. I'm here to tell you that
when someone's path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed
the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past
its first instinct. They never forged new mental pathways to overcome their own
instinctual fears. And so their thinking and problem solving will lack the imagination and
creativity that the kindest people have in spades. Over my many years in politics and
business, I have found one thing to be universally true. The kindest person in the room is
often the smartest.50
Investigator Ms. Diane Sykes trying to isolate the 7th Circuit Judges from the evil work of former
member of the Executive Committee with regards to Gary Feinerman and others who followed
his lead is not working because Jim Richmond’s threatening words ties both the 7th Circuit
judges with the Executive Committee and it came to pass with actions not just words.
However, here is something Mark noticed it too. Chief Judge Diane Sykes in complaints Nos.
07-24-90029 through 90043 and Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063 sent the complaints to the 7th
Circuit Judicial Council under rule 26 to decide what to do with them but never sent complaint
No. 07-24-90072 to them under rule 26 and clerk #10 kept holding on complaint No. 07-24-
90072 never wanted to provide Mark with the complaint number until the day Mark’s letter was
received by the Judicial Conference Committee. The idea here is that investigator Ms. Diane
Sykes wanted to add complaint No. 07-24-90072 as a supplement so the subjects of the
complaints don’t get to vote on it under rule 26 and that way she has separated 7th Circuit from
the Executive Committee by (1) dismissing complaints Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 and
Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063 and (2) gets to control the outcome of complaint No. 07-24-
90072.
This is called obstruction of justice by tempering with an investigatory process to never become
independent.
o FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During “Crossfire
Hurricane” Investigation.51
B. TO INVESITGATE THE REPORTED MISCONDUCTS BY FORMER JUDGE

RICHARD POSNER, “THEY TREAT PRO SE LITIGANTS LIKE TRASH AND
DESTROY APPEALS WITH MERIT.” NEITHER JUDGE RICHARD POSNER NOR
THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEEE ARE
FRIVOLOUS ACCORDING TO CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES
Moving onto Judge Richard Posner’s leaks saying “they treat pro se litigants like trash”52,
investigator Ms. Diane Sykes saying it is frivolous, is she claiming both former Judge Richard
50
See https://youtu.be/qXnlWeY5Gw4?si=R-oE5uk3Psuc2JVK
51
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-
crossfire-hurricane
Page 28 of 79
Posner and the Judicial Conference Committee letter to Judge Diane Wood (retired) were
frivolous because they both reveal how the 7th Circuit mistreats pro se litigants, it is all about the
staff attorneys. And so the idea here is for investigator Ms. Diane Sykes to throw the process
onto the 7th Circuit Judicial Council; they all work together not independent of each others, they
all support each others.
Here is the book that reveals all, should the 7th Circuit wants me to buy them a copy, I can. In
fact I ordered the book.
Here are the leaks.53
o There’s a kernel of bracing Posnerian brilliance here. Blazing a spotlight on the separate-
but-equal appellate review that pro litigants receive is vitally important. Hardly anyone
understands how pro se appeals are handled by the federal courts — that is,
52
See
worth_the_t
53
See https://web.archive.org/web/20180817030918/ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-
you-might-want-it-anyway/
Page 29 of 79
how differently than appeals by litigants wealthy enough to hire lawyers. And hardly
anyone cares. Posner is on to something big here.
o There’s a decent amount of raw information here about what staff attorneys’ offices do in
different circuits. For the Third Circuit, there’s 20 pages of survey answers by current
staff attorneys detailing who they are and what they do. There’s some useful information
there for appellate practitioners. There also is detailed information on the Fifth and
Seventh Circuit SAOs, and a spreadsheet with data on most of the others.
o Third Circuit fans will note with satisfaction that our staff attorneys’ office is held up by
Posner as one of the offices that’s doing it right, or at least better.
The author of the article adds:
The primary battle arose from Posner’s demand that he be allowed to re-write all his circuit’s
staff attorneys’ memos and draft opinions before they went to his fellow judges. This is a
ludicrous idea. Posner thought it “uncontroversial” and he was “surprised” when it was met with
first silence, then uniform rejection. When Wood told him so, Posner “angrily” threatened to
reveal staff counsel work product he deemed not good enough. When he was told that doing so
would violate the judicial code of conduct, he resigned, and now he has self-published
everything — memos and drafts by staff counsel peppered with his acid edits, emails between
the judges, the whole trainwreck.
It gets worse. Posner chooses to reveal the initial panel vote in a still-not-yet-decided appeal that
he identifies by name. The other two panel members plan to affirm, he tells us. (Posner
disagrees, so we get two paragraphs summarizing and quoting from the dissent he would have
filed.) What compelling reason led him to include this stunning disclosure in a book ostensibly
about pro se’s and televising arguments, when this case has nothing to do with either? Because
“I’ve decided to note two recent clashes with colleagues.” This is not Posner-being-Posner, this
is madness.54 Washington Post
In another book written by Judge Richard Posner he said the following:
54
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/21/richard-posners-bats-crazy-
new-book/
Page 30 of 79
As explained in detail in my two books mentioned at the outset of this book, I retired
from my court last September because of my distress at the summary fashion in which
the court disposed of pro se appeals—rejecting them even when they had merit.55
o Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time'56
Judge Posner didn’t claim one judge doing that, he said this is the pattern and practice of the
entire 7th Circuit judges toward pro se litigants and Mark saw it with his own eyes when his
appeal was fixed and when he was threatened by Jim Richmond.
Was the letter by the Judicial Conference Committee frivolous too?57
55
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225
56
See
worth_the_t
57
See https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://abovethelaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf&hl=en_US see https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules-
procedures/Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf
Page 31 of 79
The letter drafted by the Judicial Conference Committee to now retired Judge Diane Wood didn’t
address the misconducts reported by Judge Richard Posner with regards to “they treat pro se
litigants like trash” and “destroy appeals with merits” rather they spoke of the confidential of the
court, meaning they endorsed such practice until a new leadership comes in and change and we
now have a different leadership for the Judicial Conference Committee.
Public confidence is all the more imperiled because the judges’ discrimination does not end in
their courtrooms. Their stamp of approval incentivizes second- and third-order discrimination.
28 U.S.C. § 352(b) allows a chief circuit judge to dismiss a complaint in some limited
circumstances. None of those circumstances exist here. This complaint should, thus, not be
dismissed. Instead, the misconduct should be remedied through the misconduct process Congress
prescribed.
Page 32 of 79
Moreover, the complained-of misconduct is unlikely to be corrected outside of the misconduct

process. Retrospective review of the sort that might arise in ordinary litigation cannot fix the
problem. This complaint also supplies enough evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has
occurred by supplying records and evidence to the discrimination and retaliation that took place.
That misconduct should be remedied through termination of the discriminatory policies, pattern
and practice, published acknowledgment that such policies constitute judicial misconduct, and
provide a healing to show that the Court is open to all and that public confidence in the justice
system is an important aspect of the Judicial Branch.
Rule 11(c)(2): “A complaint must not be dismissed solely because it repeats allegations
of a previously dismissed complaint if it also contains material information not
previously considered.”
C. TO INVESTIGATE JUDGE SARA ELLIS OF WHAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT

GARY FEINERMAN RESIGNATION, THE SEALING OF DOCKET ENTRY 78 IN
MARK’S CASE, AND WHY THE LIES BY HER OWN COURTROOM DEPUTY MS.
RHONDA JOHNSON BECAUSE THIS WAS A PRETEXT FOR DISCRIMINATION
WITH RETALIATION CANON 4(A)4 “RETALIATION FOR REPORTING
DISCRIMINATION”
Rule 11(c)(2): “A complaint must not be dismissed solely because it repeats allegations of a
previously dismissed complaint if it also contains material information not previously
considered.”
Previously Mark disclosed within his 124 page brief pertaining to the Executive Committee in
appeal 22-1815 how everything started and what was the pretext for targeting Mark. 58 Mark
started his brief that when he e-mailed the entire Court’s Courtroom deputies, he was never
targeted; his home was never stalked by any US Marshals personal because he was speaking in
broad day light before all the staff. Certainly every single Judge knew about Mark’s future civil
right case and God chose Judge Robert Gettleman for that case, a Jewish senior judge.
The Executive Committee did the Judge shopping and chose Judge Sara Ellis for Mark and Mark
could not find a compassionate judge for his case and we already know the merit of judge
shopping and forum shopping, everyone is looking for a judge that hears his or her cause. But
that goes back to the character and the identity of the judge “Is the judge Atheist? Jewish?
Christian? Conservative or Liberal? Is the Judge identified as a Pro Government ruler or
suspicious of Government behaviors? Or a Constitutionalist? And the labels are many.
We saw the judge in New York who hated Donald Trump and we saw the Judge in Florida who
loved Donald Trump. When the judge in New York ruled against Trump all Democrats were
cheering and when a Florida Judge ruled in favor of Trump all Democrats were weeping.
58
22-1815-121-Cv-06223
Page 33 of 79
Likewise with Republicans as well; that is our World and that is the parable to justice. Nothing
is fixed. Human shape and reshape the laws and their procedures to their like. So people said
“wait a minute, we need judge shopping and forum shopping, why do we have to stand up before
judges who can’t feel our cause” Even Judges themselves love their colleagues who stand up for
them.
My case was the Department of Education lawsuit and the IHRA definition in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). That tale turned painful on many fronts by people
who hated me and my Coptic identity and Ms. Rhonda Johnson lies a lot but who uses her as a
pretext to target me? It was Judge Sara Ellis and Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.
In my 124 pages brief, I explained how this tale started. I wrote:
Before Mark initiated his lawsuit against the Department of Education, on June 19, 2021,
Mark e-mailed the entire District Court‘s Judges and Magistrate Judges telling them all
about his journey with both the legislative and executive branches, speaking about the
parable to the world and he told them about his journey related to the Jewish/Israeli
lobby, Kenneth Marcus, and the Department of Education (they were 3 long e-mails) and
in part he wrote the following:
I want them to reform instead of them being blind; they refuse to gain the weak hearts. If
I decided to file my lawsuit against DOE/OCR to bring reform to it, I hope to meet a kind
judge with a good heart. A judge who listens, because we have eyes in order to see, ears
in order to listen, and a mouth in order to speak the truth.
Page 34 of 79
For the first time, you will see a copy of these 3 e-mails, and they were huge total printing papers
89 pages which will be attached herein, as an exhibit. Ms. Rhonda Johnson was on these emails
Page 35 of 79
and everyone else. No one said “inappropriate comment” lands him on a restricted list! So now
many understand that the initial targeting over an e-mail about Jesus Christ was a pretext.
Please don’t tell me “you still don’t understand” because that would be obstruction of justice. We
will discuss how people with power frame the weak until the truth is revealed later on, so I will
give few examples first, so the eyes can see better.
Page 36 of 79
Here a U.S. Marshal framed his ex-fiancé out of haters and what causes hatred? Disputes. So he
used his power to frame her and harm her.59
It took nearly 7 years for the truth to come out and the truth didn’t come out by the Justice
Department and Office of Inspector General, it came out because the victim civil lawsuit the
perpetrator in the court taking their deposition under oath.60
Michelle Hadley was a 29-year-old graduate student living in California when her ex-
boyfriend falsely accused her of a lurid crime. By the time the case unraveled in early
2017, she had lost her job, her reputation and her faith in law enforcement.
Here is another story:
o FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire
Hurricane" Investigation.61
59
See Deputy U.S. Marshal Indicted and Arrested for Conspiracy, Cyber Stalking and Perjury (justice.gov)
60
See Woman framed in ‘rape fantasy’ plot speaks out after conviction of ex-U.S. marshal (nbcnews.com)
Page 37 of 79
All it took for Kevin Clinesmith to alter his data to officials to cause another to be investigated.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and
September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel
in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel
in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration
Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated
with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the
Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire
Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as
“Individual #1.”
Prior to the submission of the fourth FISA application, and after Individual #1 stated
publicly that he/she had assisted the U.S. government in the past, an FBI Supervisory
Special Agent (“SSA”) asked Clinesmith to inquire with the OGA as to whether
Individual #1 had ever been a “source” for the OGA. On June 15, 2017, Clinesmith sent
an email to a liaison at the OGA (“OGA Liaison”) seeking clarification as to whether
Individual #1 was an OGA source, and the OGA Liaison responded via email to
Clinesmith. On June 19, 2017, Clinesmith altered the email he received from the OGA
Liaison by adding the words “not a source,” and then forwarded the email to the FBI
SSA. Relying on the altered email, on June 29, 2017, the SSA signed and submitted the
fourth FISA application to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The
application did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.
Here is another story but at a college level, a female student framing 2 students.
61
See District of Connecticut | FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire
Hurricane" Investigation | United States Department of Justice
Page 38 of 79
o Connecticut college student gets 1 year in prison for false rape accusation.62
The good and the evil is everywhere. It doesn’t matter if it is male or female, or a judge or a
student. What matters is how people are raised and whether they know sin and fear God or not.
Bring people who are not baptized and do not fear God and you will find them without a living
soul because they don’t know what sin is or fear God and that is why we have a huge ordeal at
Chicago Public School: 4 Lawyers with no morals or ethics went to target Mark and who was
watching from afar? The Executive Committee and Judge Sara Ellis; I will explain all of this.
1. First Mark e-mailed the entire Courtroom Deputies of every Judge and Magistrate Judge
telling them he is looking for an angel not a judge for his future case. Ms. Rhonda
Johnson was on those emails just like any other courtroom deputy and Mark spoke about
Jeuss Christ, and the Israeli lobby. You now have a copy of these emails in this
complaint. No one at that time targeted Mark’s home, US Marshal didn’t stalk Mark’s
home, his place of work at Chicago Public School was not targeted, nothing happened.
2. The moment Mark filed his civil right case; the system chose Judge Robert Gettleman, a
senior Jewish judge. However, Judge Shopping took place, and Judge Robert Gettleman
was replaced with Judge Sara Ellis in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887).
3. Mark wanted to know why Judge Gentleman couldn’t handle his case, so he told Ms.
Rhonda Johnson he wants to send a letter to 3 judges and he tells her about the teachings
of Jesus Christ. Later next day, Mark emailed both Judge Sara Ellis and Judge Rebecca
Pallmeyer but already the order went out that shows they wanted to target Mark and lend
him on a “restricted list” this was pretext and they used Rhonda Johnson as their pretext.
But they all lie even Ms. Rhonda Johnson lied many times when Mark spoke to her in the
past; one thing is certain about Ms. Johnson, she hates Jesus Christ, and thus Mark’s
Coptic identity is an issue to her.
4. Mark finds his home is being stalked, he finds his emails are being read, he finds a hostile
environment by Sergio Hernandez with a racist association and management Alicia
McNeal with a prior history of fair housing.
62
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH1FuhDUpiE
Page 39 of 79
5. Mark place of work at Chicago Public School was targeted in the most heinous way, and
while this happened the executive committee took Mark’s ECF account away interfering
with his civil lawsuit knowing two things (1) CPS will get rid of Mark (2) Judge Sara
Ellis will destroy Mark’s case and that way everyone would get rid of Mark.
6. Later we have the 7th Circuit Judges jumping in and trying to cover up for the Executive
Committee’s crimes left and right switching between official capacity duty and individual
capacity motives, never allowing them to respond publicly to this appeal and the one who
revealed it all was Jim Richmond. In appeal 22-1815 the 3 panel judges tried to
intentionally eliminate the evidence for discrimination despite the court ordering
previously in ECF 2 in appeal 22-1815 that it would consider that evidence. The 3 Panel
Judges were: Judge Ilana Rovner, Judge Michael Brennan, and Judge Michael Scudder.
Page 40 of 79
They tried to eliminate the direct evidence for discrimination, the February 11, 2022 order
Page 41 of 79
vs
How Chief Judge Diane Sykes can say she doesn’t understand what is clear on the docket?
Page 42 of 79
The very first move that showed deliberate indifference toward Mark, was they denied Mark to
use the ECF system to file his papers while his place of work at CPS was being targeted, his
source of income, that shows the core evil mind of what they wanted because they also
participated in Mark’s judicial misconduct proceeding against the Executive Committee. They
knew what they were all doing; their interest was themselves and the executive committee, not
Mark. The one who revealed it all was Jim Richmond and many of his words to Mark.
Looking at the order, they said “no mediation, no appointment of counsel, let’s read your brief
first” and came the 124 pages brief that shattered all their evil planning when they saw a State
Chief Judge granting an order of “No stalking petition” after Sergio Hernandez implicated the
Executive Committee in his filings and answers. The evidence was presented to Mark under oath
as a Gift from the Lord, God to Mark.
Hon. Judge Daniel Gallagher during the first hearing took Sergio Hernandez’s answer to my
petition and told him “Did you read what is written here? Do you understand what is written
here? Are these your answers?” Sergio Hernandez looked at the paper and answered “Yes these
are my answers!” Hon. Judge Gallagher answered “Ok” Under oath.
Page 43 of 79
It is really that simple, but we have an investigator Ms. Diane Sykes who is not an investigator
but often obstructs justice, and we see this story with former Judge Samuel B Kent.
Kent previously received a written reprimand in September for sexual harassment and
“inappropriate behavior” from the judicial council of the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals because of a related judicial misconduct complaint filed by McBroom. DeGuerin
argued that the earlier secret review by the panel of federal judges should have ended the
matter. “It's a classic case of a false accusation that cannot be corroborated, cannot be
substantiated,” Kent's attorney said. “All of the evidence was carefully considered first by
a special panel of the Fifth Circuit judicial (council) and then by the entire judicial
(council) and they could not reach a unanimous agreement on whether or not the conduct
took place.”
As the 5th Circuit tried to clear him of misconduct, came the Justice Department and said “wait a
minute, we are now investigating” and later they indicted Judge Samuel Kent a year later.63
The United States Department of Justice has subsequently initiated a criminal

investigation, with which the Council is cooperating in keeping with Rule 9(B) of the
Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct of the United States Fifth Circuit
(“Rules”).
Later we started to see the blame game by the powerful toward the weak:
“To charge Judge Kent of conduct of which he is absolutely innocent based on this kind
of flimsy evidence is inexcusable and we will fight it to the bitter end,” DeGuerin said.
He said he believed McBroom complained about Kent only as a way to divert attention
from a mistake she made handling evidence that could have resulted in her firing.
That is exactly what investigator Ms. Diane Sykes is doing with Mark’s complaints, she is
covering for others while trying to reduce Mark because Mark means nothing to her but Mark
means a lot to the Lord, God and he is in its midst.
We see similar story repeats. In a recent Complaint 22-90121, the 9th Circuit investigated Judge
Joshua M. Kindred for nearly a year. He lied when he was never under oath but when a special
committee was formed to investigate him, he couldn’t lie under oath with regards to having sex
with his law clerk who later became an assistant US attorney. But take a look at his words:
“Quid pro quo” Request: The Order cites “many examples” of inappropriate
communications by the judge to judicial colleagues, including telling “his law clerks,
‘Who gives a fuck about ethics, we need to get you paid,’ [and] joked about ‘punching
multiple Supreme Court justices.’” Order at 18–19.64
Now these stories are about female reporting male judges, but we have a great story about
females sexually harassed Mark the Coptic, speaking about his body parts and laughing at him.
63
See https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/news/news/SK.Order.pdf
64
See Order 22-90121 News Release & Order and Certification.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 44 of 79
For that reason we have charges filed by Ms. Melissa Howard of OCR Chicago reporting sexual
harassment and sex discrimination.65
65
See examples: Jury awards Hulk Hogan $115M in sex tape lawsuit | 11alive.com see Anesthesiologist trashes
sedated patient — and it ends up costing her - The Washington Post
Page 45 of 79
The story started with being threatened not to speak about Jesus Christ but others had a different
plan to get rid of Mark for good: Camie Pratt, Udeme Itiat, Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant.
So the Lord, God took that plan and exposed everyone involved linking all evil together, Mark’s
Home to CPS; Mark’s Home to the Executive Committee; Executive Committee to Mark’s
Home and CPS.
You need an agreement of “2 or more to do a certain crime” whether civil deprivation or

criminal and you don’t need to prove “intent” only an agreement is needed, and you don’t
need to prove the agreement but look at the circumstantial evidence. 66 Deprivation of
Rights under Color of Law.67 See also 18 U.S. Code § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or
falsification of records.
This was the start of my writings in a 210 pages original OCR Complaint Docket 05-22-1497.
In my mind there are many words that I would like to say, and in my heart there are more words
to say than what my mind can share but I prefer the brief silence, in order to allow the Lord, God
to speak.
They surrounded me like bees. They pushed me violently, that I might fall, but the Lord
helped me. The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. The
voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tents of the righteous; the right hand of the Lord
does valiantly. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord does
66
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hC-LyNdkc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeMt5rfzg0
67
See https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Page 46 of 79
valiantly. I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord has
chastened me severely; but He has not given me over to death [Psalms 118:12-18].68
On July 17, 2024, Mark filed additional charges pertaining to the 4 involved lawyers at CPS and
then he emailed those in charge of IARDC including Illinois Supreme Court Justices.
68
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+118%3A12-20&version=NKJV
Page 47 of 79
Page 48 of 79
D. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF JUDGE REBECCA PALLMEYER BEING A

DIRECT WITNESS SEEKING THE IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF GARY
FEINERMAN WHO USED FORMER U.S MARSHAL JEROME SLIVA TO TARGET
MARK’S PLACE OF WORK AT CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL. THIS HAPPENED
AFTER MARK PUBLISHED IN ECF 103 IN BOCHRA V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION (1:21-cv-03887) THAT OCR IS INVESTIGATING CPS.
Based on Complaint No. 07-24-90072 which was assigned only to former executive committee,
Judge Sheila M. Finnegan showing a series of targeting, first it started with Mark’s home, and
later his place of Work at Chicago Public School. The idea here was that the Executive
Committee was relaying on Chicago Public School 4 corrupt lawyers to destroy Mark life for
good while Judge Sara Ellis was working on destroying Mark’s civil case in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) because no one removes an ECF account in the
middle of a civil lawsuit unless they know internally that Mark’s case will be destroyed.
The Chicago Public School is a tale on its own because what happened there supersedes anything
which resembles a Court with Judges but rather it downgrades it to a mafia style “get rid of this
kid by any means possible but from afar”.
Mark suffered immense damage; he is now on high blood pressure medication permanently.
Mark came to the Court, the Northern District of Illinois with no high blood pleasure. Mark’s
Page 49 of 79
Character was targeted left and right by people who wanted to throw as much dirt as they
possibly can to discredit him while raising their own status among the public.69
As you see from Mark’s filing telling the Executive Committee not to do evil on 2/15/2022
What happened next was worse than a déjà vu of what happened in law school.
See Letter from Senator Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee addressing
Whistleblowers concerns regarding retaliations and corruptions among different US Marshals
leadership.70
Unfortunately, the Marshals Service’s reaction to previous incidents of serious

misconduct suggests it is unwilling to hold officials accountable even when presented
with findings from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
69
See Mark’s awards history https://www.scribd.com/document/740978184/List-of-Mark-Bochra-Awards-
including-a-Presidental-Award
70
See Grassley: U.S. Marshals Leadership has Sordid History of Misconduct, Cooperation with Investigations
(senate.gov)
Page 50 of 79
Moreover, it is unacceptable that the U.S. Marshals Service reportedly continues to try to
track down the whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress. In the
last two months, multiple whistleblowers have alleged that USMS managers 1) use
Freedom of Information Act requests to identify employees who have made protected
disclosures and to use that information to retaliate against them; 2) maintain lists of
employees suspected of being whistleblowers and assess who is most likely responsible
for the various allegations; and 3) openly threaten employees with retaliation for speaking
to independent investigators.
As one can see an example here:
o Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a U.S. Marshal and Chief Deputy

U.S. Marshal for Harassing and Making Retaliatory Statements About a Supervisory
Deputy U.S. Marshal, Retaliating Against Another Deputy U.S. Marshal for Filing a
grievance and lack of candor.71
When the culture among leadership is retaliation, imagine now how the Executive Committee
used former US Marshal Jerome Sliva to target Mark’s home and later his place of work and we
have the evidence, not once but twice and more as this was their pattern and practice.
A different Complainant alleging a series of serious crimes.
Mark’s very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint.
I often find Federal Judges judging State Judges claiming higher status that they are better than
them when in reality in my journey the crimes of judges were many and their sins ran behind
their back so they try the cover up, but I didn’t find yet a State Judge judging a Federal Judge.
Before the sentence was handed down Thursday, O’Brien issued a rambling and tearful
statement to the court, at one point crying out, “I’m an embarrassment!” and stiff-arming
her lawyer who had approached the lectern to try to cut her off. “I will fall on my sword
if I have to, but I need you to know the truth!” O’Brien told U.S. District Judge Thomas
Durkin through tears, prompting the judge to order a recess so she could collect herself.
“This wasn’t stupid,” Durkin said. “This was a crime. … You really didn’t need to do
this.”72
71
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-findings-misconduct-us-marshal-and-chief-deputy-us-
marshal-harassing
72
See https://www.chicagotribune.com/2018/12/21/ex-judge-given-1-year-in-prison-for-mortgage-fraud-scheme-
im-an-embarrassment/
Page 51 of 79
A federal judge gets to tell a State judge “this was a crime and for that I am giving you a 1 year
sentence.” Money doesn’t replace life. Money comes and go but life and health does not.
Here is another story:
Superior Court Judge Arnold Ogden Jones II has been charged with trying to bribe an FBI agent
with beer and cash to obtain copies of text messages involving members of his family. A case of
simple stalking by using power and status to spy on a private citizen.73
The same was true, when Jerome Sliva was reading Mark’s emails about his own case Bochra v.
U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) through Alicia McNeal and Sergio Hernandez
but much worse, they later targeted his work at Chicago Public School.
In this complaint and because I love Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, and after some thoughts, after
some prayers and writing to God, whether I should name her in a complaint or not, I don’t need
anything from her other than she tells the truth with regards to Gary Feinerman. She is the one
who asked him to resign immediately so his own evil conduct doesn’t affect the remaining of the
judges and the Court.
This would be a certified misconduct that I would seek against Gary Feinerman even after he left
office, it would still be a certified misconduct for the Justice Department to consider just like in
the story of Judge Samuel Kent.74
73
See https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article42936522.html
74
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-district-court-judge-sentenced-33-months-prison-obstruction-justice
Page 52 of 79
Merit-related vs. non-merit related to a ruling in a colloquial sense under Rule 11(c)(1)(D) of the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.75
Conversely, an allegation that a judge conspired with a prosecutor to make a particular

ruling is not merits-related, even though it “relates” to a ruling in a colloquial sense. Such
an allegation attacks the propriety of conspiring with the prosecutor and goes beyond a
challenge to the correctness — “the merits” — of the ruling itself. An allegation that a
judge ruled against the complainant because the complainant is a member of a particular
racial or ethnic group, or because the judge dislikes the complainant personally, is also
not merits-related. Such an allegation attacks the propriety of arriving at rulings with an
illicit or improper motive. Similarly, an allegation that a judge used an inappropriate term
to refer to a class of people is not merits-related even if the judge used it on the bench or
in an opinion; the correctness of the judge’s rulings is not at stake. An allegation that a
judge treated litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a demonstrably
egregious and hostile manner is also not merits-related.76
The existence of an appellate remedy is usually irrelevant to whether an allegation is

merits-related. The merits-related ground for dismissal exists to protect judges’
independence in making rulings, not to protect or promote the appellate process. A
complaint alleging an incorrect ruling is merits-related even though the complainant has
no recourse from that ruling. By the same token, an allegation that is otherwise
cognizable under the Act should not be dismissed merely because an appellate remedy
appears to exist (for example, vacating a ruling that resulted from an improper ex parte
communication). However, there may be occasions when appellate and misconduct
proceedings overlap, and consideration and disposition of a complaint under these Rules
may be properly deferred by the chief judge until the appellate proceedings are concluded
to avoid inconsistent decisions.
E. TO INVESTIGATE NEXT TO BECOME CHIEF JUDGE VIRGINIA KENDALL A

FORMER MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. CANON 4(A)4
“RETALIATION FOR REPORTING DISCRIMINATION”
Mark knows Judge Virginia Kendall briefly when she authored an article with Andrew Boutros,
a former DOJ prosecutor. Andrew Boutros knew Mark from the past, Saint Mark Coptic Church
when Mark was dealing with a fair housing litigation; Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd
Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66).77
Here both the judge and the former prosecutor wrote an article about the leaker of the abortion
case saying that leaker should be prosecuted for leaking an order before it came out.78 But in
parable, what about the Judges who target the weak or the words of Jim Richmond telling Mark
75
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
76
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
77
See https://www.dechert.com/people/b/andrew-s--boutros.html
78
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/betraying-the-bench-could-the-scotus-leaker-face-criminal-
charges
Page 53 of 79
how his future appeal would be fixed and it was indeed fixed, would they invest an article
writing about it as well?
They both argued with the following:
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) makes it criminal to, among other things, corruptly influence an “official
proceeding.” Wasn’t Jim Richmond corruptly influencing an official proceeding when he
threatened Mark how his appeal would be fixed? Long before it was even filed.
They added: In 1919, Ashton Embry, a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna, sent an
opinion to Wall Street financiers ahead of a judgment involving a railroad company. He was
indicted for having violated 18 U.S.C. § 371.
But then, recently Mark found out that Judge Virginia Kendall is a former member of the
Executive Community and the one who knows the history of Gary Feinerman up until the day he
resigned, just like Judge Sheila M. Finnegan. She also participating in telling Mark not to speak
about Jesus Christ or else.
Judge Virginia Kendall judged Former Chicago alderman Ed Burke to 2 years in prison for
corruptions, she gave him 2 years in prison. Yet how can she lead the Northern District of
Illinois as the Next to become a Chief when she knows the crimes of Gary Feinerman and was a
79
Page 54 of 79
member of the Executive Committee? Before she leads the Court House as the next chief, she
would need to confess of this great sin of why they targeted Mark the Coptic.
The Executive Committee shall be composed of the chief judge, the next district court
judge eligible to be chief judge, four regular active judges of the Court, the chief
magistrate judge, and the clerk of the Court. The chief judge or, in the absence of the
chief judge, the next district court judge eligible to be chief judge, shall preside over the
meetings of the Executive Committee. The clerk shall serve as secretary to the Executive
Committee.80
Former Chicago alderman Ed Burke was sentenced to two years in prison on Monday
after being convicted of racketeering and bribery.81
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall announced the sentence Monday afternoon. She also
imposed a $2 million fine, and one year of supervised release after Burke serves his
sentence. The judge said there was “no mitigation” for the seriousness of Burke's crimes,
and his actions were "unfortunately an erosion of faith in public officials.
“Corruption in the Chicago City Council tears at the fabric of a vital body of local
government,” Morris Pasqual, acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois,
said in a statement. “When an alderman fails to discharge his duties with honesty and
integrity, he betrays not only the citizens of Chicago, but his fellow public officials who
do their jobs the right way. Our office will continue to vigorously prosecute corruption
and hold public officials accountable for violating the public trust.”
80
81
See https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/former-alderman-ed-burke-sentencing-racketeering-bribery/
Page 55 of 79
The announcement to become the next chief judge was set since April 22, 2024 seeking the
hiring of a Judicial Assistant.82
I also see that Judge Virginia Kendall is dealing with stress for that reason she brings her therapy
pet to the Court House, the news report.83 Hence she must know and understand the pain Mark
went through when she read he has a history of seizure epilepsy combined not to be exposed to
anxiety or depression and the crimes that took place targeting Mark’s home and later his place of
work are serious crimes.
The media tried to describe Judge Virginia Kendall is a loving and kind Judge. However, her
Robing Room Review page shows a mix of good and bad reviews that she often doesn’t like to
82
See
https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_clerksoffice/Human_Resources/Jobs/JA%20or%20EL
C%20to%20Chief%20Judge%202024-39%20(Kendall).pdf
83
See https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-corruption-trials/2024/07/11/virginia-kendall-next-chief-judge-
chicago-federal-court
Page 56 of 79
listen to others and listens to her own reasoning and what she likes to do. Judge Virginia Kendall
received 6 out of 10 review score.
vs
Page 57 of 79
Judge Virginia Kendall is a Catholic, before she leads the Northern District of Illinois, she would
need to confess of the sins that took place rather than keep it a secret. Failure to report
misconduct is a misconduct and just like others, she knows the crimes of Gary Feinerman, she
knows his character and how he moved the remaining members of the Executive Committee to
crave evil.
When one has powers, it is very easy not to be tempted to misuse that power. Also how can a
Catholic Judge agrees to threaten Mark not to speak about Jesus Christ just to please a Jewish
Judge who rages by hearing about Jesus Christ and that was Gary Feinerman. Here in this order,
all Christian judges listened to one evil Jewish Judge named Gary Feinerman and he led them to
crave evil over and over. So they asked him to resign later on.84
“Speak again about Jesus Christ and you will see what will happen, they all yelled at
Mark.”
Here is a story: 3 teenagers partied while knowing they have an exam the next day, they partied
and didn't study and when the exam time came, they told their teacher “teacher we had a flat tire
while visiting a family member who was sick and we ended up pushing the car all the way home
and we didn't have time to prepare for the exam.” So the teacher gave the students 3 days to
study and to take the exam and on the day of the exam, each student was sitting in a separate
room with two questions on the exam.
The first question: Did you study well for the exam?
84
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
Page 58 of 79
The second question: Which tire of the car was it flat?
One would ask her when Mark complained of discrimination in 1:21-cv-06223 ECF Nos. 10-11
why did she retaliated in ECF No. 12 and why would they meet on April 7, 2022, sign the order
April 20, 2022, and docket the order April 26, 2022 as if they were waiting for something evil to
happen. See also canon 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
The same scenario to find out the crimes of Gary Feinerman connecting him to Chicago Public
School targeting which started on April 1, 2022 and repeated on June 10, 2022.
The evil lawyers at CPS i.e., Camie Pratt, Udeme Itiat, Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant are
between these allegations based on their testimony to IARDC and how they would respond (1)
Sexual Harassment toward Mark (2) Threaten not to speak about Jesus Christ (3) Conspiring to
target Mark and stalking his federal case since April 1, 2022 and to align the retaliation with
Judge Sara Ellis hearing date (4) Forging inspector William Fletcher OIG CPS report when he
said in official capacity email “no report will be issued” acting under color of laws to harm
Mark. Their crimes are serious and the lord, God made them stuck with this reality.
Just like the law school journey “Mark is turning into a liability, get rid of him” said the law
school. The same happened with Chicago Public School but their crimes are many. It is very
easy for people to gather to do evil but very hard and often a long journey to heal.
Page 59 of 79
F. FEAR OF RETALIATION DESTROYS PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC

CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
Everything that happened to Mark the Coptic, directly and covertly is precisely why some
employees of the Court without mentioning names told me “Mark we are just employees, we
don’t have a say in anything, we don’t want to get in trouble, we just work here.”
It took 16 years for the judicial branch to remove one evil magistrate judge.86 Truly the judicial
branch worship the title of a “judge” like a King or a Queen but Jesus Christ would come and
reply “no one is righteous.”
While here, Judges of the DC Court cared more about trying to find the leaker of the surveys
rather than addressing the misconducts among Judges.87 The same issue appeared in the case of
85
86
See https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/ex-magistrate-judges-16-year-career-marked-by-manipulation-
unpredictable-and-hypercritical-outbursts-judicial-council/
87
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/dc-court-survey-leak-investigation/
Page 60 of 79
Strickland v. United States of America (1:20-cv-00066); see ruling Caryn Strickland v. US, No.
21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).88
Here a Judge tried to find the “mole” who reported him causing him to be removed.89
Likewise, here is a former US Attorney who resigned amid ethics investigation but later he
became the investigator investigating judges.90 Quite the parable here; no one is righteous.
At one point, according to the subordinate, when Kees asked for a kiss in an elevator and
she declined, he said, “You do know I’m in charge of your promotions, right?” Kees did
not recall making the comment, the report notes. Their relationship ended soon after this
interaction, according to the documents.
88
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html
89
See https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-ordered-removed-for-troubling-inability-to-conform-his-
behavior-to-judicial-standards
90
See https://theintercept.com/2024/05/14/arkansas-us-attorney-dak-kees-ethics/ report of OIG DOJ 2021
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/foiaroom-24-019.pdf
Page 61 of 79
“To my mind, transparency goes with accountability,” Inspector Michael Horowitz of OIG DOJ
said. “Where you have transparency … transparency is the best disinfectant. If the public knows,
if the lawyers in the department know that their misconduct is going to be public, I think that
helps reform behavior, and it deters other folks.”91
So in order to counter fear of retaliations, transparency were needed in order for the system to
reform itself, pride has been the very first major sin with many judges that resulted in many sins.
So a Jewish lawyer started to create a database for judges.92
While another Jewish lawyer created a public review website for all the federal judges and the
public gets to see the good judges from the evil judges.93 Just like Rate My Professor which I’ve
used in undergrad at UIC to sign up for courses taught my kind professors not evil ones. 94 Sadly
law school was different; you don’t have the option to choose different professors. Like in
Mark’s story he was stuck with Prof. Gregory Pingree (threatened by his own law professor not
to reveal the truth), see ECF 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
What both Former members of the Executive Committee led by Gary Feinerman and Chicago
Public School senior leadership learned from reading Mark’s journey in law school when he was
turned from a Complainant into a Respondent, they both tried to replicate the same journey but
God was in its midst.
91
See IG Horowitz Seeks Authority to Investigate DOJ Lawyers | Newsmax.com
92
See https://www.npr.org/2024/05/10/1245903951/federal-judges-clerks-harrassment and see
https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/clerkships-database
93
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
94
See https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/
Page 62 of 79
IV. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND CHARACTER LYNCHNG MARK THE

COPTIC BY THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES
When one looks at the case of Strickland in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir.
2022)95, he or she will find that was a replica to what happened to Mark the Coptic but on a
different scale. Strickland suffered sex discrimination inside her employment, so all the 4th
Circuit Judges wanted to paint her someone different “deliberate indifference” in order to
discredit her allegations.
With Caryn Strickland, her employment prospect was chattered because the system was evil
doing the cover ups rather than healing but she was persistent in her journey and her civil case
became her life and future. Many judges don’t understand any of this until they are placed in a
similar situation. This was the parable “do for others only what you have others do for you” Do
we understand the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Here is a story where a State Judge was warned by her colleagues to bow down to same sex
marriage calling it “official duty” well that duty changes the norm and belief, so it becomes
coercion on society. The Texas Supreme Court sided with the Judge against all other judges
saying she can civil lawsuit them.96
Back to Mark’s employment prospect; no one should have targeted Mark’s home and later his
place of work at Chicago Public School but God allowed it and the Devil tested the powerful so
that God can prove his words over and over “no one is righteous” we are all sinners and the
powerful before the weak.
95
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html see docket
history https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16921419/roe-v-united-states-of-
america/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
96
See Texas judge refusing to marry gay couples goes before state supreme court | The Texas Tribune See
Supreme Court of Texas sides with McLennan County JP who refused to perform same-sex marriages (kwtx.com)
Page 63 of 79
But this was even worse, they took Mark’s awards from Presidential Award, to honor rolls, to
helping the community97 and wanted to throw as much dirt on him as they can to discredit him
and the 7th Circuit became an accomplice in the crimes of the many Executive Committee.
Mark was never just a “substitute teacher” at CPS but to them “he is just a sub, lets target him.”
That is how the powerful targets the weak, when they see the weak is weak and they often forget
there is a powerful God watching everyone.
So when Employment prospect came with the 7th Circuit, Mark applied and then spoke to Clerk
#2 who no longer works with the 7th Circuit, the kindest clerk who Mark use to speak to, was the
one who left the 7th Circuit after Mark told Mr. Frank Insalaco “she is the kindest” and back in
the days Mark told Mr. Frank about applying with the 7th Circuit and being a clerk and he even
added “I would like to work with you but not Jim Richmond” and Mr. Frank told Mark “you can
always apply and see” So Mark added “they will not reject my application because of my
complaints related to the executive committee?” Mr. Frank replied “they shouldn’t, they should
treat everyone equally”.
97
See award history https://www.scribd.com/document/740978184/List-of-Mark-Bochra-Awards-including-a-
Presidental-Award
Page 64 of 79
And so Mark applied, sending his resume, his references and his awards but then came the news
“rejection” As one can see Ms. Zaina Ahmed e-mailing Mark.
Page 65 of 79
Then again recently Mark applied for the same position when it was open again “Generalist
Clerk” on 7/11/2024.
Page 66 of 79
Later Mark e-mailed his application to Ms. Michelle Hennings.
The ones who targeted Mark’s place of work at Chicago Public school (his source of income)
and the ones who covered for the crimes of others, have a duty to heal. They couldn’t just sin,
ruin Mark’s character, and employment (his source of income) and watch from afar laughing just
like the 4th Circuit did with Strickland.
People can commit crimes by knowing crimes are taking place but facilitating it in order to
happen while they would claim “we don’t know” or “we don’t understand”
With Strickland, she suffered sex discrimination in employment but with Mark it was much
worse, the human value to them was nothing and for that reason my next prayers is not to them
but to the lord, God because in her words, Investigator Ms. Diane Sykes said that the words of
the bible are “rambling” in previous complaints, so the Lord, God shall answers her.
V. A CONVERSATION WITH THE LORD, GOD
Hear me, O Lord; I want to be authentic with you. It is true that you are a humble God yet the
Almighty; for you allowed me to approach your throne even though I am a sinner, and you’ve
listened to me many times, while other times you did not respond to me and when you stayed
silent, I felt we are miles apart; and I speak to you but you didn’t hear me; and I called you but
you didn’t find me; and I asked you but you didn’t answer me. As if I am not your son, and you
are not my father, and why this rejection? If you reject me, you won’t lose anything. Who am I?
Millions among humanity. But if I reject you, I am lost forever. The only thing which links me to
Page 67 of 79
life is my relationship with you — what profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praises you? Will it declare your truth? [Psalms 30:9].
Lord, when Job was in pain, when you allowed the devil to test him, he questioned you and you
answered him — who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare
yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me [Job 38:1-2].98 You answered
Job by showing him what he didn’t know but then, you blessed his days on Earth.99
Lord, you also answered Gideon and he did not leave you until he received an answer from you
— O my Lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His
miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, 'Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?' But
now the Lord has forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites [Judge 6:13];
then the Lord turned to him and said, go in this might of yours, and you shall save Israel from the
hand of the Midianites. Have I not sent you? [Judge 6:14].100 Lord, Gideon did not leave you
until he received your blessings, just as Jacob wrestled with the angle until he received his
blessings.
Lord, you said — it will come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still
speaking, I will hear [Isaiah 65:24].101 Allow me to enter in a conversation with you so that
humanity can see again. You’ve allowed many prophets to speak to you, even question your
judgments because you’re a humble God; greater is your power yet you’ve allowed humanity to
approach you. Many have called evil, good while others turned good into evil and I ask you, why
are you allowing evil to rise and spread its wings across the globe? Is it by repetition that you
answer your servant or is it true that you miss my prayers that you have extended my trials in
order to show something which I lacked understanding — but God has chosen the foolish things
of the World to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the World to put
to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the World and the things which are
despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
that no flesh should glory in His presence [1 Corinthians 1:27-29].102 Lord,
o Prophet Jeremiah entered in a conversation with you when he said — Righteous are You,
O Lord, when I plead with you; yet let me talk with you about your judgments. Why does
the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?
[Jeremiah 12:1].103
o King David also entered in a conversation with you when he said — Lord, how they have
increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me. Many are they who say
of me, “There is no help for him in God.” Selah but You, O Lord, are a shield for me, my
98
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible/english/NKJV/Job/38?showVN=1
99
See the scene https://youtu.be/GswSg2ohqmA see https://youtu.be/YZZ-ZHghHTw?t=5328
100
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Judges+6%3A6-16&version=NKJV&showVN=1
101
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Isaiah+65%3A24&version=NKJV&btn=View
102
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=1+Corinthians+1%3A27-29&version=NKJV
103
See
http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Jeremiah+12&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
Page 68 of 79
glory and the one who lifts up my head [Psalms 3:1-3].104 Why do you stand afar off, O
Lord? Why do you hide in times of trouble? The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor;
Let them be caught in the plots which they have devised [Psalms 10:1-2].105
o Abraham, the father of the fathers also entered in a conversation with you concerning
Sodom when he said — would you also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose
there were fifty righteous within the city; would you also destroy the place and not spare
it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing as this, to
slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it
from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? [Genesis 18:23-25].106
Lord, all of these individuals, you’ve allowed them to enter in a conversation with you; I ask that
you please allow me to enter in a conversation with you again but this time you know what my
heart desires. You, O Lord, did not create humanity to perish. For that same reason, Saint
Athanasius said — surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than,
having been created, to be neglected and perish.
Lord, you said “for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be
condemned” [Matthew 12:37].107 And I want to ask you about your own words — “remember
the word to your servant, upon which you have caused me to hope [Psalms 119:49].
The Lord, God strength my heart and raises me up from the ground; from the hunter’s
traps he protects me; and if the roads are blocked before my own eyes, he splits the ocean
in half for me to pass through. I was never afraid of the long nights or from a spear that
flies next to me because his eyes stood all night watching me and the shadow of his
wings covers me; he who does wonders and fulfills the impossible; his breath shakes the
foundations of the mountains; he who opens his hands to help the weak; and stretches his
fingers to wipe off my tears. He who strengthens my footsteps; he who protects me and in
the middle of the desert, from the heart of the rock he quenches my thirst — For when I
am weak, I am strong through the Lord, God, Jesus Christ [2 Corinthians 12:10].108
Lord, I ask you to open your heart and ears for me because you told me “Go and I will not
forsake you” and I am pleading with you: Why have you extended my trials? If you miss my
voice and you find that this is the only way to keep me close to you, then I won’t object, I too
missed your burning rays engulfing my heart. However — righteous are You, O Lord, when I
plead with you; yet let me talk with you about your judgments? Why does the way of the wicked
prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously? [Jeremiah 12:1].109
Lord, at your feet I weep every time I encounter darkness; at your arms I slumber like Jonah’s
thirst to see you from the whale’s belly; my earnest prayer went to you in your holy Temple; I
104
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Psalms+3&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
105
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Psalms+10&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
106
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Genesis+18&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
107
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Matthew+12%3A37&version=NKJV&showVN=1
108
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=2+Corinthians+12%3A10&version=NKJV&btn=View
109
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Jeremiah+12%3A1&version=NKJV
Page 69 of 79
have some questions, so please listen with wide ears: Your good lands which you’ve multiplied
were used and abused to the point they became deserted and dry.
Lord, you spoke to me when I was a child, and you’ve guided me through many trials, and
you’ve prepared me to face many beasts just as you’ve prepared Moses who faced the Pharaoh.
Do you remember O Lord? When you spoke to Moses, you told him go and speak to the Pharaoh
but he answered you — Lord, I am not a man of words, neither from yesterday nor from the day
before yesterday, nor from the time you have spoken to your servant, for I am a heavy of a
mouth and heavy of a tongue [Exodus 4:10].110 But you O Lord told Moses, who gave man a
mouth, or who makes [one] dumb or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? So now, go! I
will be with your mouth, and I will instruct you what you shall speak [Exodus 4:11-12].111
Lord, truly you’ve done more with me than with Moses but I am facing many beasts at the
moment; hungry and they are seeking my flesh and I am asking you O Lord to send me Moses’
rod like a thunder which strikes the earth for Satan has started to move across the globe and
you’ve allowed him to move to test the mighty proud hearts and the Kings of the nations but you
also said “into the netherworld shall you be brought down, to the bottom of the pit [Isaiah
14:13].112
110
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Exodus+4%3A10&version=NKJV
111
See https://youtu.be/6ds9y3lJGig?t=122 , https://youtu.be/6ds9y3lJGig?t=205
112
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945#v13
Page 70 of 79
One day, Satan stood before the Lord, accusing me of many sins and then he said “you stand
alone and defy me” and I responded “I am not alone.” Then the voice of the Lord came to me
through one of his angels saying “the Lord, your God speaks to you, he speaks to you in a way
that you can understand. He has heard your voice of pain, a voice of inflicted wounds and he
shall raise you up to reveal the true nature of the devil before the eyes of the World; little one.”113
Then, the trials of Satan continued against me to break my will by attempting to destroy my legal
career, and feeding on hate through injustice by assembling stubborn human being, Jews they
are, who refused to change. But my faith in the Lord, God Jesus Christ was greater than Lucifer’s
heart to the point he became extremely angry when he yelled in a vision by saying “You with no
answers and no solutions, just give up!” Then I responded, “This is my answer, give it up!”
Then I called upon the 7 Archangels of the Lord, God to lend me their strength and to assemble
onto the Earth starting with: Archangel Michael followed by Archangel Raphael, then Archangel
Gabriel, then Archangel Uriel, then Archangel Sealtiel, then Archangel Barachiel, and last
Archangel Jhudiel.
The 7 Archangels: Shall tremble the hearts of Kings of the Earth in order to know who is God.
And I questioned the Lord, God about Satan’s trials which I faced and continue to face at the
hands of many wicked and stubborn Jews and the Lord answered with a mighty voice:
You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever. “You shall not
abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you
113
See https://youtu.be/SyYrQdPVAvc?t=1821
Page 71 of 79
were an alien in his land. The children of the third generation born to them may enter the
assembly of the Lord” [Deuteronomy 23:6-8].114
I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said,
“Here am I! Send me.” [Isaiah 6:8].115
CONCLUSION
their courtrooms. Their stamp of approval incentivizes second- and third-order discrimination. If
targeting a Coptic based on his Coptic identity is permitted, then everyone will see that
discrimination with retaliation is the norm of the Judicial Branch and enlisting fear of retaliation
is what the public often reports about.
Retaliation for those who wield power is the norm.116
prescribed.
This complaint does not challenge any judge’s ruling in a case. It does not mount a collateral
attack on the substance of any case. Nor does it challenge “without more” the correctness. See
Standard 2 for Assessing Compliance with the Act, Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice 145 (2006).
To be sure, the judges’ misconduct is not immunized by their memorializing the discriminatory
policies under court seal in standing orders. Rule 4(b)(1)—the rule excluding from the definition
of judicial misconduct merits-related rulings—does not excuse the misconduct in this case. That
is because this complaint focuses on the propriety of the judges’ telegraphing an illicit motive.
114
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Deuteronomy+23%3A6-8&version=NKJV&showVN see
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9987#v7 see https://youtu.be/QWiJ8VQXJzY
115
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Isaiah+6%3A8&version=NKJV&btn=View
116
Page 72 of 79
Rule 4(b)(1) does not compel dismissal of this complaint for a second reason. Even if you
determine that the complaint somehow challenges a procedural ruling— rather than the policies
compelling decisions that in turn constitute procedural rulings— this complaint should still go
forward under Rule 4(b)(1) because it does not challenge procedural rulings “without more.” Id.

Investigation should determine whether the discriminatory practice telegraphed by the judges has
occurred and whether it is ongoing.
RESOLUTION
On May 14, 2024 I spoke directly with Mr. Alex Castaneda and he asked me “Mark how can I
help you, what are you seeking?” So I told him my simple reliefs and he started to write them
down. I asked (1) to be removed from the restricted list the executive committee put me in (2) I
seek the removal of the arbitrary $1600 fee that was imposed (3) for the judges to receive more
training not to discriminate or retaliate. I added the system has to change to get better.
I don’t need anything else, God bless the judges’ hearts.
I also said I will leave OCR to handle Chicago Public School which is tied to my employment.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 73 of 79
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibits Descriptions
A A letter sent from the House of Representative Committee on Judiciary to the Judicial
Council of the 2nd Circuit and the Judicial Conference Committee pertaining to hiring
racist clerks reflects on the characters of the judges and is covered under the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
B Judicial Conference Committee ruling in CCD No. 22-01 asking the 2nd Circuit to
appoint a Special Committee to investigate the hiring of the racist clerks based on
disputed facts.
C A copy of Mark’s e-mails send on June 19, 2021 and June 20, 2021 to every
Courtroom Deputy of the Northern District of Illinois. When this happened Mark
telling them about his future filed case against the Department of Education, no one
targeted Mark, no executive committee was involved, Mark’s home was not stalked
and Ms. Rhonda Johnson was on the e-mails. This proved the targeting that happened
later once Mark filed his civil lawsuit in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education
(1:21-cv-03887) was a pretext for discrimination and retaliation against a Coptic.
Total printing pages is of these emails are 89 pages.
D Mark’s 124 opening brief against members of the Executive Committee, 7th Circuit
and others in both official and individual capacity. This document is considered
Mark’s testimony because the Judges know a brief is like a statement under oath. This
is the evidence of the targeting that made everyone nervous. This document is entered
as evidence in a Judicial Misconduct Proceeding. Judges can’t say “they don’t
understand” but later say “oversize brief” the same set of 7th Circuit Judges all said
they don’t understand and later came in a Court proceeding and all said “oversize
brief” because they do understand what they were doing craving to destroy Mark the
Coptic.
E Copy of Judicial Misconduct Complaint 07-24-90072
Page 74 of 79
CC
Via Electronic Mails
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

Chief of Staff for the President Deputy Chief of Staff for the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW [email protected]
Washington, DC 20500
[email protected]
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

Deputy Chief of Staff for the President Senior Advisor for the President
The Honorable Steven J. Ricchetti The Honorable Jacob J. Sullivan

Counselor for the President National Security Advisor for the President
The Honorable Karine Jean-Pierre

White House Press Secretary
[email protected]
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States Hon. Scott S. Harris
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543 [email protected]
[email protected]
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
Page 75 of 79
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Joseph Biden [email protected] // [email protected]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr [email protected]
Donald J. Trump [email protected]
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
Members of the Judicial Conference Committee.117
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT
Chief Judge Diane Sykes [email protected]

Judge Joel Flaum [email protected]
Judge Frank Easterbrook [email protected]
Judge Kenneth Ripple [email protected]
Judge Ilana Rovner [email protected]
Judge Diane Wood [email protected]
Judge David Hamilton [email protected]
Judge Michael Brennan [email protected]
Judge Michael Scudder [email protected]
Judge Amy St. Eve [email protected]
Judge Thomas Kirsch II [email protected]
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi [email protected]
Judge John Lee [email protected]
Judge Doris Pyror [email protected]
Judge Joshua Kolar [email protected]
7th CIRCUIT STAFF
Mr. Frank Insalaco Docket Supervisor [email protected]

Ms. Sarah Schrup Circuit Executive [email protected]
Mr. Alexander Castaneda Deputy Circuit Executive [email protected]
Mr. Jim Richmond [Former Docket Supervisor] [email protected]
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Judge Nancy Maldonado [email protected]
117
See members https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/jcus_members_2024-mar-3.pdf
Page 76 of 79
Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel [email protected] //

[email protected]
Chief District Judge Holly Brady [email protected]

Chief District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt [email protected]
Chief District Judge Sara Darrow [email protected]
Chief District Judge James D. Peterson [email protected]
Chief District Judge Pamela Pepper [email protected]
District Judge Virgina Kendall [email protected]
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin [email protected]
District Judge Sara L. Ellis [email protected]
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IL
Judge Sara Ellis [email protected]

Judge Sheila Finnegan [email protected]
Judge Virginia Kendall [email protected]
Clerk Thomas Bruton [email protected]
5th CIRCUIT STAFF
Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce [email protected]

Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin [email protected]
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER
Mr. Michael Henry

[email protected]
[email protected]
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

OVERSEEING IARDC118
Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis [email protected]

Judge P. Scott Neville Jr [email protected]
Judge David K Overstreet [email protected]
Judge Lisa Holder White [email protected]
Judge Joy V. Cunningham [email protected]
Judge Elizabeth M. Rochford [email protected]
Judge Mary K. O’Brien [email protected]
Ms. Susan Scorzo

Senior Paralegal
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
[email protected]
118
See https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/meet-the-justices/
Page 77 of 79
Ms. Lea S. Gutierrez, Administrator119

One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Ste. 1500 Chicago, IL 60601
[email protected]
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

Inspector General of DOJ Director of the U.S. Marshals
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
[email protected]
The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
[email protected]
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Chief of Staff – Pat Souders Chief of Staff – Jennifer Heins
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable Amy Klobuchar

Chief of Staff – Monalisa Dugu Chief of Staff – Tamara Fucile
The Honorable Chris Coon The Honorable Richard Blumenthal

Chief of Staff – Brian Winseck Chief of Staff – Joel Kelsey
The Honorable Mazie Hirono The Honorable Cory Booker

Chief of Staff – Coti Haia Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron
The Honorable Alex Padilla The Honorable Jon Ossoff

Chief of Staff – David Montes Chief of Staff – Reynaldo Benitez
The Honorable Peter Welch The Honorable Laphonza Butler

Chief of Staff – Ali Golden Chief of Staff – Marvin Figueroa
The Honorable John Cornyn The Honorable Mike Lee

Chief of Staff – Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff – Mark Wait
119
See https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/950b38d7-4e38-49c5-9cfc-
e1904a7b5819/Supreme%20Court%20Appoints%20Lea%20Gutierrez%20as%20ARDC%20Administrator.pdf
Page 78 of 79
The Honorable Ted Cruz The Honorable Josh Hawley

Chief of Staff – Aaron Reitz Chief of Staff – Chris Weihs
The Honorable Tom Cotton The Honorable John Kennedy

Chief of Staff – Doug Coutts Chief of Staff – David Stokes
The Honorable Thom Tillis The Honorable Marsha Blackburn

Chief of Staff – Shil Patel Chief of Staff – Jon Adame
HOUSE JUDIACRY COMMITTEE

HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House
THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
President Ms. Maya Wiley [email protected]

Executive Vice President Mr. Chris Canning [email protected]
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
President Ms. Janai Nelson [email protected]

Associate Director-Counsel Ms. Tona Boyd [email protected]
JUDICIALWATCH
Mr. Thomas Fitton [email protected]

Mr. Paul Orfanedes [email protected]
Mr. Chris Farrell [email protected]
FIRST AMERICAN LEGAL
President Mr. Stephen Miller [email protected]

Executive Director Mr. Gene Hamilton [email protected]
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL
CEO Pedro Martinez [email protected]

Chicago Board of Education President Jianan Shi [email protected]
Inspector William Fletcher CPS [email protected]
Page 79 of 79
EXHIBIT A
March 8, 2022
Judicial Council of the Second Circuit

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square, Room 2904
New York, New York 10007
Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

Judicial Conference of the United States
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle Northeast
Dear Members of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit and the Committee on Judicial
Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference:
We write to address the recent dismissal of complaints of judicial misconduct concerning
two judges who hired a law clerk with a documented history of racist and hateful conduct. The
written orders justifying that dismissal seem untethered from the facts. Subsequent reporting has
only further called those conclusions into question.
We are also concerned with the manner in which the Second Circuit conducted this
proceeding. Put simply, the process here appears to deviate significantly from precedent and
from the requirements of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. As we explain below, the
Second Circuit Judicial Council should vacate the dismissal order and mandate that a special
committee be appointed to investigate the complaints.
The Chief Justice has assured us that the federal judiciary is willing to keep its own house
in order. 1 Episodes like this put that assurance to the test. At base, this case looks like yet
another instance of judges ignoring clear misconduct and closing ranks to protect their own. We
1
See John G. Roberts, Jr., 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary 5–6 (Dec. 31, 2021),
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf (“[T]he Judicial Conference . . . is up to
the task . . . . [T]here is plenty of work to be done, and it will be done.”); but see The Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act Study Committee, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, 96–97 (2006),
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/breyercommitteereport.pdf (noting that “chief judges and councils made a
greater number of mistakes” among high-visibility misconduct cases).
trust that you will appreciate that context as you examine the record and consider the appropriate
next steps.
I. SUMMARY
After reports that two judges in the Eleventh Circuit (the “subject judges”) had hired a
law clerk for successive terms who had a widely publicized, repeatedly documented history of
racist and disparaging conduct, seven senior members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote a
letter to the second-most senior active judge on the Eleventh Circuit and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court recounting the known, public facts about the law clerk, noting that no response or
explanation from the judges or the judiciary for this hiring decision had been forthcoming, and
asking for an investigation.
The letter caused the Acting Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit to identify a judicial
misconduct complaint, which was transferred to the Second Circuit. Two weeks later, the Chief
Judge of the Second Circuit dismissed the complaint without referring the matter for
investigation by a special committee. A journalist subsequently obtained two letters sent to the
Chief Judge as part of the misconduct proceeding, one from one of the subject judges and
another from an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The rest of the docket is not publicly
available.
The Second Circuit Judicial Council (the “Judicial Council”) summarily affirmed the
Chief Judge’s dismissal with a one-page order three weeks later. After the Judicial Council
issued its decision, additional reporting confirmed earlier reporting of the law clerk’s past
behavior.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Law Clerk’s Widely Reported History of Hateful Conduct
For approximately five years, the law clerk in question worked as national field director
at Turning Point USA. Shortly after she left that position, media reported several instances of
her highly problematic conduct:
She sent text messages to a colleague stating “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f[---]
them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.” 2
2
Jane Mayer, A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks To Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations Of Racial
Bias And Illegal Campaign Activity, NEW YORKER (Dec. 21, 2017), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-
conservative-nonprofit-that-seeks-to-transform-college-campuses-faces-allegations-of-racial-bias-and-illegal-
campaign-activity; Joseph Guinto, Trump’s Man on Campus, POLITICO MAGAZINE (April. 6, 2018),
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/06/trump-young-conservatives-college-charlie-kirk-turning-
point-usa-217829/; Caleb Ecarma, EXCLUSIVE: Clarence Thomas’s Wife Hired Ex-TPUSA Staffer Known For
Saying ‘I Hate Blacks’, MEDIAITE (Sept. 6, 2018, 12:57 p.m.), https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-clarence-
thomas-wife-hired-ex-tpusa-staffer-known-for-saying-i-hate-blacks/; see also Ruth Marcus, Opinion: Why is a
prominent federal judge hiring a law clerk who said she hates Black people?, THE WASHINGTON POST (Oct. 8,
2
“Numerous sources” who worked with the individual “detailed how she would exchange
racist remarks regularly” with her coworkers. 3
She sent a photo to at least two coworkers of a man with brown skin with the caption,
“[j]ust thinking about ways to do another 9/11.” 4
She and her coworkers “would often send similar anti-Muslim messages that included
remarks like ‘a bacon a day keeps the Islams away’ and ‘Ramadan bombathon,’ as well
as tak[e] pictures of their heads wrapped in towels to mock head coverings commonly
worn by Arabs, according to sources who received the messages.” 5
She fired her organization’s only Black employee on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. That
employee later stated that Turning Point USA was a “racist” workplace and that she felt
“very uncomfortable working there because I was black.” 6
Different aspects of this conduct were documented by several journalists working independently
for separate publications. 7
When asked by a reporter about this conduct as it was first reported in 2017, the law clerk
made no apology. Nor did she deny telling a coworker “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f[---]
them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story,” in a text message. 8 Instead, she claimed in a written,
on-the-record statement that she “had no recollection” of the messages. 9
The law clerk left Turning Point shortly after the organization was made aware of these
messages. At the time, Turning Point’s CEO stated that “Turning Point assessed the situation
and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue.” 10 For the next five
years, Turning Point staff repeated this explanation for the law clerk’s departure. “We dealt with
it immediately,” the CEO told a reporter in 2018, as part of a story describing how Turning Point
had fired the clerk after her messages were made public. 11 As recently as this January, a
2021, 2:00 p.m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/08/crystal-clanton-racist-comments-william-

pryor-clerkship/.
3
Ecarma, supra note 2.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Mayer, supra note 2.
7
Id.; Guinto, supra note 2; Ecarma, supra note 2; see also Ruth Marcus, Opinion: The curious case of the clerk and
the racist texts, THE WASHINGTON POST (Jan. 18, 2022, 7:13 p.m.),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/clerk-texts-appeals-court-clanton/.
8
9
Id.
10
Mayer, supra note 2; Marcus, supra note 7.
11
Guinto, supra note 2.
3
spokesperson for Turning Point told another journalist that the individual was “terminated from
Turning Point after the discovery of problematic texts.” 12
B. Subject Judges’ Hiring of the Law Clerk
In October of last year, several outlets reported on the subject judges’ decisions to hire
the individual at issue, with many editorials expressing significant concern about the public
message of the judges’ actions. 13 Commentators referred to the individual’s past comments as
“an open embrace of racism” 14 and “racist and incendiary rhetoric” 15 and argued that no one
who espouses such views should be giving “counsel . . . to our federal judges[,]” 16 nor could
such a person “be trusted to act fairly and impartially.” 17 Commentary focused especially on the
subject judges’ refusal to comment on the individual’s past conduct and explain why they hired
her, 18 with one law professor describing the judges’ silence as “unforgivable.” 19
C. House Members’ Letter and Initiation of Misconduct Proceedings
On November 10, 2021, after five weeks without any comment from the subject judges,
the law clerk, or anyone else in the judiciary, seven senior members of the House Committee on
the Judiciary sent a letter requesting an investigation into the subject judges’ hiring decisions. 20
Following receipt of that letter, the acting chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit identified a
misconduct complaint against the subject judges and asked the Chief Justice to refer the matter to
12
Marcus, supra note 7.
13
See, e.g., Kathryn Rubino, Law School Student Famous For Saying ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE’ Now Has
Prestigious Federal Clerkship, ABOVE THE LAW (Oct. 5, 2021, 2:45 p.m.), https://abovethelaw.com/2021/10/law-
school-student-famous-for-saying-i-hate-black-people-now-has-prestigious-federal-clerkship/; Marcus, supra note 2;
Kyle Whitmire, Whitmire: What have you done, Bill Pryor?, AL.COM (Oct. 8, 2021, 10:47 a.m.),
https://www.al.com/news/2021/10/whitmire-what-have-you-done-bill-pryor.html.
14
Kali Halloway, She Said ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE’ – Now She’s a Rising GOP Star, DAILY BEAST (Nov. 23,
2021, 12:00 a.m.), https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-said-i-hate-black-peoplenow-shes-a-rising-gop-
star?ref=scroll.
15
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, 'That Is Unforgivable': Law Professor Says 11th Circuit Chief Judge, Law Clerk Need to
Address Racist Rant, LAW.COM (Oct. 15, 2021, 3:58 p.m.), https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2021/10/15/law-
professor-calls-for-mea-culpa-from-judge-and-law-clerk-over-racist-rant/ (quoting a statement from Javeria Jamil,
Legal and Policy Director, of the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the
country’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization).
16
Id. (quoting Jamil).
17
Id. (quoting CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell).
18
See, e.g., Whitmire, supra note 13 (“Pryor needs to explain. Perhaps, one day, a U.S. Senator will ask him to
answer these questions. For now, his silence will have to speak for him.”).
19
Tucker, supra note 15 (quoting Georgia State University Law Professor Eric Segall).
20
Letter from members of the U.S. House Comm. on the Jud. to the Hon. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, Sup. Ct. of
the U.S., and Hon. Charles Wilson, Circuit Judge, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 11th Cir. (Nov. 10, 2021),
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_chairs_letter_2_11.10.21.pdf; see also, e.g., Nate Raymond,
Lawmakers seek probe of judges’ hiring of clerk mired in racism controversy, REUTERS (Nov. 10, 2021, 7:47 p.m.),
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawmakers-seek-probe-judges-hiring-clerk-mired-racism-controversy-
2021-11-11/.
4
another circuit. On December 9, 2021, the Chief Justice referred the matter to the Second Circuit
Judicial Council. 21
D. The Chief Judge’s Dismissal
The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit dismissed the complaint less than two weeks after
receiving it. The Chief Judge’s Order stated that she received letters from the subject judges
“providing information about their hiring processes and their hiring decisions in this case” which
were “corroborated by letters from references and a law school professor of the [law clerk].” 22 It
does not appear from the order that any additional investigation occurred.
The Chief Judge ultimately dismissed the misconduct complaint on the grounds that “the
record lacks any evidence supporting the allegation that the [subject judges] engaged in
misconduct.” 23 The order stated that the subject judges were “in possession of information that
the allegations were false—that the anonymous sources relied on in the media accounts were not
trustworthy,” and that “they have been repeatedly informed that the allegations of racist text
messages and remarks are not true.” 24 In support of its conclusions, the order cited an
anonymous source—someone who “held a leadership role at the nonprofit organization” where
the law clerk worked when she reportedly engaged in the racist conduct. 25
The order stated that the anonymous leadership source had said that the “media accounts
are not accurate.” 26 The order also noted that the source said that a former employee had
fabricated some text messages “to be used against co-workers[,]” but did not say that the text
messages at issue were fabricated. 27 The order also only addressed the text messages and did not
address the named sources described in the media reports nor any of the other instances of the
law clerk’s reportedly racist conduct recounted above. 28
The order stated that “the undisputed record shows that the [subject judges] carefully
reviewed the allegations in the media” and “made a considered judgement, based on the
information before them, that the media allegations were not true.” 29 The order further stated
21
In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, Nos. 21-90142-jm, 21-90143-jm, slip op. at 2 (2d Cir. Jud. Council Dec. 22,
2021) (Livingston, C.J.), https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/95bdeb6a-2b83-4923-a6b1-
e6906bc59658/2/doc/21-90142-jm%2C%2021-90143-
jm.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/95bdeb6a-2b83-4923-a6b1-e6906bc59658/2/hilite/
[hereinafter Chief Judge’s Order].
22
Id. at 3. The full content of these letters is not public, though, as described below, some of these letters appear to
have been acquired by journalists and were the subject of additional reporting.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 3–4.
25
Id. at 4.
26
Id..
27
Id.
28
See id. at 3–6.
29
Id. at 5.
5
that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act was not designed to “second-guess” the subject
judges’ hiring decisions. 30
The order also opined that “nothing in the record . . . provides a basis for disqualification
under 28 U.S.C. § 455,” which requires judges to recuse themselves from a case where their
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 31
E. The Second Circuit Judicial Council’s Affirmance
In its one-page order affirming the Chief Judge “for the reasons stated in the Chief
Judge’s memorandum and order,” the Second Circuit Judicial Council stated that “we need not
and do not consider whether the information the [subject judges] elicited and received regarding
their hiring decisions was accurate.” 32
F. Reporting on Materials Submitted as Part of the Proceeding
Although the docket of a judicial misconduct proceeding is supposed to be confidential, 33
journalists obtained a letter that one of the subject judges allegedly sent to the Chief Judge as
part of the misconduct proceeding. In the letter as reported, the subject judge described the
complaint as “reckless,” “outrageous,” a “smear,” “an unfounded accusation” against him,
“meritless,” “without any evidence,” and offering “no credible evidence.” 34 He described one
article written by an investigative journalist as a “scandalous report” with “false insinuations”
written by a “tabloid reporter” whose work he “distrusted.” 35 He said that he requested and
received from Turning Point’s CEO a letter asserting that the clerk was “the victim of a smear
campaign launched by disgruntled ex-employees and carried out by negligent journalists.” 36 The
subject judge quoted the CEO as saying that “the media has alleged that [the clerk] said and did
things that are simply untrue” and “that the media has made serious errors and omissions,” and
impugning the motives of the alleged sources of the evidence of the clerk’s racist conduct. 37
30
Id. at 6.
31
Id. at 6 n.1 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)).
32
In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, Nos. 21-90142-jm, 21-90143-jm (2d Cir. Jud. Council Jan. 13, 2022),
https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0492e26e-74c3-42f7-9c4c-3e7d02553d39/1/doc/21-90142-
jm%2C%2021-90143-
jm%20Judicial%20Council.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0492e26e-74c3-42f7-9c4c-
3e7d02553d39/1/hilite/ [hereinafter Judicial Council Order].
33
28 U.S.C. § 360(a).
34
Bill Rankin, Judge Pryor cleared of allegations involving hiring of controversial clerk, ATLANTA J.-CONST. (Jan.
14, 2022), https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/judge-pryor-cleared-of-allegations-involving-hiring-of-
controversial-clerk/X3JAHI2TQBCUBMTQ5MDHO56FU4/; Marcus, supra note 7.
35
36
Id.
37
Rankin, supra note 34.
6
The subject judge also asserted that the investigative journalist “relied entirely on an
anonymous source” when she reported that the clerk had sent racist text messages to a
coworker. 38
Journalists also obtained a letter from an associate justice of the Supreme Court sent to
the Chief Judge defending the subject judges. 39
G. Subsequent Reporting Confirms Earlier Reporting
One reporter with access to the above letters directly addressed several of the assertions
in the subject judge’s letter, noting where those assertions were incorrect, contradicted by
reporting, or in conflict with previous on-the-record statements by both the clerk and officials at
Turning Point:
First, the reporter noted that none of the letters specifically stated whether any of
the clerk’s racist messages were in fact fabricated. The subject judge’s letter
quotes Turning Point’s CEO’s statement that he had fired an employee “after
learning that [the employee] created fake text messages to be used against other
employees,” but the CEO’s statement never said whether the clerk’s messages had
been faked. The associate justice’s letter apparently described the situation
slightly differently, explaining that the employee had “compromised the accounts
of several coworkers, including [the clerk].” Neither letter identified a specific
message from the clerk that had been fabricated or hacked. 40
Second, the reporter noted that the subject judge wrote that it was a “false
insinuation” that the clerk had been fired after her employer learned of her text
messages; the subject judge claimed that the CEO’s statement that he took
“decisive action” following reporting on the clerk actually referred to firing the
employee who had allegedly fabricated the messages. The reporter claimed this
assertion was untrue based on her own and another journalist’s reporting and was
directly contradicted by a statement from the CEO’s own spokesman that the
clerk was “terminated from Turning Point after the discovery of problematic
texts.” 41
Finally, the reporter noted the subject judge’s statement that an attorney told him
that “one of the reasons” the clerk had not publicly denied the reporting was that
she is bound by a nondisclosure agreement with Turning Point; 42 however, the
38
39
Id.; Rankin, supra note 34.
40
See Marcus, supra note 7.
41
Id.
42
Id.
7
clerk had previously made an on-the-record statement about the text messages,
which contradicts the subject judge’s assertion. 43
The same reporter then quoted the individual that the law clerk reportedly fired on Martin
Luther King, Jr., Day, who said: “I don’t believe for a second somebody hacked that—that’s
literally how she talked on other subjects. She would say ‘I hate this, I hate all of this.’” 44 The
article stated that the individual recalled “having several former colleagues share the texts with
her shortly” after she was fired. 45
The reporter printed, for the first time, the text exchange of this particularly incendiary
remark:
Clerk: “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE” “Like f--- them all” (with the expletive
spelled out)
Coworker: “Well, that’s certainly direct”
Clerk: “Are u free”
Coworker: “At Starbucks right now” “What happened”
Clerk: “Can I come to Starbucks in 5?”
Coworker: “Yes”
Clerk: “Are u with ppl” 46
The reporter also quoted another coworker: “not fake.” 47
III. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the Chief Judge and the Judicial
Council were obligated to investigate all allegations of judicial misconduct “using careful
procedures and applying strict statutory standards.” 48 This complaint could not have been
dismissed if the Act’s procedures had been followed and its strict standards properly applied.
In addition, the Chief Judge should not have issued an advisory ruling regarding whether
the record might require the subject judges to recuse themselves from future cases pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 455, and the Judicial Council should not have affirmed the Chief Judge’s ruling.
The Judicial Council should vacate the Chief Judge’s Order and mandate that a special
committee be appointed to investigate the complaint.
43
Mayer, supra note 2 (noting that when contacted, the clerk first declined to comment, but then subsequently
emailed about having “no recollection” of this text).
44
Marcus, supra note 7 (this individual’s name is reported; i.e., she is not an anonymous source).
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
See IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, supra note 1, at 1.
8
A. The Chief Judge Misconstrued the Scope and Purpose of the Judicial
Misconduct Statute
The Chief Judge’s Order was premised on a fundamental error of law: that the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act was not intended to be used to “second guess” the subject judges. 49
To the contrary: the multitude of problems arising from a judge’s hire of a law clerk with a
documented history of racism and bigotry are clearly within the scope of the judicial misconduct
statute. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the Act’s core functions of uncovering and
correcting judicial misconduct in order “to protect the judicial system and the public from further
acts by a judicial officer that are detrimental to the fair administration of justice.” 50
Indeed, the Act’s “central thrust . . . is to make judges accountable for precisely this sort
of conduct: conduct not related to the merits of rulings that arises in the course of the
performance of judicial duties.” 51 Judges have been investigated and sanctioned for a wide range
of misconduct, including, for example, being a member of a country club that excluded women
and racial minorities despite the judge’s good faith efforts to integrate it; 52 sending racist, sexist,
and xenophobic personal emails using his court email account; 53 and even being late to hearings
because of a standing lunchtime basketball game. 54
These examples of cognizable misconduct are arguably less connected to a judge’s
judicial duties than hiring a law clerk with a history of hateful conduct. As the Judicial
Conference’s advisory opinions emphasize, law clerks “are in a unique position since their work
may have direct input into a judicial decision.” 55 Their presence in a judge’s chambers therefore
can potentially jeopardize the “basic right to a fair trial in a fair tribunal” that undergirds our
judicial system. 56 So too might a judge’s broader failure to protect the integrity of their
proceedings from the taint of invidious discrimination.
49
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 6.
50
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2005); see also In re
Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, 9 F.3d 1562 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 1993); Matter of Certain Complaints Under
Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of the Jud. Council of the Eleventh Circuit, 783 F.2d 1488, 1509 (11th Cir.
1986).
51
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 37 F.3d 1511, 1515 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 1994).
52
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 664 F.3d 332 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 2011).
53
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 751 F.3d 611 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 2014).
54
In re Complaint Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, No. 10-18-90022 (10th Cir. Jud. Council Sept.
30, 2019) (finding that the judge “committed judicial misconduct by . . . demonstrating habitual tardiness for court
engagements” as well as sexually harassing judiciary employees and engaging in an extramarital relationship with
an individual on probation for state-court felony convictions).
55
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2, § 220, Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinions, No. 51,
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol02b-ch02-2019_final.pdf.
56
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 887 (2009).
9
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act is a dead letter if it cannot reach this type of
misconduct. The record contains substantial evidence of cognizable judicial misconduct that
could not—and should not—have been ignored.
In its summary affirmance of the Chief Judge’s Order, the Judicial Council compounded
that Order’s errors by stating that the truth did not matter: that the Council “need not and d[id]
not consider” whether the law clerk told coworkers she hated Black people, fired her only Black
employee on the one holiday of the year commemorating a civil rights leader, and regularly
exchanged remarks with coworkers demeaning, for example, racial, ethnic, and religious
minorities. 57 The Judicial Council’s decision conflicts with one of the judicial misconduct
statute’s core purposes of uncovering the truth. 58
The record does, in fact, matter in this case. It matters that an individual with a record of
racist, hateful conduct will be working as a law clerk for two federal judges. And it matters that
two judges who claim to be “in possession of information that the allegations were false” and
who purportedly “carefully reviewed” the record, have arrived at a conclusion that so starkly
departs from the evidence at hand. 59 The Judicial Council has an obligation to investigate. 60
B. The Record Indicates That There Are Reasonable Questions of Fact

Concerning Whether the Subject Judges Failed to Adequately Investigate the
Evidence of their Clerk’s Racist, Xenophobic, and Anti-Muslim Conduct
The Chief Judge erred by concluding that “[t]here [was] nothing in the record to dispute”
that the subject judges “performed all the due diligence that a responsible Judge would
undertake” and made a “considered judgment, based on the information before them, that the
media allegations were not true.” 61 The weight of the available record indicates that whatever
“diligence” the subject judges conducted was clearly insufficient.
At this stage of the proceeding, the Chief Judge is not empowered to dismiss the
complaint if there are any material issues of fact or law that are reasonably in dispute. 62 The
57
Judicial Council Order, supra note 32, at 1.
58
See Matter of Certain Complaints, 783 F.2d at 1509; see also 28 U.S.C § 353(c) (the special committee “shall
conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary”).
59
60
See 28 U.S.C. § 353(c); see also IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980,
supra note 1, at 97 (“The main cause of the problematic dispositions . . . [of] the high-visibility complaints is the
lack of adequate chief judge inquiries before dismissing the complaint, and the related failure to submit clear factual
discrepancies to special committees for investigation”).
61
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 5-6.
62
28 U.S.C. § 352(a)(2) (“The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is
reasonably in dispute.”); 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B) (chief judge may dismiss a complaint “when a limited inquiry [is]
conducted” only if “the allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by
objective evidence”) (emphasis added); see also Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3, Rules for Judicial-
Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, R. 11 [hereinafter JC&D Rules],
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judicial_conduct_and_disability_rules_effective_march_12_2019.pdf.
10
Chief Judge may neither disregard parts of the record nor choose to believe the subject judges’
accounts (or any other source) over other evidence. 63 The standard here is akin to the summary
judgment standard, which should be familiar to any federal judge: dismissal is appropriate only if
there is no genuine dispute as to any material issue. 64 The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act
adds an additional requirement: the Chief Judge has an independent duty to consider every
reasonably accessible source of evidence, including contacting witnesses. 65
The Chief Judge’s dismissal of this case was inconsistent with those standards.
1. The subject judges apparently did not directly refute that the clerk engaged in
racist and hateful conduct.
The subject judges admitted to the Chief Judge that they were aware of the multiple
accounts that described how their prospective law clerk repeatedly engaged in hateful,
discriminatory conduct in her capacity as a manager at a previous job. 66 These accounts were
specific and supported by multiple sources, including physical evidence and on-the-record, well-
sourced statements, 67 but there appears to be no evidence that the subject judges actually
determined that each reported instance of hateful conduct was, in fact, false. Nor is there any
evidence that the judges made certain that the clerk did not engage in other hateful behavior that
had not (yet) been reported. The record does not even show that that the subject judges
concluded that any of the reported instances of the clerk’s hateful conduct were false.
At best, it appears that the subject judges determined “that the anonymous sources relied
on in the media accounts were not trustworthy,” 68 but the media accounts did not rely solely on
anonymous sources. 69 The subject judges told the Chief Judge that they had learned that
someone at the clerk’s workplace had been fired for creating fake text messages “to be used
against co-workers,” 70 but the clerk’s reported misconduct was not limited to text messages. 71
According to media reports, one subject judge told the Chief Judge that he had determined, “after
63
JC&D R. 11(b), supra note 62 (“In conducting the inquiry, the chief judge must not determine any reasonably
disputed issue.”).
64
Id. at R. 11 cmt. (“Essentially, the standard articulated in subsection (b) is that used to decide motions for summary
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”).
65
See id. (“[I]f potential witnesses who are reasonably accessible have not been questioned, then the matter remains
reasonably in dispute”). It does not appear from the face of the order that the Chief Judge spoke with the journalists
cited herein or any of their sources.
66
67
See supra notes 2–12 and accompanying text.
68
69
See Marcus, supra note 7; Mayer, supra note 2; Ecarma, supra note 2.
70
71
Ecarma, supra note 2.
11
careful investigation,” that the clerk had been the victim of “a false accusation of racist behavior”
by one journalist, 72 but multiple journalists independently confirmed the clerk’s racist conduct. 73
From the available public record, it does not appear that the subject judges said any (let
alone all) of the clerk’s text messages were fake or that she had not sent them. They did not
refute that the clerk regularly engaged in racist remarks with her coworkers. They did not refute
that the clerk had fired her only Black employee on the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. They
did not even say that they had spoken with the clerk about the racist behavior and that she had
denied doing these things. The record is remarkable for the near total absence of any verifiable
statements by the subject judges regarding their supposed diligence.
2. At least one of the subject judges’ explanations for discounting past media reports
do not square with the details of the reporting.
The order noted that both subject judges determined that the reports of the clerk’s
conduct were “not true,” and one subject judge’s letter to the Chief Judge reportedly explains in
further detail why the judge dismissed that reporting. 74 But these explanations also raise
questions.
Some of these statements are demonstrably incorrect. For example, this subject judge
reportedly asserted that a reporter had “relied entirely on anonymous sources” for evidence of
one of the clerk’s messages to a coworker. 75 But the reporter had in fact relied on physical
evidence—screenshots of the text messages—that had been confirmed by two named sources. 76
This factual mistake is not consistent with the subject judge’s reported assertion that he
conducted a “careful investigation” 77 or the Chief Judge’s conclusion that the subject judges
“carefully reviewed the allegations in the media.” 78
That subject judge also reportedly claimed that the reporter had made “false insinuations”
that the clerk left her organization soon after her text messages were discovered. 79 But, as
explained above, that fact has been repeatedly confirmed over the last five years. Most recently,
a spokesman for the clerk’s former employer went even further, stating that clerk had been
72
73
See Marcus, supra note 7; Mayer, supra note 2; Ecarma, supra note 2; see also Guinto, supra note 2.
74
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 3–4; Marcus, supra note 7. The order does not distinguish between the
two subject judges’ explanations or conclusions, to extent that they were different. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 352(a).
75
76
Mayer, supra note 2; see also Marcus, supra note 7 (describing how two named sources verified the original
reporting).
77
78
Id.; Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 5.
79
12
“terminated from Turning Point after the discovery of problematic texts.” 80 That evidence
remains unrebutted.
Some of the subject judge’s assertions are also self-evidently disputed by the record. For
example, there are obvious problems with the subject judge’s claim that an attorney who advised
the clerk told the subject judge that a nondisclosure agreement was “one of” the reasons the clerk
had not publicly denied the allegation. 81 But if a nondisclosure agreement—assuming that it
existed and was operative—was only “one of” the reasons the clerk never denied the allegation,
what were the other reasons? Second, if a nondisclosure agreement barred the clerk from
speaking publicly about her racist text messages, why did she speak publicly about them, telling
a reporter that she had “no recollection of these messages”? 82 The tensions between the record
and these claims can only be resolved by a special committee and thus were not appropriately
dismissed outright.
3. The subject judges relied on vague nondenials from a source of doubtful
credibility.
The subject judges should also have been skeptical of the assertions made by the CEO of
the organization the clerk worked for and whose identity the subject judges disclosed to the
Chief Judge. 83 This person seems to have been the only person recounted in the record who may
have had first-hand knowledge about the law clerk’s past conduct. The record states only that
the CEO claimed the allegations were “not accurate” and blamed the existence of these
allegations on disgruntled former employees. 84 The order does not recount any direct evidence
that the CEO provided to support his assertions. This is problematic because more
contemporaneous statements provided by the CEO tied the law clerk’s departure to her reported
texts and conduct, including telling a reporter that “We dealt with it immediately.” 85 That
response was echoed by a spokesperson just last year who said the law clerk was “terminated
from Turning Point after the discovery of problematic texts.” 86
The CEO led at least one of the subject judges to believe that reporters had misconstrued
his public statements suggesting that he had fired the clerk. 87 If that is the case, the CEO has
never corrected the record despite repeated opportunities to do so over the last five years. It is
also not clear whether the CEO actually denied firing the clerk, nor would that be a point in his
favor—if the text messages were real and if the clerk did mistreat her only Black employee, then
the CEO’s decision not to fire the clerk reflects poorly on his own judgment and credibility. The
80
Id.
81
Id.
82
83
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 4; Marcus, supra note 7; Rankin, supra note 34.
84
85
Guinto, supra note 2; see also Mayer, supra note 2.
86
87
Id.
13
CEO’s strained attempt to disavow his own public statements should have been a red flag for
both the subject judges and the Chief Judge.
Perhaps more importantly, a “responsible judge” would also have been aware that this
CEO is not necessarily a credible or disinterested observer. He has a long and documented
history of making false or misleading statements. Among other public and demonstrable
falsehoods, he has, for example:
Falsely claimed that he did not get into West Point because of a “far less
qualified applicant” of “a different gender and a different persuasion” whose test
scores he claimed to have seen—and then flatly denied making that false claim; 88
Circulated phony statistics created by a QAnon conspiracy theorist that the CEO
falsely attributed to a government agency. 89 The CEO later deleted his message
without acknowledging the error. 90
Falsely claimed that one of his organizations was sending “80+ buses full of
patriots to DC to fight for” ex-president Trump in the January 6, 2021
insurrection. 91 The CEO later deleted his message without acknowledging its
false statements. 92 Subsequently, a Turning Point spokesman claimed that there
were in fact 7 buses of students. However, a 55-year-old retired firefighter
charged with attacking a Capitol police offer with a fire extinguisher stated in a
court filing that he traveled to the insurrection in a bus organized by the CEO’s
organization. 93
The CEO’s record of false and misleading statements were not the only red flags a
responsible judge should have detected. The CEO’s organization has a detailed record of hiring
individuals who express similarly hateful views as the clerk—a record documented, in part, as
part of a broader examination of the organization’s hiring practices after the clerk’s conduct was
brought to light. 94 The CEO also had close ties to the clerk, who he highly praised before the
88
Compare Charlie Kirk ~ The Conservative Forum ~ 9-8-2015, YOUTUBE (Sept. 10, 2015),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaMOHCVYsQ&t=96s (Kirk making the statement quoted above) with Charlie
Kirk Lying About Why He Didn’t Go to West Point, YOUTUBE (Apr. 12, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z78tI2c-w4 (“I never said that, that’s fake news. I never said that.”).
89
See Travis View, How Conspiracy Theories Spread from Internet’s Darkest Corners, WASH. POST (Sept. 18,
2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/18/how-conspiracy-theories-spread-internets-darkest-
corners/.
90
Id.
91
Sarah Al-Arshani, A former firefighter charged in the Capitol riot took a bus organized by Turning Point USA to
DC, filing says, BUSINESS INSIDER (Mar. 3, 2021, 2:05 a.m.), https://www.businessinsider.com/man-charged-
capitol-riot-went-dc-bus-turning-point-usa-2021-3.
92
Id.
93
Id.
94
Ecarma, supra note 2; see also Ashley Feinberg, Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists,
HUFFPOST (April 25, 2018, 2:28 p.m.), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/turning-point-usa-racist-
tweets_n_5ad65b06e4b029ebe01ed1ac.
14
allegations of her misconduct came to light. 95 And the CEO’s original statements about how the
clerk had been terminated put him at odds with the influential people in his professional network
who have come to the clerk’s defense. 96
Given these credibility issues with what appears to be the subject judges’ principal named
source, dismissal was clearly improper. The rules governing judicial misconduct proceedings are
clear: If the situation “involves a reasonable dispute over credibility, the matter should proceed”
to a full investigation by a special committee. 97 If anything, the Chief Judge should have
disregarded the CEO’s evasive story as “facially incredible” and “lacking in indicia of
reliability,” and should have recognized that a responsible judge should not have taken the
CEO’s nondenials, strange logic, and personal attacks as sufficient to lay to rest concerns about
the clerk’s own misconduct. 98
4. The subject judges’ principal tactic appears to have been to attack the credibility
of other sources rather than offer their own evidence.
In lieu of facts, the subject judges appear to dispute the motives and credibility of the
various sources of evidence of the clerk’s misconduct and the allegations against the subject
judges themselves. The subject judges’ argument is, as one judge put it, that the complaint
offered “no credible evidence.” 99 This approach should have precluded the Chief Judge from
dismissing the complaint. The subject judges made credibility a key element of their defense.
The Chief Judge is prohibited from making such credibility determinations. 100
For example, one subject judge asserts that his own “record of public service proves that
[he] abhor[s] invidious discrimination.” 101 The judge’s reliance on his own record contrasts
markedly with his characterization of one of the journalists who disclosed the clerk’s racist
conduct, who he described as a “tabloid reporter.” 102 The reporter who broke this story is no
tabloid journalist—her record as an award-winning investigator at a national magazine with a
95
Charlie Kirk and Brent Hamachek, TIME FOR A TURNING POINT: SETTING A COURSE TOWARD FREE MARKETS AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS (2016) (describing the law clerk as “the best hire we ever could
have made” and claiming that “Turning Point needs more [people like the law clerk]; so does America”).
96
97
JC&D R. 11 cmt., supra note 62.
98
Id.; cf., e.g., Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 269 (2d Cir. 1952) (“[T]he denial of one, who has a motive to
deny, may be uttered with such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance or defiance, as to give assurance that he is
fabricating, and that, if he is, there is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he denies.”).
99
Rankin, supra note 34 (emphasis added).
100
See JC&D R. 11 cmt., supra note 62 (“If, however, the situation involves a reasonable dispute over credibility,
the matter should proceed.”); 28 U.S.C. § 352(a).
101
Rankin, supra note 34.
102
15
reputation for exhaustive fact-checking itself provides strong indicia of the reporting’s
trustworthiness. 103
If it is the subject judge’s word against the journalist and his reputation against hers, there
is no way to resolve those issues without an investigation and, if the resulting evidence is not
conclusive, a careful credibility determination. 104 Similar issues present themselves when
weighing the account of the clerk’s ex-employees against the CEO’s statements, the journalists’
investigations against the subject judges’ purported diligence, or the bulk of the unrebutted
evidence against the subject judges’ assertions. The record is replete with these credibility
questions; for that reason alone, the Chief Judge could not lawfully dismiss the matter. 105
5. The Chief Judge disregarded unresolved factual questions in the judges’
description of their supposed “diligence.”
The face of the order recounts only that the subject judges seemingly made a set of vague
statements that directly bear on whether they conducted a careful investigation before hiring the
clerk. 106 These assertations raise a set of question that go the heart of the judges’ supposed
“diligence.” The Chief Judge should have recognized that the judges’ diligence could not be
evaluated until these questions were answered and those answers were supported by proof.
Who, for example, were “the numerous people with knowledge of . . . the allegations”
that the subject judges spoke with, and which of them “repeatedly informed” the judges that the
allegations “are not true?” 107 When did the judges speak with these numerous people? Did the
Chief Judge speak with them herself? What questions did they ask? What answers did they
receive? Did the subject judges speak with the clerk about the racist conduct (and did the Chief
Judge)? If so, did the clerk herself state unequivocally that she did not do any of the hateful
things reported in the media? These questions become even more urgent based on subsequent
reporting, which provides even more evidence to support the earlier reports.
The Chief Judge could only have dismissed the complaint if the record was “conclusively
refuted by objective evidence,” and nothing in the Chief Judge’s order or in the reports of the
subject judges’ defense meets that high standard. 108
103
See About Jane Mayer, JANE-MAYER.COM (last visited Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.jane-mayer.com/bios/jane-
mayer; Shelley Hepworth, The New Yorker’s chief fact-checker on how to get things right in the era of ‘post-truth’,
COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REV. (Mar. 8, 2017), https://www.cjr.org/the_delacorte_lectures/new-yorkers-fact-checker-
post-truth-facts-fake-news-trump.php; Evan Osnos, “I Was Fact-Checked By The New Yorker”, THE NEW YORKER
(Sept. 14, 2009), https://www.newyorker.com/news/evan-osnos/i-was-fact-checked-by-the-new-yorker (describing
The New Yorker’s exhaustive fact-checking procedures).
104
JC&D R. 11 cmt., supra note 62.
105
Id.
106
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 3–4.
107
Id.
108
28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B).
16
C. The Chief Judge’s Decision Not to Authorize an Investigation Conflicts with
Recent Precedent
Special committees have been appointed, and thorough investigations conducted, for
arguably less egregious misconduct than two judges hiring a law clerk with a widely publicized
history of racist and hateful conduct and who did nothing to reassure the public that their
proceedings will not be tainted by actual or apparent bias.
One such previous investigation concerned a single speech where a chief circuit judge
was alleged to have made improper remarks regarding race, intellectual disability, and foreign
nationals, among other topics. 109 The matter was transferred to the D.C. Circuit Judicial
Council. Noting that he was prohibited from making factual findings about any reasonably
disputed matter, the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit convened a special committee to investigate
the matter. 110 The special committee retained a law professor to act as special counsel, who,
after “extensive investigative efforts,” determined that the event was not recorded. 111 He then
interviewed 45 attendees and corresponded by email with an additional eight attendees; obtained
photographs of the event, the judges’ handwritten notes, contemporaneous notes from other
attendees, a text message sent after the speech, and reviewed the dockets and published opinions
of all the cases the judge mentioned in her speech. 112 He submitted a report to the special
committee, which held a hearing where it took testimony from the judge and one of the attendees
at the speech. 113
Another investigation was initiated after news broke that a district judge had forwarded to
six acquaintances a racist email insulting the then-President and his parents. 114 The incident was
widely reported in the press, the ensuing notoriety was extensive, the incident received attention
from members of the House Judiciary Committee, and there was a substantial response from the
public. 115 The judge admitted that he had sent the email and personally apologized to the
President. 116 After a number of complaints were filed, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit
convened a special committee to investigate the matter. 117 The special committee reviewed the
judge’s cases concerning labor, employment, civil rights, prisoner rights, and criminal
sentencing, as well as his cases that were appealed. 118 The special committee also interviewed
key individuals in the state’s legal community, court staff, and the judge’s professional and
109
In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, 769 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. Jud. Council 2014).
110
Id. at 764.
111
Id.
112
Id. at 764–65.
113
Id. at 765.
114
115
Id..
116
Id. at 619 (published opinion of the 9th Cir. Jud. Council).
117
Id. at 614.
118
Id. at 615.
17
social contacts. 119 The special committee also discovered hundreds of inappropriate emails in
the judge’s court email account. 120
Yet another investigation was initiated after reporting disclosed pornography on a chief
circuit judge’s publicly accessible web site. 121 The matter was transferred to the Third Circuit
Judicial Council. 122 A special committee was appointed which retained counsel from two major
law firms to assist with the investigation as well as a consultant to advise on technology
issues. 123 The special committee obtained from the judge technical information about his
website, lists of its contents, and the files downloaded by the newspaper that broke the story,
among other information. 124 The judge testified under oath and on the record for nearly three
hours and was questioned by both counsel and the judges on the special committee. 125
In contrast to these precedents, the Chief Judge did not appoint a special committee and
dismissed the matter only two weeks after receiving the complaint. As detailed above, there are
many unresolved questions of fact that would make the appointment of a special committee
appropriate—and, in fact, required. We urge the Judicial Council to vacate the Chief Judge’s
order and mandate that such a special committee conduct an investigation.
D. The Chief Judge Failed to Identify Additional Instances of Potential
Misconduct
While the Chief Judge addressed the subject judges’ diligence in hiring, the Chief Judge
had an independent obligation to identify “any misconduct . . . issues” raised by the allegations
in the complaint. 126 The integrity of the judicial misconduct process depends on a Chief Judge
appropriately discharging this duty because judicial misconduct proceedings are not adversarial,
and “the Rules do not give the complainant the rights of a party to litigation.” 127 Instead, the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act is premised on Congress’s faith that, once a complaint
“reveals information of misconduct,” the Chief Judge and the Judicial Council will identify and
investigate every instance of misconduct that the evolving record reveals. 128 The available
record indicates that other potential judicial misconduct issues should also have been considered.
119
Id.
120
Id. at 616.
121
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 575 F.3d 279, 280 (3d Cir. Jud. Council 2009).
122
Id.
123
Id. at 282.
124
Id. at 282–83.
125
Id. at 283.
126
JC&D R. 11 cmt., supra note 62 (“The chief judge must identify as a complaint any misconduct or disability
issues raised by the factual allegations of the complaint even if the complainant makes no such claim with regard to
those issues.”).
127
Id. at R. 16 cmt.
128
Id.
18
For example, the reported evidence indicates that the subject judges have not addressed
the serious public-perception problems that have arisen from their hire in a manner required by
basic standards of judicial conduct. A judge who hires a clerk with a widely publicized history
of racist and hateful conduct must do much more than privately decide that, for whatever reason,
this history is not disqualifying. Such a hiring decision will inevitably diminish public
confidence in the judge’s handling of cases involving race, national origin, religion, and
employment. Lawyers and litigants will reasonably worry that their faith, background, or skin
color might affect the adjudication of their rights, especially if the clerk is involved in their case.
Staff and colleagues in the judge’s courthouse and across the judiciary might wonder what the
judge thinks of them or the kind of conduct they tolerate in their chambers. A judge should do
whatever they can to ameliorate these legitimate concerns. 129 That has not happened here.
The subject judges could have publicly explained their reasons for hiring the clerk. They
could have announced that the clerk would not work on cases where her involvement might
create an appearance of impropriety. Given the risk of harm to public confidence in the courts,
they could also have announced that they would proactively recuse themselves from cases where
their own impartiality could reasonably be questioned. They could even have self-initiated a
misconduct proceeding, as one judge did when his racist personal emails were publicly
reported. 130 At the very least, they could have said that the clerk had no place in their chambers
if any of the reports of her hateful conduct were true.
The subject judges’ inaction is inconsistent with their obligations to uphold the integrity
of the judiciary and avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities. 131 The Chief Judge
should have recognized and addressed these apparent violations of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act. Given that the Act is generally forward-looking, the judges may still be able to
take some kind of “corrective action that acknowledges and remedies” these problems, at least in
part. 132 It is certainly not too late for the Judicial Council to remedy these problems itself. 133
E. The Chief Judge’s Order Exceeded Statutory and Constitutional Limits by
Opining on Recusal, Substantially Prejudicing Future Litigants
A separate, concerning error in the Chief Judge’s Order can be found in the Order’s
single footnote: “nothing in the record supports an allegation that the [subject judges’]
‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ or otherwise provides a basis for disqualification
under 28 U.S.C. § 455.” 134 Although it may seem like an afterthought, this single sentence
129
Cf. Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2, Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2A cmt.,
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/code_of_conduct_for_united_states_judges_effective_march_12_2019.p
df (“A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions
that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”).
130
131
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 1, supra note 129.
132
JC&D R. 11(d)(2), supra note 62.
133
Id. at R. 19(b).
134
Chief Judge’s Order, supra note 21, at 6 n.1.
19
transformed the order into an impermissible advisory opinion that exceeded the Chief Judge’s
jurisdiction, violated a basic tenet of Article III of the Constitution, and prejudiced future
litigants’ statutory and constitutional rights to a fair hearing. 135 It was also factually incorrect.
The record is replete with facts that bear directly on the subject judges’ recusal
obligations. Consider, for example, the following examples incorporating elements of the
current record:
A Black employee sues her employer for racial discrimination, alleging, among
other things, that she was fired on the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday; that the
supervisor who fired her regularly exchanged racist remarks with coworkers; and
that the employer attempted to cover up the supervisor’s misconduct by falsely
blaming another employee. The judge assigned to the case had himself hired an
employee with a similar record as the supervisor. The judge rules against the
employee.
An employer is sued for negligent hiring and retention. The plaintiff alleges that
the employer had actual notice of the employee’s record of antisemitic conduct;
failed to adequately investigate that record by relying, among other things, on
implausible and self-serving claims from the employee’s previous supervisor; and
later ignored clear evidence that the investigation was flawed and that the
employee’s antisemitism presented a clear risk to the employer’s customers and
workforce. The judge assigned to the case had himself hired and retained an
employee under similar circumstances. The judge rules for the employer.
An investigative journalist and his publication are sued for defamation by
someone seeking revenge for an article disclosing evidence of their xenophobic
and illegal conduct. The judge assigned to the case previously stated in strong
terms that he distrusted the journalist and the publication. The judge rules against
the journalist.
A whistleblower has strong evidence that her employer acted illegally. The
employer’s defense hinges on the argument that the whistleblower held a grudge
against the employer. The whistleblower does not want her identity made public
because she fears retaliation. The judge hearing the case had previously decided
to discount evidence of his employee’s misconduct because the employee’s
coworkers had asked for confidentiality and because the judge doubted their
motives. The judge refuses to protect the whistleblower’s identity and rules
against her on the merits.
135
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) (“[T]he rule against advisory opinions implements the separation of
powers prescribed by the Constitution and confines federal courts to the role assigned them by Article III.”).
20
The CEO of an organization has been sued for making false statements. The
judge hearing the case recently relied on the CEO to have a judicial misconduct
complaint dismissed. The judge rules for the CEO.
A litigant is deciding whether to file a motion to recuse a judge. The judge had
previously lashed out at the people who questioned the propriety of his decision to
hire a law clerk with a widely publicized record of hateful conduct. The litigant
had strongly condemned the judge’s actions. The judge rules against the litigant.
In each of these examples, a reasonable observer could question the judge’s impartiality.
Depending on the other circumstances of the case, the judge could have a statutory obligation to
recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. 136 These hypotheticals are by no means exhaustive, but
they illustrate how the Chief Judge’s blanket statement absolving the subject judges of any
recusal issues cannot be correct.
But these hypotheticals, though illustrative, are unnecessary because the Chief Judge
should not have issued an advisory opinion regarding 28 U.S.C. § 455 at all. In doing so, the
Chief Judge exceeded both her statutory jurisdiction and her authority under the constitution.
Congress has not authorized the judicial councils to construe 28 U.S.C. § 455 in a judicial
misconduct proceeding, and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act cannot be used to evaluate
the merits of a judge’s recusal decisions, let alone preemptively endorse a judge’s decision not to
recuse. 137
The Chief Judge also exceeded the limits of Article III’s grant of judicial power, which
prohibits federal judges from issuing advisory opinions. 138 Federal courts are “without power to
decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” 139 Here, the
Chief Judge’s order prejudged how 28 U.S.C. § 455 would apply to a hypothetical case,
prejudicing future litigants’ rights to fair treatment before an unquestionably impartial judge.
Those litigants are not parties in this judicial misconduct proceeding. Indeed, there are no
136
The judge might also be required to recuse himself under the Constitution’s Due Process clause because of the
risk of actual bias. See Caperton, 556 U.S. at 884–85.
137
See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); JC&D R. 3(h), supra note 62 (providing a non-exclusive definition of what
constitutes misconduct); see also In re Cudahy, 294 F.3d 947, 953 (7th Cir. 2002) (“an erroneous failure to recuse
oneself from considering a particular matter is a legal error rather than judicial misconduct”); In re United States,
791 F.3d 945, 959 (9th Cir. 2015). In addition, the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference is
authorized to issue advisory opinions on the nonbinding Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which includes
its own recusal provisions, but neither the Judicial Councils nor the Judicial Conference is authorized to interpret 28
U.S.C. § 455 at all. See, e.g., Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2, § 220, Committee on Codes of Conduct
Advisory Opinions, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol02b-ch02-2019_final.pdf.
138
See, e.g., Flast, 392 U.S. at 96; In Matter of Motors Liquidation Co., 829 F.3d 135, 167–68 (2d Cir. 2016)
(collecting authorities).
139
Motors Liquidation, 829 F.3d at 168 (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)).
21
“parties” at all in a judicial misconduct proceeding, which is inquisitorial rather than
adversarial. 140
This error alone requires the order to be vacated and the matter referred to a special
committee. The severe prejudice this advisory opinion will cause cannot be minimized, and it
cannot be remedied if the order is simply amended and reissued.
IV. CONCLUSION
The flaws in the Judicial Council’s decision have grown more visible in the short time
since it was issued. The evidence of the clerk’s racist conduct was unrebutted when the Judicial
Council made its ruling, and that record is even stronger now, after new reporting has confirmed
the original record and refuted the subject judges’ few provable claims. 141
The Second Judicial Council’s affirmance should be vacated, and a special committee
should convene to investigate this matter.
* * *
We thank the Judicial Council and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability for
their continued attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.

Chair Chair
House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
Property, and the Internet
House Committee on the Judiciary
CC: The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
The Honorable Charles Wilson, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit
140
See, e.g., JC&D R. 3 cmt. & R. 16 cmt., supra note 62.
141
See In re Memorandum of Decision of Jud. Conf. Comm. on Jud. Conduct & Disability, 517 F.3d 563, 568 (U.S.
Jud. Conf. 2008) (“[T]here cannot be public confidence in a self-regulatory misconduct procedure that, after the
discovery of new evidence or a failure to investigate properly or completely serious allegations of misconduct,
allows misconduct to go unremedied in the name of preserving the ‘finality’ of an earlier, perhaps misfired,
proceeding.”).
22
EXHIBIT B
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
C.C.D. No. 22-01

____________
IN RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

____________
PROCEEDING IN REVIEW OF THE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF SECOND CIRCUIT
J.C. Nos. 02-21-90142; 02-21-90143
____________
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
____________
(Filed July 8, 2022)
Present: Judges William B. Traxler, Jr., Chair, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Thomas F. Hogan, M.
Margaret McKeown, Jon O. Newman, Carl E. Stewart, and Sarah S. Vance
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee considers this matter under the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 357, and Rule 21(b)(2) of the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Rules”), which permit this Committee to
review a judicial council order affirming a chief judge’s dismissal of a complaint and then
determine whether a special committee should be appointed. For the reasons provided below, we
return this matter to the Second Circuit Judicial Council with directions to refer it to the Chief
Circuit Judge for the appointment of a special committee under Section 353 of the Act.
I. Procedural History
On November 19, 2021, the Acting Chief Circuit Judge of another circuit identified a
complaint under Rule 5(a) against each of the Subject Judges based on information in a
November 10, 2021 letter from seven members of Congress, and after considering responses
1
from the Subject Judges. 1 The letter alleged that the Subject Judges committed misconduct by
hiring a law clerk (“the candidate”) who, according to press reports, had engaged in extreme
racist and hateful conduct, including sending racist text messages and making other racist
remarks, prior to attending law school and while she was employed by a nonprofit organization.
The Subject Judges’ responses to the Acting Chief Circuit Judge explain that they
reviewed the media reports describing the accusations against the candidate, they examined the
candidate’s credentials, references, and academic record, and they determined that the allegations
were false. After interviewing the candidate, each Subject Judge felt that his original conclusion
about the allegations being false was correct and each offered her a clerkship position. One of
the Subject Judges explained that, after deciding to hire the candidate, he spoke to an attorney
who had advised the candidate and the Judge had learned that the candidate had signed a non-
disclosure agreement, which explained why she had not publicly denied the allegations. He also
received a letter from the candidate’s former employer at the nonprofit organization who spoke
highly of the candidate and stated that the candidate had been the victim of a smear campaign.
In an email notifying the Subject Judges that a request for transfer had been made, the
Acting Chief Circuit Judge stated his belief that there were reasonably disputed issues of fact that
precluded an immediate dismissal of the complaints and required the appointment of a special
committee to resolve them. On December 9, 2021, the Chief Justice of the United States
transferred the proceeding to the Second Circuit, pursuant to the Acting Chief Circuit Judge’s
1
The allegations in the letter from Congress implicate Canons 1 (A Judge Should Uphold the
Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary) and 2 (A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the
Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities). In relevant part, Canon 1 provides that “A judge should
maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.” Canon 2A provides that a judge “should
act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.”
2
request for transfer. On December 22, 2021, the Second Circuit Chief Judge chose not to
appoint a special committee and entered an order dismissing the matter pursuant to Rule
11(c)(1)(D) because “the record lacks any evidence supporting the allegation that the Judges
engaged in misconduct.” The Chief Circuit Judge found that the Subject Judges “performed all
of the due diligence that a responsible Judge would undertake.” On January 13, the Circuit
Judicial Council affirmed the Chief Circuit Judge’s dismissal of the matter. The Circuit Judicial
Council reviewed the Chief Circuit Judge’s order and decided that the Subject Judges had
exercised appropriate due diligence in assessing the merits of hiring the candidate, whether the
information the Subject Judges elicited and received was accurate or not. 2
On March 8, 2022, the participating members of Congress sent a follow-up letter to the
Second Circuit Judicial Council and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee, requesting
that the Circuit Judicial Council vacate its dismissal order and appoint a special committee to
investigate the issues. On June 3, the Chief Circuit Judge informed the Chair of this Committee
that the Circuit Judicial Council had reviewed the letter from Congress and had agreed to take no
further action. The Circuit Judicial Council reported that it found no new evidence in the second
submission from Congress to suggest that the Subject Judges had not undertaken an appropriate
level of due diligence in their hiring decision or that the Subject Judges had done anything to
warrant a sanction for misconduct. 3
2
The order explicitly stated that “In rendering this decision to affirm, we need not and do not
consider whether the information the Judges elicited and received regarding their hiring decisions was
accurate, but only that they committed no misconduct in performing due diligence and then determining
to hire the candidate based on the information before them.” Judicial Council Order at 1.
3
In light of this communication from the Circuit Judicial Council, this Committee concludes that
it is not necessary to invite the judicial council to explain why it believes that the appointment of a special
committee is unnecessary, as the Circuit’s reasons for not appointing a special committee are clearly
stated in the communication. See Rule 21(b)(2).
3
II. Discussion
This Committee, in its sole discretion, may review any judicial council order entered
under Rule 19(b)(1) and determine whether a special committee should be appointed. See Rule
21(b)(2). We review circuit judicial council orders in judicial conduct and disability matters for
errors of law, clear errors of fact, or abuse of discretion. Rule 21(a); see also In re Complaint of
Judicial Misconduct, 664 F.3d 332, 334–35 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 2011) (deferring to findings of
circuit judicial council and overturning them only if clearly erroneous).
The question before this Committee is whether a special committee should be appointed
to investigate the complaints. Both the Act and the Rules provide that a chief judge cannot make
factual findings about a matter that is reasonably in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(a) (“The chief
judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in
dispute.”); 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B) (dismissal is appropriate “when a limited inquiry . . .
demonstrates that the allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively
refuted by objective evidence.”); Rule 11(b) (“In conducting [a limited] inquiry, the chief judge
must not determine any reasonably disputed issue. Any such determination must be left to a
special committee appointed under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the
committee’s report.”). The Commentary to Rule 11 notes that “if potential witnesses who are
reasonably accessible have not been questioned, then the matter remains reasonably in dispute.”
Id.
In dismissing the complaints, the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit was not bound by the
opinion of the Acting Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit that a special committee would be
required and concluded that the Subject Judges “performed all of the due diligence that a
responsible Judge would undertake.” Order at 5. The Chief Judge based this conclusion on the
4
finding that the Subject Judges “carefully reviewed the allegations in the media, thoroughly
considered the candidate’s record, received strong references attesting to the candidate’s
qualifications and character, and interviewed the candidate to assess the candidate’s
temperament, judgment, and abilities.” Id.
With great respect for the Chief Judge and the Circuit Judicial Council, we are of the
view that an appropriate evaluation of the judges’ conduct cannot be accomplished without
findings of fact as to: (1) whether the candidate made the statements attributed to her (or the
substance of them); and (2) what the candidate told the Subject Judges about them. These facts,
which are reasonably disputed, must be established before the matter can be concluded. In other
words, whether the candidate made the alleged statements and what she told the Subject Judges
about the allegations against her must be determined first, because the answers would determine
the nature and extent of any further inquiries the Subject Judges would be required to conduct.
According to media reports, the candidate has never publicly denied the allegations, and
when the allegations were first publicized, the candidate was reported to have said that she had
“no recollection of these messages and they do not reflect what I believe or who I am and the
same was true when I was a teenager.” 4 At this point, it is unclear what the Subject Judges asked
the candidate about the allegations and what she told them.
In addition, it appears that there are numerous individuals with first-hand knowledge of
the candidate’s alleged conduct. The reporting referenced in Footnote 4 relied on two named
sources – the candidate’s supervisor at the non-profit (her former employer) and a former co-
worker who claimed to have received the offensive messages. The reporting also named another
4
Jane Mayer, A Conservative Nonprofit that Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces
Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity, THE NEW YORKER, Dec. 21, 2017, available at:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conservative-nonprofit-that-seeks-to-transform-college-
campuses-faces-allegations-of-racial-bias-and-illegal-campaign-activity
5
former employee who alleged that she was the only African-American employee of the non-
profit and was fired by the candidate on Martin Luther King Day. Contemporaneous reporting
by another news source named two other former co-workers who had allegedly received and
exchanged racist messages with the candidate. 5 Additionally, reporting from earlier this year
contained a statement from the spokesperson for the candidate’s supervisor confirming that the
candidate had indeed been terminated after the offensive messages were discovered. 6 It is
unclear whether the Subject Judges spoke to any of these individuals with first-hand knowledge
of the alleged statements and conduct. As a result, key issues are reasonably in dispute and must
be resolved.
The Commentary to Rule 11 provides a useful illustration of how a similar factual dispute
should be resolved:
For example, consider a complaint alleging that the subject judge said X, and the
complaint mentions, or it is independently clear, that five people may have heard what
the judge said. The chief judge is told by the subject judge and one witness that the judge
did not say X, and the chief judge dismisses the complaint without questioning the other
four possible witnesses. In this example, the matter remains reasonably in dispute. If all
five witnesses say the subject judge did not say X, dismissal is appropriate, but if
potential witnesses who are reasonably accessible have not been questioned, then the
matter remains reasonably in dispute. Commentary to Rule 11, citing to The Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL
CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, 239 F.R.D. 116, 243 (2006) (internal citations
omitted).
Although not an exact match for the present complaints, this example is instructive, as it
demonstrates that a matter is still reasonably in dispute where reasonably available potential
5
See Caleb Ecarma, Clarence Thomas’s Wife Hired Ex-TPUSA Staffer Known for Saying ‘I Hate
Blacks’, MEDIA-ITE, Sept. 6, 2018, available at: https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-clarence-
thomas-wife-hired-ex-tpusa-staffer-known-for-saying-i-hate-blacks/
6
See Ruth Marcus, Opinion: The Curious Case of the Clerk and the Racist Texts, THE
WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 18 2022, available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/clerk-texts-appeals-court-clanton/.
6
witnesses have not been questioned. Here, the reporting on the allegations prior to the decision
to hire the candidate named multiple individuals with first-hand knowledge of the events in
question. As those individuals were not interviewed at any point during this proceeding, the
matter remains reasonably in dispute and, instead of being dismissed, should have been referred
to a special committee for investigation.
Because a special committee was not appointed to investigate the complaints, there is not
enough information in the record to determine how the matter should be concluded.
Accordingly, the Circuit Judicial Council erred in affirming the Chief Circuit Judge’s dismissal
of the complaints. Pursuant to the standards provided by Section 352 of the Act and Rule 11, the
appointment of a special committee to thoroughly investigate the facts of the complaints is
necessary. We note that our conclusion as to the necessity of the appointment of a special
committee should not be taken as a comment on the merits of the underlying complaints. Once
the special committee has completed a comprehensive investigation, it will then be the
responsibility of the Second Circuit Judicial Council to evaluate the merits of the complaints in
light of the evidence and the standards provided by the Rules and the Act.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, we return this matter to the Second Circuit Judicial Council with
instructions to refer it to the Chief Circuit Judge for the appointment of a special committee
under Section 353 of the Act and Rule 11(f). 7 At a minimum, the special committee should
attempt to interview the candidate and the witnesses identified in the media reports we have cited
7
Rule 24(c) provides that orders of this Committee constituting final action on a complaint must
be made publicly available. Although this order does not constitute final action on the complaints, Rule
21(f) gives the Committee Chair the authority to direct the distribution of decision by the
Committee. Pursuant to this authority, and in the interests of transparency and the importance of the
judiciary’s responsibility to investigate allegations of misconduct, the Chair has directed that this order be
made publicly available.
7
as having first-hand knowledge of the events in question. From there, the special committee’s
investigation should be guided by the evidence that it receives, including but not limited to any
additional witnesses and relevant documents or records, in order to thoroughly and carefully
investigate the complaints. The investigation should be conducted as expeditiously as possible,
without compromising the thoroughness of the investigation.
8
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen

Office of the Clerk
United States Courthouse
Phone: (312) 435-5850
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
www.ca7.uscourts.gov
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ORDER
May 17, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judgee
IN RE:
No. 22-1815 MARK BOCHRA,
Appellant
Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:21-cv-06223
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Upon consideration of the OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT, filed on May 16, 2023,
by the pro se appellant,
On May 16, this court received an received a 124-page brief from Appellant Mark
Bochra, which the court construes as an implied request for leave to file brief that does
not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.
IT IS ORDERED that the request is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this court’s order issued April 19, 2023,
this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Bochra has not made a bona fide
effort to file a conforming and timely brief.
form name: c7_Order_3J (form ID: 177)

For the Seventh Circuit
June 5, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1815 Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of
IN RE: MARK BOCHRA,
Illinois, Eastern Division.
Appellant.
No. 1:21-cv-06223
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Chief Judge.
ORDER
Appellant filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 19, 2023. No
judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en
banc, and the judge on the panel has voted to deny rehearing. The petition for rehearing
is therefore DENIED.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen

Office of the Clerk
United States Courthouse
Phone: (312) 435-5850
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
www.ca7.uscourts.gov
ORDER
June 15, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
IN RE:
No. 22-1815 MARK BOCHRA,
Appellant
Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:21-cv-06223
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT ORDER

DOCKET 56 DISMISSING AN APPEAL WITH MERITS BASED ON AN OVERSIZED
BRIEF AND TO CORRECT PROCEDURAL ERRORS BY THE CLERK, THE JUDGE, AND
THE PRO SE, AND TO STAY THE MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WITH THE SUPREME COURT, filed on June 9, 2023, by the pro se appellant,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks a stay of the mandate.
The court will take no action on the motion to the extent it seeks other relief, in light of the
June 5, 2023, order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc.
form name: c7_Order_3J (form ID: 177)

EXHIBIT E
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
219 South Dearbom Street
Chicago Illinois 60604
Christopher G. Conway
C1erk of Court
312-435-5850
June'1.'1.,2024
CONFIDENTIAL
Ilark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road
Apt. l38
Chicago,IL 60660
In Re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability No.07-24-90072
Dear Mr. Bochra:
This will acknowledge receipt of your complaint of judicial misconduct or disability

filed against a federal judge on May 21,2}zl,pursuant to the
Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act,28 U.S.C. SS 351 et seq. The complaint has been designated by the docketing
number listed above. Your complaint will be processed in accordance with Rule g
of the
Rules for ludicial-Conduct and ludicial-Disability Proceedings. No further action is rbquired at
this time. You will be advised when a decision is entered on the complaint
Please be advised that proceedings under the

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act
are eonfidential in aecordanee with 28 LI.S€.
$360(aland Rule 23of the Rules fer ludicial-
Conduct and ludicial-Disability proceedings
Sincerely,
cfus &,*,c
Christopher G. Conway
Clerk
AO310 (Rev.03116)
Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit
C0MPLAINToFJUDICIALMISCoNDUCToRDISABILITY
To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement of facts described in
item 4 (below). The Rules FoR JuDrcrAl-CoNoucr AND JUDrCrAL-DTSABILITY PRocEEDrNcs, adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on what to include in a complaint (Rule 6), where
to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The Rules are available in federal court clerks' offices,
on individual federal courts'websites, and on www.uscourts.gov.
your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must be legible. For the
number
your complaint is required to be filed.
of copies to file, consult the local rules or clerk's ofiice of the court in which
Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked "COMPLAINT oF MISC0NDUCT"
or
*coMpLAINT OF DISABILITY. and submit it to the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the name of any
judge on the enveloPe.
1. Name ofComPlainant: MarkBochra

Contact Address: 5757 North Sheridan Road
Apt 13B
Chicago IL 60660
Daytime telephone: ( 773 )9s1-2424

2. Name(s) of Judge(s): A11 7th Circuit Judges and Magistrate Judge sheila M. Finnegan
Court: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals / Northem District of IL
Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit
or lawsuits?
3.
Mv.' [l*.
If '!/es," give the following information about each lawsuit:
Court: Northern District of Illinois
Case Number: l:21-ev-06223 Re: Mark Bochra & related case 1:21-cv-03887
Docket number ofany appeal to the 7th Circuit: 22'18L5 &,2'29A3 & 23'1388
Are (were) you a party or Iawyer in the lawsuit? Zq- tff z -a $e\t\is'r Eov wri\ vnoe,rJ,o.rrrrrs
EIt* [lLu*r", [lN.it'o
you are (were) apary and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyer's name, address, and telephone
If
number:
Opposing Counsel Lawyer for the Department of Education
Sarah F. Terman
office: {312) 469-62A1 llcell: (312) 771-7167 // [email protected]
Page I of 2
AO3t0 (Rev.03/16)
Judicial Council ofthe Seventh Circuit
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL I}{ISCOIII)UCT OR DISABILITY
4. Brief Statement of Facts. Attach a brief statement of the specific facts on which the claim ofjudicial
misconduct or disability is based. Include what happened, when and where it happored, and any
information that would help an investigator check the facts. Ifthe complaint alleges judicial disability,
also include any additional facts that form the basis of that allegation.
5. Declaration and signature:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge.
Signature: /s/ Mark Bochra Date: 05/1617024
Page? of 2
Table of Contents
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................................................... 9
II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 25
A. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO CONTINUED RETALIATION ................................................................ 26
B. THE PARABLE BETWEEN MR. FRANK INSALACO AND MR. JIM RICHMOND ....................................... 30
C. HISTORY OF FAIR HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 31
D. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO JUDGE SHEILA M. FINNEGAN: CANON 4(A)4 “RETALIATION FOR
REPORTING DISCRIMINATION” ............................................................................................................... 38
E. RETALIATION BY THE EN BANC PANEL: THE ENTIRE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES .......................................... 41
F. FEAR OF RETALIATION DESTROYS PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH................................................................................................................................................... 45
III. THE PARABLE OF THE 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. ............................................................................ 52
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 56
Page 1 of 62
Mark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL
The Honorable John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1 First Street, NE
[email protected]
The Honorable Christopher G. Conway The Honorable Diane Sykes

Clerk of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Chamber Phone: (414) 727-6988
Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

Circuit Executive Deputy Circuit Executive
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780
CC
The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 2157 Rayburn House Office Building

2138 Rayburn House Building 2138 Rayburn House Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
[email protected]
Attorney General Hon. Mr. Merrick Garland Honorable Benjamin C. Mizer

Via Chief of Staff Mr. Matthew Klapper Acting Associate Attorney General
Page 2 of 62
The Honorable Mr. Corey Amundson The Honorable Mr. Jeffery Ragsdale
Chief of the Justice Department General Counsel of the Justice Department
Public Integrity Section Office of Professional Responsibility
The Honorable Ms. Rachel Rossi The Honorable Ms. Kristen Clarke
Director of the Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of the Justice
Office for Access to Justice Department, Civil Division
[email protected]
The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

Inspector General of the Justice Department FBI Deputy Director Mr. Paul Abbate
[email protected] FBI Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
May 16, 2024
A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT OF FURTHER RETALIATION
Re: The Targeting of Mark the Coptic during Passion Week toward Easter: 3rd time.
Mark was retaliated against on Good Friday and he knew the date of the retaliation.
Re: The Parable between Good vs. Evil: Mr. Frank Insalaco vs. Mr. Jim Richmond.
Re: Senior Circuit Judge Diane Wood left official capacity on the same day Mark’s
retaliation complaint was delivered to the 7th Circuit on April 30, 2024 Nos. 07-24-90049
through 90063. See Section § 351(d)(1) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
Re: See Trump v. United States 23-939 speaking about immunity while addressing Official
vs. Individual acts done under different motives.1 See also United States v. Isaacs, 493
F.2d 1124, 1131 (7th Cir. 1974) and United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 707 (11th
Cir. 1982).
Dear Mr. Christopher Conway,
I want to thank you for processing this 4th judicial misconduct complaint to which it explains a
complex journey of discrimination with retaliation which kept multiplying on multiple fronts,
while members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois has somewhat
changed to become good people,2 the journey is with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in direct
violation of rule 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
1
See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/
2
I told the executive committee in many of my filings in 1:21-cv-06223 that I won’t file another judicial misconduct
complaint against them, also most of the old members were replaced with new members in the year 2023.
Page 3 of 62
with retaliation and raises concerns of pattern and practice of ongoing retaliation which violated
the Rule of Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 4(a), Judicial Code of Conduct
I often say in order to find the truth “look at the person who has power and how that power was
used, for good or evil; then the truth will be revealed.”
This complaint will discuss what happened the day my 3rd Judicial Misconduct Complaint based
on retaliation Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063 was delivered to the 7th Circuit on April 30,
2024; attached herein as Exhibit “A” please find a copy of it. That same day, Senior Circuit
Judge Diane Wood retired from the Court leaving official capacity and we all know judges who
retire are not subject to any judicial misconduct proceedings under Section § 351(d)(1) of the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, however, the key answer to this journey is linked to two
things (1) who took Mark’s petition for writ mandamus in 24-1592 and assigned it to a particular
judge who sets their eye on Mark’s filings and (2) the en banc panel retaliatory action in 22-2903
& 23-1388 fixing Mark’s case with facts not from the case is linked to 24-1592 which came first.
The anonymous Judge or 3 panel anonymous Judges who retaliated against Mark using the
Court’s official capacity seeking money extortion from him under duress 2404 in case 24-1592
ECF 4, this action revealed that the en Banc vote panel in Mark’s original appeal 22-2903, 23-
1388 would not come in his favor in the future and indeed that was the case but much worse, this
showed that the entire 7th Circuit Judges were ok with fixing my case with false facts not even
from the case and they did it on Mark’s Coptic “Good Friday” while he was at the church
praying; a date Mark knew when he had many conversation with Mr. Frank Insalaco; Mr. Frank
use to tell Mark “the order should have gone out long time ago, I don’t know why the delay” and
when the order came out in 22-2903, 23-1388 ECF Nos. 46-47 to pass it to the en banc panel,
Mark saw that the 2 weeks it takes to rule on the petition en banc falls on Good Friday May 3,
2024 ECF No. 48, and indeed that was the case. During this time Mark went to Church and
wrote a note to God and later Satan’s evil work revealed the course of action the en banc would
take when retaliation took place first in 24-1592 ECF 4.
If one argues Satan doesn’t exist then one can wonder why Satan is seeking abortion for satanic
rituals from the 7th Circuit in Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Todd Rokita, et al 23-3247.3 Certainly the
judges on the 7th Circuit loved to hear the voice of Satan in Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Todd Rokita,
et al 23-32474 while they rejected to provide a hearing to hear the voice of Jesus Christ in
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education 22-2903, 23-1388 ECF No. 39 by failing to even
mention what the IHRA definition stands for “Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” a biblical fact which
Satan wants to eliminate because it eliminates salvation for the Jewish people. 5 Over 1200
Jewish faculty and law professors are objecting to the IHRA definition.6
3
Case https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/indiana-fights-satanic-temples-attempt-to-
revive-abortion-suit
4
Recorded Hearing https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/91912/satanic-temple-inc-v-city-of-boston/
5
See https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-danger-of-expanding-the-definition-of-anti-semitism
6
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lButpIiajBJ3vYIykA-mj5gV35btDhwfczfFUoXQRMQ/edit
Page 4 of 62
An appeal court is known to correct the record of the lower court, however, in my journey the
appeal court through different anonymous judges decided to come together to fix my case with
false facts destroying public trust and public confidence in the system. Some Clerks around the
7th Circuit without mentioning names always told Mark repeatedly “the judges can do whatever
they want” while other clerks told Mark “Mark you know we only follow their orders, we don’t
have a say in what they do, we are just employees.” This complaint discusses non-merit related
issues; not the ruling but how it came out and why it came out that way in direct violation of
several canons under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) but also in direct
violation of Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241, Conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
This complaint will share different testimonies and will help identify the truth which many hated.
Unlike the case of Caryn Strickland wherein, the EDR plan failed to protect her civil rights so
she ended up lawsuit the 4th Circuit Judges in both official and individual capacities seeking
equitable relief in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022)7, the process of a judicial
misconduct proceeding can remedy the effects of discrimination with retaliation which would
result in restorative justice that would bring confidence back to the system and a public trust in
the process.
The lord, Jesus Christ said “No one lights a lamp and covers it with a bowl. Instead, they
put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. Whatever is hidden away
will be brought out into the open, and whatever will be covered up will be found and
brought out to light. Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more
will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from
him” [Luke 8:16-18].8
Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(a)(3) states “Discrimination. Cognizable misconduct

includes intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, [...] religion, national
origin, age, or disability” and Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(b)(4) states “Retaliation.
Cognizable misconduct includes retaliating against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees,
or others for participating in this complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial
misconduct or disability”9 and one or several judges from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
violated this canon several times with intent and possibly malice.10
7
8
9
See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
10
The goal of this complaint is reform https://youtu.be/A14THPoc4-4?t=130 (Restorative Justice)
Page 5 of 62

When a person reports discrimination based on national origin and religion in complaint Nos. 07-
24-90029 through 90043 which hasn’t been adjudicated yet (it typically takes 2 month for a chief
judge to issue her findings), was filed on March 29, 2024. Please find a receipt copy of the
complaint sent by Mr. Christopher Conway attached herein as Exhibit “B”. When a
Complainant reports discrimination, he or she is protected from being retaliate against and when
one is retaliated against after reporting discrimination, it turns into intentional discrimination
with retaliation.
The idea of a system of self-policing and absolute perceived “immunity” has allowed far too
many Judges with power, evil hearts, and endless pride with no fear of God to use that power not
for good to heal a society in pain but rather to retaliate against many individuals without any care
in order to satisfy their own motives.11
The Subjects of this Complaint are: All 7th Circuit Judges because they followed the action of
the judge or judges who were seeking money extortion from Mark under duress in 24-1592 ECF
4, they had the option to grant appointment of outside circuit judges just like in Caryn Strickland
v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022) but Chief Judge Diane Sykes refused in 22-2903, 23-1388
ECF 41, so the latter option was not to retaliate and not to fix Mark’s case based on the
threatening words of Jim Richmond. There was a solution that would have brought peace to
many but they refused it because they wanted to control the future path of Mark’s case but who
knows the future, humans or God? Much worse, they proved that they were afraid of Kenneth
Marcus and the Israeli lobby by erasing Kenneth Marcus’s name from existence within their
fixed order even though he was part of Mark’s lawsuit in Bochra v. U.S. Department of
Education (1:21-cv-03887) ECF Nos. 9 and 54. The other subject is former member of the
Executive Committee Former Chief Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan pertaining to the chain
of events leading up to the date Gary Feinerman resigned; she knew the truth.12
I often find in life that people often gather in order to do evil or cover for another person’s evil
work but never gather to call out evil to change to good, especially when power is involved. This
is the nature of humans with power when sin was introduced by Satan.13
11
here-2021-10-06/
12
See Magistrate Judge Young B King replacing Judge Sheila Finnegan on January 3, 2023
https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/Presiding%20MJ%20Kim01032023FINAL.pdf and see Gary
Feinerman resignation https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
13
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w5749jLr5E&t=45s
Page 6 of 62
Section § 351(d)(1) states that only “a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or
magistrate judge” are subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) .
Based on the current interpretation of that statute, retired and elevated judges fall outside of its
purview. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) stated “if you have concerns
about the behavior of a federal court employee other than a judge, you may report those concerns
to the clerk of the court where that individual is employed.”14
I am filing this Judicial Misconduct Complaint and seeking under Rule 26 for the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals to handle the preliminary review of the complaint and any and all procedures
pertaining to this complaint and when an honest investigation reveals disputed facts which needs
a special committee to investigate it, I am seeking under Rule 26 of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) for the 5th Circuit to conduct the complete investigation.
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council

selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case
of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original
judicial council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken
public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result
of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a
complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals. The
power to affect a transfer is lodged in the Chief Justice to avoid disputes in a judicial
council over where to transfer a sensitive matter and to ensure that the transferee council
accepts the matter.
In the past, Ms. Melissa Shanklin an administrative assistant of the 5th Circuit advised Mark that
if he seeks the 5th Circuit to investigate his Complaint, he can use Rule 26 at any given point in
the complaint process by including it in writing or within his filed complaint. Chief of the
Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts makes the determination where to send the complaint for
all procedural handling. This Judicial Misconduct Complaint contain many disputed facts subject
to a special committee to investigate under 28 U.S.C. § 352(a) (“The chief judge shall not
undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute”).
In February 2024, the Judicial Conference Committee released a 200 pages document under the
title “Digest of Authorities on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”.15 Most Circuit Chief
Judges should be well aware of it and receive the adequate training in conducting investigative
work because congress delegated to a Judge (3 jobs): a Jurist, a Manager, and an Investigator.
See a dear Colleague letter issued by the Justice Department to all federal financial assistance
recipients.16
14
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-
disability-complaint#faq-Who-can-I-complain-about?
15
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/digest_of_authorities_judicial_conduct_and_disability.pdf
16
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-
and-fees-youth-and
Page 7 of 62
The letter reminds court systems and other federal financial assistance recipients of their
ongoing obligations not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex and disability; to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited
English proficiency; and to ensure that appropriate recordkeeping can help identify and
avoid potential violations of federal nondiscrimination laws. The department will also
follow up on this letter by building a best practices guide, highlighting innovative work
by states and court leaders in this area.
with retaliation and raises concerns of pattern and practice of ongoing retaliation that violated the
Rule of Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 4(a), Judicial Code of Conduct
I respectfully ask that the appointed outside Circuit carefully consider the contents of this
complaint and, upon conclusion of their review, take appropriate corrective action to ensure that
justice is upheld healing a society in pain which is a the role of the justice system “restorative
justice”.
Mr. Jim Richmond a former supervisor of the 7th Circuit told Mark “I have seen too many
judicial misconduct complaints, nothing will change” and he added while yelling “God doesn’t
rule this Court, Judges do. Stop speaking about religion.” While my conversations with Mr. Jim
Richmond revealed a system that is animus toward a Coptic and many of his threatening words
were reported in an ongoing judicial misconduct complaint Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043
when he referred to “we” and “Judges” seeking to retaliate against Mark.17
17
Circuit
18
Page 8 of 62
Jim Richmond’s cell phone calling Mark after he knew Mark filed a second supplement.
The system needed to restrain itself from retaliating and did not need to retaliate any further but
all this happened again during Passion Week toward Easter.19 The Coptic people celebrate Easter
on May 5, 2024. Christ is risen, indeed he is risen: Christos Anesti, Alithos Anesti!
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On March 29, 2024, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals received a copy of my Judicial
Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043. The complaint lays out many disputed
facts subject to a special committee to investigate, including pattern and practice of
discrimination and violation to several canons under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
2. During the pendency of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90029 through
90043 Mark was retaliated against by a set of anonymous judges in 24-1592 ECF 4 seeking
money extortion under duress while Mark’s civil right litigation was still ongoing in 22-2903 &
23-1388 petition for re-hearing and petition en banc. The entire details of the retaliation which
took place are detailed in another Judicial Misconduct Complaint Nos. 07-24-90049 through
90063 received by the 7th Circuit on April 30, 2024.
3. Mark following the mailed delivery of his Judicial Misconduct Complaint pertaining to
retaliation in Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043, emailed a copy of the PDF file to all members of
the Judicial Conference Committee, many people were on the emails from senior department of
justice officials to members of congress, basically all 3 branches “Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial”. Pope Francis of Holy See and Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria were also invited to the
emails and became part of this journey because of the case of the IHRA definition that says
“Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” and how Mark’s way of life completely changed because of this
case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
4. Upon sending that email on May 1, 2024, Mark received an automatic email returned by
Circuit Judge Diane Wood that she retired effective May 1, 2024 and would not have access to
her email. Mark knew at this point that Judge Diane Wood could be the Judge who retaliated
against him in 24-1592 ECF 4 knowing too well that retired judges are not subject to a judicial
19
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeVZRZlt-7Q
Page 9 of 62
misconduct proceeding under Section § 351(d)(1) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
However, to find the truth one can speak to Clerk #1 Supervisor. When Mark filed his petition
for writ mandamus in 24-1592. It was taken by the Clerk and handed to a judge, Clerk
Supervisor #1 always told Mark “judges review pro se filings, it gets assigned specific judges but
I can’t discuss internal procedure” The reality is that this is not a random process, there are some
judges within the 7th Circuit who handle pro se filings “they do the judge shopping”.
Judge Diane Wood email showed that she retired effective May 1, 2024.
5. On May 6, 2024, I spoke to Clerk #1 Supervisor, she assured Mark that Judge Diane
Wood didn’t retire because of his case, she told him “judge wood has been planning to retire” but
here is the reality, a judge could tell everyone on the record “hey I am retiring or planning to
retire soon but before retiring he or she has the intention of retaliating against Mark knowing too
well no one will be able to question her action once she retires” under Section § 351(d)(1) of the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. When Judge Brett Kavanaugh was subject to a judicial
misconduct complaints, the only way he could escape scrutiny or any investigation is if he either
resigns, retire or gets elevated to the Supreme Court as indicated in C.C.D. No. 19-01.20
Section § 351(d)(1) states that only “a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or
magistrate judge” are subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) .
Based on the current interpretation of that statute, retired and elevated judges fall outside
of its purview.
Many judges in order to circumvent any judicial misconduct investigation either retire or resign.
Gary Feinerman tendered his resignation to President Biden on December 5, 202221 while Judge
Diane Wood retired on April 30, 2024 without any public announcement or celebration.
6. After Mark had a conversation with Clerk #1 Supervisor, he did a quick Google search
and found that Judge Diane Wood Wikipedia page claims she retired exactly on April 30, 2024;
the day Mark’s Judicial Misconduct complaint was received by the 7th Circuit and she read it.22
20
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._19-01_august_1_2019_0.pdf
21
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
22
Judge Diane Wood Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood
Page 10 of 62
7. The timing of Judge Diane Wood retiring without any public celebration or any prior
media announcement compare to Judge Ilana Rovner23, indicated that she is the one linked to 24-
1592 ECF 4 but not only that, the specific date April 30, 2024 out of all the dates. The answer to
the question is not only what Judge Diane Wood did before she retired, but how many judges
from the 7th Circuit were in agreement with her action. Apparently the entire en banc panel
which their ruling came on May 3, 2024 on Good Friday in 22-2903, 23-1388 with a denial for
petition re-hearing and hearing en banc. This proved three things (1) all 7th Circuit judges agreed
to fix Mark’s case with facts from some judges own imagination not part of the case record while
erasing the name Kenneth Marcus from existence within their order, (2) the words of Jim
Richmond that Mark’s case would be fix and he would get retaliated against happened with
action not just words, they fulfilled the words of Jim Richmond verbatim not caring about
anyone but themselves and what their hearts craved, and (3) the action taken in 24-1592 ECF 4
revealed how the en banc panel would vote with a denial in the near future because it wasn’t in
their best personal interest to send the case back to the district court in reversal. The facts and the
laws were in favor of reversal but the 7th Circuit Judges decided to destroy Mark’s case.
As inspector Michael Horowitz of the Justice Department stated to congress.24

“To my mind, transparency goes with accountability,” he said. “Where you have
transparency … transparency is the best disinfectant. If the public knows, if the lawyers
in the department know that their misconduct is going to be public, I think that helps
reform behavior, and it deters other folks.”
23
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/rovner-first-woman-judge-7th-circuit-take-senior-status-2024-
01-12/
24
See https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-horowitz-doj-inspector-general/2023/03/23/id/1113593/
Page 11 of 62
8. Merit-related vs. non-merit related to a ruling in a colloquial sense under Rule

11(c)(1)(D) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364
and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.25

25
Page 12 of 62

9. The motive to retaliate happened during an ongoing judicial misconduct proceeding in

Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 and Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063 giving rise to retaliation
along with 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights and during Passion Week right before
the Coptic Easter May 5, 2024.
10. There was a solution to this entire journey, appointing outside circuit judges. Jim
Richmond in the past when he use to speak to Mark told him “why do you need outside circuit
judges, it is good to have judges from this circuit but even the slightest conflict of interest we
appoint outside circuit judges, we’ve done it in many cases.” These words were spoken by Jim
Richmond when Mark sought outside circuit judges in appeal 22-1815 pertaining to the
Executive Committee ECF No. 29.
26
Page 13 of 62
11. Clerk #1 and Clerk #5 back in the days use to tell Mark that any filings that contain
judicial misconduct complaints needs to be “restricted” while another clerk told Mark “it is for
your own good that it gets restricted”. But no clerk told Mark whose directive were these and by
which judges to restrict Mark’s filings. All of the words spoken by Jim Richmond came to pass
verbatim.
12. With many conversations with Jim Richmond, this is how Mark discovered how his
docket entry 78 was sealed quietly in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887)
after the entire District Court and 7th Circuit Court were closed on September 6, 2022.
Mr. Lorenzo Walker told Mark back in the days “you will have to speak with the
chambers regarding this entry.” To seal Mark’s Judicial Misconduct Complaint.
The aim was to turn Mark from a Complainant into a Respondent replicating what happened to
him in law school, see ECF 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
Page 14 of 62
Page 15 of 62
13. The idea to turn a Complainant into a Respondent was attempted twice by Judges from
both the Executive Committee and the 7th Circuit and by Chicago Public School Senior
Leadership i.e., Jennifer Reger, Camie Pratt, and Kelly Tarrant. However, all of this was told in
the past in a form of “déjà vu” before the Devil entered the mind of Gary Feinerman and moved
the hearts of many in the wrong direction; Gary Feinerman resigned later on and the one who
asked him to tender his resignation is Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmayer, God bless her heart.27
As you see from Mark’s filing telling the Executive Committee not to do evil on 2/15/2022
14. The day Mark’s very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through
90048 was received by the 7th Circuit on June 10, 2022 and held by US. Marshals from around
10 am to nearly 3 pm, was the same day Chicago Public School senior leadership Camie Pratt,
Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant tried to frame Mark with OIG CPS turning him from a
Complainant into a Respondent. When their plan failed after Mark suffered a great deal of
mental anguish, Jennifer Reger forged Inspector William Fletcher OIG CPS report and afterward
she went miles trying to destroy Mark’s life. In the end the truth was all revealed.
27
See the scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFcIwF81wrg&t=330s
Page 16 of 62
15. Mark filed his EEOC Complaint on April 1, 2022 and was processed on April 5, 2022;
this was during the same time Mark was targeted by the Executive Committee after he reported
discrimination on February 18, 2022. The first attempt showed a coordinated effort to retaliate. If
you look at the date closely, the retaliation happened on April 26, 2022 but the order said they
met April 7, 2022, signed the order April 20, 2022, docketed the order April 26, 2022 as if some
were waiting for evil to happen at Chicago Public School and it didn’t happen the first round. At
least on the record when one reports discrimination he or she should not be retaliated against and
in the middle of his civil right litigation Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) interfering with it. This violated Rule 4(a)(4) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
Then one could see the 2nd attempt and the after chain of events.
The Judicial Misconduct Complaint Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through 90048 was delivered on June 10,
2022 at 10:26 a.m. and Mark was character lynched with OIG CPS, that same day on June 10,
2022 at 1:46 pm and many shouted within their hearts “lynch him now! Now or never.”
16. The evidence which OCR has and more of it showed that Chicago Public School Udeme
Itiat was stalking Mark’s civil right lawsuit and aligning the EOCO hearing date with Judge Ellis
hearing date on her own on June 21, 2022.
Page 17 of 62
Udeme Itiat created a June 21 meeting. CPS retaliated on June 10.
Udeme Itiat even aligned the Google Meeting day for June 21, 2022; they were all stalking me.
Page 18 of 62
17. What happened on June 10, 2022, from home, Alicia McNeal called CPS around the
12:54 pm hour with lies to target Mark at his own work; now we have a fair housing settlement
agreement that was breached. This phone call by Alicia McNeal calling CPS like crazy happened
after Mark’s Judicial Misconduct complaint arrived at the 7th Circuit that same day at 10:26 am
and after Mark found out the name of the US Marshal who was stalking him reading his emails.
He also resigned, his name is Jerome Sliva, his official email is no longer active
[email protected] compare to FBI Director Christopher Wray email is active [email protected].
Former U.S. Marshal Jerome Sliva 312-371-2046. E-mail: [email protected] (inactive)
18. OIG CPS turned all of Camie Pratt, Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant attempts down but
Mark had suffered a great deal of mental anguish and he is now on high blood pressure
medication with frequent headaches because of his history of seizure epilepsy.
Page 19 of 62
19. Following OIG CPS investigation(s), they cleared Mark but Jennifer Reger was very
displeased, and she forged Inspector William Fletcher OIG CPS report acting under colors of law
since she is a city employee to harm Mark with intent and malice, which is similar to an FBI
agent forging Inspector Michael Horowitz of OIG DOJ report, would he be ok with it? The
answer is no.
Page 20 of 62
This is Alicia McNeal with her supervisor Brian Kelly of Community Specialists; both left our
building. Both of them are also no longer employees of Community Specialists.
20. Jennifer Reger didn’t stop there, she went after Mark’s substitute license and tried to use
the state license procedure to target him with lies and the state also did a complete background
investigation clearing him of misconduct and Jennifer Reger was stuck with her many committed
crimes. Later on at the right time, God gave Mark all internal emails pertaining to Chicago
Public School, seeing exactly what was happening. He took the evidence and hand it to both
OCR and the FBI.
Page 21 of 62
The lord, God continued to expose Chicago Public School dark schemes, showing framing
employees are the work of Kelly Tarrant and CPS senior leadership. The media recently reported
on the culture of Chicago Public School is to frame teachers, employees, and retaliate against
them.
See famous civil right lawyer Ben Crump reporting CPS and asking the Justice Department to
investigate Chicago Public School.
The press release sent by Mr. Crump also claimed that CPS built cases against terminated Black
principals based on “fabricated reports filled with false claims.”28 As the news media reports
such as CNN, Fox News, ABC7, MSN and more.
Mr. Crump added “if it happens once, it is an incident; if it happens twice we say it is a
coincidence but if it happens third, fourth, fifth and sixth time it is a pattern and practice.”
28
See https://www.foxnews.com/media/chicago-public-schools-fire-removal-black-principals-pattern-practice-
discrimination see https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/black-principals-call-for-investigation-of-chicago-school-
district-after-they-were-fired-from-their-jobs/ar-AA1dA6Gb and see
https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/07/06/supporters-of-3-ousted-black-principals-want-them-back-in-charge-and-
want-cps-boss-out/ and see https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-public-schools-cps-news-ben-crump/13467227/ and
see https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/us/chicago-black-principals-fired-investigation-reaj/index.html and see live
board meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqzOX9vc6gI&t=2622s
Page 22 of 62
21. The story of Mark the Coptic and what happened to him because of this case Bochra v.
U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) on multiple fronts, can’t be explained in any
simple form other than what Mark saw within his visions when the Devil screamed “you with no
answers and no solution just give up” and in that moment Mark called upon all 7 Archangels.29
22. While there are more facts and evidence to this journey, I won’t share my entire OCR
complaint in here, that is left with OCR but the ones who stalked my home and later my place of
work was Jerome Sliva and through him was Gary Feinerman who resigned. Who has
Jurisdiction over Jerome Sliva? Inspector Michael Horowitz of OIG DOJ. There was a similar
story but what happened to Mark was much worse on many fronts.30
29
See https://www.scribd.com/document/724094101/Letter-4-From-Beginning-to-End-There-is-Always-a-
Carpenter
30
See https://oig.justice.gov/news/press-release/deputy-us-marshal-indicted-and-arrested-conspiracy-cyber-
stalking-and-perjury
Page 23 of 62
23. Under a State no Stalking petition, the state court has the hearing testimonies of the
association board member Helga Varden and Sergio Hernandez under oath implicating the US
Marshal, the Executive Committee, and others by their own hands. Many can read the details in
ECF 48 in 1:21-cv-06223. Alicia McNeal was going to lie under oath but she didn’t come and
the one who came was a former board president and a current board member Helga Varden, the
question here is did the association knew the crimes of Alicia McNeal targeting Mark’s place of
work at CPS? The answer would be yes because Alicia McNeal couldn’t do anything without the
guidance of the Association or her supervisor Brian Kelly, she wasn’t acting on her own.
24. Who was following the State Court hearing? Both members of the Executive Committee
and the 7th Circuit Judges and who was raging at Mark telling Mark “leave the judges alone, we
will take care of you” Jim Richmond when his evil plan was being discovered because he was
yelling when he found Mark is filing supplements, he yelled at Mark saying “are you trying to
delay the process, tell me?” And who is the one who destroyed Mark’s very first judicial
misconduct complaint Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through 90048 saying she doesn’t understand? It was
none other than Chief Judge Diane Sykes; followed by the entire 7th Circuit Judicial Council.
Page 24 of 62
II. ARGUMENT
First Mark does not challenge the merit of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal egregious false ruling
with false facts fixing his case but rather the “conspiracy” to fix Mark’s case based on the
threatening words of Jim Richmond’s and Mark asking repeatedly from Chief Judge Diane
Sykes to appoint outside circuit judges but she refused. Here you see repeated efforts to a non-
Page 25 of 62
merit related issues to target Mark and his case. This would also raise direct violation of 18 U.S.
Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or


A. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO CONTINUED RETALIATION
The first disputed facts which would require a special committee to investigate is how many
times did Mark need to report discrimination only to get retaliated against directly and covertly?
The magnitude of everyone involved in Mark’s journey showed that those who wield power
never feared that there is a mighty God looking at everyone and that he sees everyone who sins
and the world works in parable; no one is righteous.
31
32
Page 26 of 62
The first time Mark reported discrimination was in an administrative case in 1:21-cv-06223 ECF
Nos. 10-11 but back then no one cared about the canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act and Mark was retaliated against in ECF 12 and this was the direct visible evidence, not
counting the covert acts such as targeting Mark’s home first and later his place of work.
The second time is when the system which corrects the sins of others came and said “they don’t
understand” doing the cover up.33
vs
33
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717277165/Petition-for-Review-with-Judicial-Conference-Committee
Page 27 of 62
The third time is when an employee from the system i.e., Jim Richmond came and threaten Mark
during an ongoing Judicial Misconduct proceeding telling him how his civil right case would be
fixed by the judges and how he would get retaliated against.34
34
Circuit
35
Page 28 of 62
If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and someone is

prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook
evidence of bias? We can't survive with a justice system we don't trust. I don’t mind if people are
wrong, I really mind if they are unfair.
From that point on, one could see many 7th Circuit Judges have indeed fulfilled the words of Jim
Richmond fixing Mark’s case but in the process they left footprints of their misconduct and this
was God’s work and it is marvelous in God’s eyes. Now you see the official capacity of the
Court is being used to achieve personal and individual motives.
Both Mark’s Executive Committee Appeal 22-1815 and his Department of Education Appeal 22-
2903, 23-1388 were fixed; one appeal was fixed as an “oversize brief” with no equitable
remedies and approved by all en banc panel contradicting a Supreme Court unanimous ruling in
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, et al 16-658 which speaks about
jurisdiction vs. procedural issues which are subject to correction.36 Hon. Judge Frank
Easterbrook which Mark really loves said he can’t overrule the en banc panel ECF No. 61.
Judge Easterbrook best advice for Mark “start reading more”37So Mark started to speak to
judges with parables.
The other appeal 22-2903, 23-1388 was fixed with false facts not even from the case and the
redaction of Kenneth Marcus and Senator Dick Durbin from the case along which much more
and again this was approved by all en banc panel.38 Some Judges now days are engaging in
lawfare and the laws become a chess game for who wield power and how that power is used.
The alternative was appointment of outside circuit judges but they wanted to have control over
the destiny of Mark’s cases to destroy his cases for good; this was evil.
36
See https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-658 see https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hamer-v-
neighborhood-housing-services-chicago/ Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in treating as
jurisdictional Rule 4(a)(5)(C)%E2%80%99s limitation on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal. Judgment:
Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on November 8, 2017.
37
See https://youtu.be/7h1H7C8me8Y?si=1Qb0ZxxMB6Fgrzxh
38
See https://www.scribd.com/document/722513275/Petition-with-the-7th-Circuit-for-Panel-Re-hearing-and-En-
Banc-in-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887
Page 29 of 62
B. THE PARABLE BETWEEN MR. FRANK INSALACO AND MR. JIM RICHMOND
The parable between Mr. Frank Insalaco and Mr. Jim Richmond is that one was good and one
was evil; but whose words came to pass with action not just words? The words of Jim Richmond
were the one that came to pass with evidence is that Mark’s case would be fixed and he would be
retaliated against. The Words of Jim Richmond were:
The Words of Mr. Frank Insalaco were:
o Mark it is not that there is corruption; it is that sometimes the system gets it wrong and
they get better at getting it right. Trust the system. Have faith in the process.
o Keep doing what you are doing and hopefully the system gets better and changes over
time.
o Mark my opinion does not matter; they are more powerful than me.
Here you see the words of the evil work of Jim Richmond compare to the good work of Frank
Insalaco, both with different hearts, one was evil and the other was cheerful. One was evil and
the other was kind giving hope and trying to tell Mark to trust the process. But whose words
came to pass, the evil one or the good one? The evil one i.e., Jim Richmond, thus the evil from
within exposed the system by showing that it is evil and it refuses to change on its own.
Mr. Alex Castaneda assured Mark in the past that “all the judges are professional, there won’t be
any retaliation” but even his words were disregarded and a system created by 15 humans
managing the 7th Circuit, were the one who imposes fear factor on good employees so that the
good employees can’t speak up while the evil employees like Jim Richmond can strive.
39
Page 30 of 62
C. HISTORY OF FAIR HOUSING
In this building, since my family moved to 5757 North Sheridan in late 2006, my family suffered
direct discrimination and retaliation by past board members of the association and management
(The Building Groups), to the point it created an absolute hostile environment causing severe
emotional damages to my entire family including injuring my brother Steve who became
disabled as a result of the chain of events which took place; from assault and battery to a
manager conspiring with building’s employees i.e., (George Perez and Sergio Hernandez) who
still work in this building to this very day, to both discrimination and retaliation based on
national origin and religion, to requesting that I remove a picture of a saint (Saint Abanoub)40
holding the cross taped on our door calling it a “safety hazard and nuisance”, to management
conspiring with wicked board members and unethical lawyers who committed a moral turpitude
i.e., Peter Segal and David Sugar.
It is well established that in this building some board members encouraged deception in order to
win by means of wickedness and out of the abundance of their hearts their mouth spoke, as
substantiated by the recited e-mail of Tim Serges to all previous board members including their
legal counsel at that time “we just file and act quickly and efficiently” sic. Tim Serges along with
past board members discriminated and retaliated against a Coptic family, my family with intent
and malice when they sought a force sale in the middle of an ongoing complaint of
discrimination; turning discrimination into intentional discrimination, violating the Fair Housing
40
See biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abanoub see life story https://youtu.be/QPdStY2-7ig
Page 31 of 62
Act including but not limited to Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act; City of Chicago Human
Rights Ordinance; and the Illinois Human Rights Act, based on national origin (Coptic) (Egypt)
and Religion (Christian Coptic Orthodox).
The legislative history of § 3617 never attempt to define the minimum level of
intimidation or coercion necessary to violate this statute. Therefore, the Court assumes
that the words of the statute―coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere —mean exactly
what they say. As Robert Schwemm describes 42 U.S.C. § 3617, section 3617 acts as a
regulator for those who are blocked from asserting or exercising their fair housing rights,
such as through interference or retaliation by third parties. See, e.g., Krueger v. Cuomo,
115 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1997) (deciding that post-acquisition ―harassment in the
housing context can violate the [FHA]).
Mark my words, they will sell and move out sooner than you think said Frank Haxhaj.
Building Group actually returned in our building and is currently managing it after Community
specialists didn’t want to renew the contract with the association and left along with Alicia
McNeal but in the petition of no stalking wherein, Sergio Hernandez was a respondent, they tried
Page 32 of 62
to use Alicia McNeal as a witness doing the same dirty work but God was great for he judged her
but never tells you when and why, during one of the hearing came Alicia McNeal to the court on
a walking can. Then she saw me and my mother, and later left and never came back after her
knee surgery but who came and replaced her, the board member Helga Verdan lying under oath.
This is Alicia McNeal with her supervisor Brian Kelly of Community Specialists
Page 33 of 62
The result of the past fair housing case led to a settlement retained by the District Court and
signed by Judge Joan Lefkow in Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn. et al (1:12-
CV-00446) (ECF No. 66); my very first litigation without any issues.
Now days, powerful people when they want to harm a weak person, they don’t need to
physically harm that person, all they need to do is setup the person. First Mark was character
lynched over an e-mail related to Jesus Christ and his teachings, placed on a “restricted list” for
the public to view and later his home was stalked covertly by U.S. Marshal Jerome Sliva reading
his emails pertaining to his own litigation in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) causing a hostile environment left and right.
What Alicia McNeal did trying to destroy Mark’s job at Chicago Public School the same day his
Judicial Misconduct Complaint arrived at the 7th Circuit, showed there were coordinated efforts
on many sides to destroy Mark for good.
Page 34 of 62
The Judicial Misconduct Complaint Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through 90048 was delivered on June 10,
2022 at 10:26 a.m. and Mark was character lynched with OIG CPS, that same day on June 10,
2022 at 1:46 pm and many shouted within their hearts “lynch him now! Now or never.”
Between the house 10:26 and 1:46 pm came the phone calls of Alicia McNeal to CPS around
12:54 pm.
What God did is that he placed good people at OIG Chicago Public School like Ms. Jocelyne
Monterrosa to look at the truth along with deputy inspector general Mr. Philip Wagenknecht.41
41
See https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-wagenknecht-a4350a101/
Page 35 of 62
Camie Pratt, Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant have tried so hard to frame Mark portraying a
different reality but God was in its midst.
Who resigned once they found out there is an OCR investigation? Gary Feinerman
Page 36 of 62
The coordinated effort to destroy Mark was worse than this story:
Page 37 of 62
D. ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO JUDGE SHEILA M. FINNEGAN: CANON 4(A)4

“RETALIATION FOR REPORTING DISCRIMINATION”
It is true that Mark forgave the Executive Committee but healing in that situation was not
provided yet. The one who knows the secret behind everything that happened would be a former
member of the Executive Committee i.e., Judge Sheila Finnegan, she left the Executive
Committee on January 3, 2023, so she is aware of everything that happened before that date.42
One would ask her when Mark complained of discrimination in 1:21-cv-06223 ECF Nos. 10-11
why did she retaliated in ECF No. 12 and why would they meet on April 7, 2022, sign the order
April 20, 2022, and docket the order April 26, 2022 as if they were waiting for something evil to
happen. See also canon 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
42
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/Presiding%20MJ%20Kim01032023FINAL.pdf
Page 38 of 62
Here is a story: 3 teenagers partied while knowing they have an exam the next day, they partied
and didn't study and when the exam time came, they told their teacher “teacher we had a flat tire
while visiting a family member who was sick and we ended up pushing the car all the way home
and we didn't have time to prepare for the exam.” So the teacher gave the students 3 days to
study and to take the exam and on the day of the exam, each student was sitting in a separate
room with two questions on the exam.
The first question: Did you study well for the exam?
The second question: Which tire of the car was it flat?
The same scenario to find out the crimes of Gary Feinerman connecting him to Chicago Public
School targeting which started on April 1, 2022 and repeated on June 10, 2022.
The Subject of Mark’s OCR Complaint Stephen Harden passed away out of the blue in May of
2023. Was this normal? But there are two more witnesses AP McDonald and AP Edna Mercado.
Page 39 of 62
Page 40 of 62
E. RETALIATION BY THE EN BANC PANEL: THE ENTIRE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES
Based on the filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint Nos. 07-24-90049 through -90063, it showed
that the order entered in 24-1592 by one anonymous judge or 3 panel judges according to Clerk
Supervisor #1 who told Mark on 4/29/2024 that the order entered in 24-1592 was by 3 panel
judges. This action showed that the En Banc panel will fix Mark’s petition because of this
targeted sanction with filing bar came in the midst of an ongoing petition for rehearing and
hearing en banc in 22-2903, 23-1388 and a judicial misconduct complaint in Nos. 07-24-90029
through 90043.
Indeed this was the reality. The order came while Mark was at the church praying for “Good
Friday”; Mark already knew that the day Satan will strike would be on Good Friday.
This would violate canon 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
Page 41 of 62
This would also violate several Canons, Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and especially Canon 3 “A Judge
Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently” Canon 3(A)(1),
Canon 3(A)(2), Canon 3(A)(3).43
a) Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
b) Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All
Activities
c) Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and
Diligently
The petition for re-hearing and hearing en banc also revealed part of the truth. On one side Mr.
Frank Insalaco told Mark in the past “you were suppose to get assigned a 3 judges panel to your
case, the judges know what happened” when Mark’s case was fixed with facts not even from the
case and Mark spoke with Mr. Insalco about his words to have faith in the system and to trust the
process. But the order entered said the “judges on the original panel denied the petition” this
indicated that 3 judges all came to conspire against Mark to fix his case fulfilling the words of
Jim Richmond. These are the type of disputed facts subject to a special committee to investigate.
43
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
44
Page 42 of 62


Mark does not challenge a merit related question behind the order but a non-merit related
question in terms of how Mark’s appeal was fixed according to the threatening words of Jim
Richmond. When an objective observer looks at this complaint, they will find that the words
spoken by Jim Richmond were fulfilled verbatim with action not mere words.
Was Mark’s appeal fixed by a staff attorney or was it fixed by 3 panel judges who all came and
agreed to conspire to fix Mark’s appeal with false facts not even from the case while erasing
Kenneth Marcus name from existence fulfilling the words of Jim Richmond.
This would violate canon 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”).
45
Page 43 of 62
There was always an alternative to this entire journey “appointment of outside circuit judges” but
the choice was made long time ago to fix Mark’s appeal one way or another.46
In order to adjudicate the elements of retaliation for filing a complaint for discrimination, one
would use the same elements used by Office for Civil Rights.
(1) whether the complainant engaged in a protected activity; (2) whether the recipient
was aware of the complainant’s protected activity; (3) whether the complainant was
subjected to an adverse action contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the recipient’s
learning of the complainant’s involvement in the protected activity; and, (4) whether
there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action from
which a retaliatory motivation reasonably may be inferred. When there is evidence of all
four elements, OCR then determines whether the recipient has a legitimate, non-
retaliatory reason for the challenged action or whether the reason adduced by the
recipient is a pretext to hide its retaliatory motivation.
The Justice Department released a “Dear Colleague” letter dated April 20, 2023 to all State and
Federal Courts receiving federal funds, stating.47
The letter reminds court systems and other federal financial assistance recipients of their
ongoing obligations not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex and disability; to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited
English proficiency; and to ensure that appropriate recordkeeping can help identify and
avoid potential violations of federal nondiscrimination laws. The department will also
follow up on this letter by building a best practices guide, highlighting innovative work
by states and court leaders in this area. “Justice in the United States should not depend on
one’s income or background,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.
46
here-2021-10-06/
47
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-
and-fees-youth-and Letter https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1580546/download
Page 44 of 62
F. FEAR OF RETALIATION DESTROYS PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC

CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
Everything that happened to Mark the Coptic, directly and covertly is precisely why some
employees of the Court without mentioning names told me “Mark we are just employees, we
don’t have a say in anything, we don’t want to get in trouble, we just work here.”
It took 16 years for the judicial branch to remove one evil magistrate judge.49 Truly the judicial
branch worship the title of a “judge” like a King or a Queen but Jesus Christ would come and
reply “no one is righteous.”
While here, Judges of the DC Court cared more about trying to find the leaker of the surveys
rather than addressing the misconducts among Judges.50 The same issue appeared in the case of
48
49
See https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/ex-magistrate-judges-16-year-career-marked-by-manipulation-
unpredictable-and-hypercritical-outbursts-judicial-council/
50
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/dc-court-survey-leak-investigation/
Page 45 of 62
Strickland v. United States of America (1:20-cv-00066); see ruling Caryn Strickland v. US, No.
21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).51
Here a Judge tried to find the “mole” who reported him causing him to be removed.52
Likewise, here is a former US Attorney who resigned amid ethics investigation but later he
became the investigator investigating judges.53 Quite the parable here; no one is righteous.
At one point, according to the subordinate, when Kees asked for a kiss in an elevator and
she declined, he said, “You do know I’m in charge of your promotions, right?” Kees did
not recall making the comment, the report notes. Their relationship ended soon after this
interaction, according to the documents.
51
52
See https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-ordered-removed-for-troubling-inability-to-conform-his-
behavior-to-judicial-standards
53
See https://theintercept.com/2024/05/14/arkansas-us-attorney-dak-kees-ethics/ report of OIG DOJ 2021
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/foiaroom-24-019.pdf
Page 46 of 62
“To my mind, transparency goes with accountability,” Inspector Michael Horowitz of OIG DOJ
said. “Where you have transparency … transparency is the best disinfectant. If the public knows,
if the lawyers in the department know that their misconduct is going to be public, I think that
helps reform behavior, and it deters other folks.”54
So in order to counter fear of retaliations, transparency were needed in order for the system to
reform itself, pride has been the very first major sin with many judges that resulted in many sins.
So a Jewish lawyer started to create a database for judges.55
While another Jewish lawyer created a public review website for all the federal judges and the
public gets to see the good judges from the evil judges.56 Just like Rate My Professor which I’ve
used in undergrad at UIC to sign up for courses taught my kind professors not evil ones. 57 Sadly
law school was different; you don’t have the option to choose different professors. Like in
Mark’s story he was stuck with Prof. Gregory Pingree (threatened by his own law professor not
to reveal the truth), see ECF 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
What both Former members of the Executive Committee led by Gary Feinerman and Chicago
Public School senior leadership learned from reading Mark’s journey in law school when he was
turned from a Complainant into a Respondent, they both tried to replicate the same journey but
God was in its midst.
54
See IG Horowitz Seeks Authority to Investigate DOJ Lawyers | Newsmax.com
55
See https://www.npr.org/2024/05/10/1245903951/federal-judges-clerks-harrassment and see
https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/clerkships-database
56
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
57
See https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/
Page 47 of 62
For Mark wrote, in my mind there are many words that I would like to say, and in my heart there
are more words to say than what my mind can share but I prefer the brief silence, in order to
allow the Lord, God to speak.
They surrounded me like bees. They pushed me violently, that I might fall, but the Lord
helped me. The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. The
voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tents of the righteous; the right hand of the Lord
does valiantly. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord does
valiantly. I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord has
chastened me severely; but He has not given me over to death [Psalms 118:12-18].58
Three dates are important to the timeline.
a) First my EOCO complaint April 1st directly sent to Camie Pratt via email and later a
follow up phone call while around the same time i was attacked by the executive
committee April 7th.
b) Second date showed Udeme Itiat tried to align the Google meet on her own June 21, 2022
with my hearing date in my own case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
58
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+118%3A12-20&version=NKJV
Page 48 of 62
03887) also on June 21, 2022, to time the retaliation after my case gets dismissed was
their goal.
c) Third date is the day my judicial misconduct complaint arrived at the 7th Circuit June 10,
2022 few hours later same day, i was retaliated against at CPS.
You need an agreement of “2 or more to do a certain crime” whether civil deprivation or

criminal and you don’t need to prove “intent” only an agreement is needed, and you don’t need
to prove the agreement but look at the circumstantial evidence.59 Deprivation of Rights under
Color of Law.60 See also 18 U.S. Code § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.
Mark had to put side by side the two orders (one by 8 members of the Executive Committee) and
another by 17 Federal Judges of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council and he asked who understand
and who doesn’t what is clear on the docket? The greatest sin was how Chief Judge Diane Sykes
used her powers to cover up the sins of others rather than provide some healing.
a) The Executive Committee waited after Mark reported discrimination on the docket in
February 18, 2022. They could have said “go appeal our administrative order” but that
didn’t happen, they waited the month of February, then March, then April came. Then
their order was docketed April 26, 2022 but what was unique about the order is that they
said “they met April 7, signed the order April 20, and then docketed the order April 26,
2022 as if they were waiting for something evil to happen but it didn’t occur. That evil
thing was Mark’s being attacked at CPS on April 1st 2022.
b) The same wait game to retaliate happened at CPS, William Fletcher forged OIG CPS
report by Jennifer Reger showed a date April 5, 2022 but Mark’s EOCO CPS complaint
was filed April 1st 2022. That means William Fletcher waited the month of April, then
May, then June until Mark’s EOCO CPS complaint was destroyed by Udeme Itiat and
later he retaliated. But when did he retaliate? On the day Mark’s judicial misconduct
complaint arrived at the 7th Circuit on June 10, 2022. But he later vindicated Mark of any
misconduct and the evidence revealed it was Jennifer Reger and Kelly Tarrant along with
Camie Pratt carrying the plan to destroy Mark led by Jennifer Reger.
59
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hC-LyNdkc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeMt5rfzg0
60
See https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Page 49 of 62
vs
Page 50 of 62
Mark has the option to report Jennifer Reger, Camie Pratt, and Kelly Tarrant to the Illinois Bar,
especially Jennifer Reger for committing a moral turpitude but he hasn’t done so. The IL bar
investigation would reveal more to the truth because it would subject them to respond to a
complaint explaining why Jennifer Reger forged an OIG CPS report using Inspector William
Fletcher’s name and filling it with false data and information.
Page 51 of 62
III. THE PARABLE OF THE 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
Three Supreme Court Justices came and spoke recently to the public but if one paid attention,
each one was in a different setting, it was their settings that made them give different speeches.
First came Justice Alito and spoke about “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” because
he was given a speech at a catholic school who awarded him with an honoree “doctorate in
Christian ethics from the University.”61
“Freedom of religion is also imperiled,” he told the graduating students. “When you
venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community or a social
setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core
beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.” Said Justice Alito.62
But people are defined by their work not their words and their work should appear before the
weak and the poor first rather than the powerful, for who gives blessings humans or the lord
Jesus Christ? Here Justice Alito said “no one is defending us”
o Sam Alito Says Criticism of Supreme Court Is ‘Unfair’: ‘Practically Nobody Is

Defending Us’63
Second came Justice Clarence Thomas but he focused more on his own pride and status before
the Judicial Conference saying in part DC is a place of nastiness and lies. 64 He wasn’t able to say
61
See https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-alito-warns-declining-support-freedom-speech-
college-campuses-rcna151817 and see https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/alito-condemns-
fundamental-threats-while-toning-down-rhetoric
62
See video https://twitter.com/JCNSeverino/status/1790455024687997261
63
See https://www.jezebel.com/sam-alito-says-criticism-of-supreme-court-is-unfair-pr-1850388904
Page 52 of 62
that he sinned like everyone else and asks for forgiveness that he will get better like the story of
“mosses the black” when they brought him a sinner so the monks can judge him. St Moses told
them why you need me to judge another when my sins are running behind my back.65 However,
here Justice Clarence Thomas tried to deny a reality that he was lobbied by billionaires because
billionaires would not invite the weak and the poor to luxury trips and shower them with gifts but
rather the one with powers.66
If you love only the people who love you, why should you receive a blessing? For even
sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, why
should you receive a blessing? Even Sinners do that.67
vs
64
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/10/kavanaugh-thomas-alito-supreme-court-speeches/
and see https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-clarence-thomas-alabama-judicial-conference-2024-5
65
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_the_Black and see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIlirFdeLU&t=6548s
66
See Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events — ProPublica and see Clarence
Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor — ProPublica
67
Page 53 of 62
Here the Lord, God through Senator Sheldon Whitehouse showed that the judges who judges
every day American they themselves commit the same sins without accountabilities for this was
the parable “who is righteous among you shall cast a stone at her” Jesus Christ told the angry
crowd reply to the sinner “go and sin no more.”68
See Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s reciting sins that judges judge them.69
DEA field office chief failed to disclose private air travel (he said “for personal reasons”)
between duty station in Mexico and home in Texas; pled guilty to §1001 false statements;
sentenced to two years probation and 100 hours community service
VA hospital director failed to disclose domestic and international airline tickets, concert
tickets, a check for $5,000, resort spa services, a gift card, and a marathon registration
fee; pled guilty to §1001 false statement; sentenced to two years probation.
HUD official failed to disclose luxury box tickets to Washington Redskins football game;
pled guilty to §1018 “false statements by a public official”; sentenced to 12 months
probation, 60 hours community service and $500 fine
A Department of Interior official failed to disclose tickets to Washington Redskins game

and Simon and Garfunkel concert (donor said for “unused” seats, for“personal friend”);
pled guilty to §1018 “false statement by a public official”
Congressman failed to disclose commercial and private jet travel, accommodations in

Scotland and London, free golf, meals, drinks, and transportation — also trips to New
Orleans and Lake George, NY. They pled guilty to §1001 false statement and conspiracy
68
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5GXnM_TxSQ
69
See https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1790129256980156429
Page 54 of 62
to commit honest services fraud, make false statements, and violate lobbying ban;
sentenced to 30 months prison, $6,000 fine, 1,200 hours community service.
AG William Barr learning from reading many of Mark’s past emails and letter went to teach his
ranks at the justice department the meaning to the parable of the justice system.70
Last came Justice Brett Kavanaugh who said “stay away from politics” and he added “judges
need to stay consistent with their rulings so the public doesn’t question them” and he spoke about
“unpopular rulings how they turn out to be popular in the future” like Brown vs Board of
Education.71
In his answer, Kavanaugh said some high court decisions from the 1950s and ‘60s on
monumental issues spanning civil and criminal rights, free speech and school prayer —
including the iconic Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal segregation in
public schools — were unpopular when they were issued. “The Warren court was no
picnic for the justices. … They were unpopular basically from start to finish from ’53 to
’69,” Kavanaugh said. “What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its
principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions (were) unpopular, and a lot of
them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric
of American constitutional law.”
But we all know the world works in parable, when Judge Kavanaugh was under questioning, he
started to ramble about politics, the DC, the Democrats, and he even said the Clintons revenge
and claiming operatives coming after him; he said all of this in a live hearing.72 Now no judge
with pride loves this situation at all, zero. Because power was taken from him at that time and
turned into “have you done this and why are you keeping this diary” “do you like beer and how
many bottles of beer do you drink?” etc.
Here the Lord, God tested the powerful in different trials so that they have compassion over the
weak and the ones who need their help. The story of Justice Kavanaugh would not be forgotten
rather it will be remembers again and again if he neglected the weak and the poor. Just like the
story of Justice Clarence Thomas, it will follow him as a reminder to have compassion on the
weak and the poor.
70
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/remarks-attorney-general-william-p-barr-hillsdale-college-
constitution-day-event
71
See https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/brett-kavanaugh-says-unpopular-rulings-can-later-
become-fabric-america-rcna151783
72
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjLMnXlT56w
Page 55 of 62
See remarks.73
The message behind these trials is for the powerful to be kind toward the weak just as the Lord;
God himself saved them from their own trials.
CONCLUSION
their courtrooms. Their stamp of approval incentivizes second- and third-order discrimination. If
targeting a Coptic based on his Coptic identity is permitted, then everyone will see that
discrimination with retaliation is the norm of the Judicial Branch and enlisting fear of retaliation
is what the public often reports about.
Retaliation for those who wield power is the norm.74
73
See https://youtu.be/ZURHD5BU1o8?si=0fZsm9IfmXEeKXNq&t=188
74
Page 56 of 62
prescribed.
This complaint does not challenge any judge’s ruling in a case. It does not mount a collateral
attack on the substance of any case. Nor does it challenge “without more” the correctness. See
Standard 2 for Assessing Compliance with the Act, Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice 145 (2006).
To be sure, the judges’ misconduct is not immunized by their memorializing the discriminatory
policies under court seal in standing orders. Rule 4(b)(1)—the rule excluding from the definition
of judicial misconduct merits-related rulings—does not excuse the misconduct in this case. That
is because this complaint focuses on the propriety of the judges’ telegraphing an illicit motive.
Rule 4(b)(1) does not compel dismissal of this complaint for a second reason. Even if you
determine that the complaint somehow challenges a procedural ruling— rather than the policies
compelling decisions that in turn constitute procedural rulings— this complaint should still go
forward under Rule 4(b)(1) because it does not challenge procedural rulings “without more.” Id.

Investigation should determine whether the discriminatory practice telegraphed by the judges has
occurred and whether it is ongoing.
On May 14, 2024 I spoke directly with Mr. Alex Castaneda and he asked me “Mark how can I
help you, what are you seeking?” So I told him my simple reliefs and he started to write them
down. I asked (1) to be removed from the restricted list the executive committee put me in (2) I
seek the removal of the arbitrary $1600 fee that was imposed (3) for the judges to receive more
training not to discriminate or retaliate. I added the system has to change to get better.
I don’t need anything else, God bless the judges’ hearts.
I also said I will leave OCR to handle Chicago Public School which is tied to my employment.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 57 of 62
EXHIBIT LIST
A Copy of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint with Mr. Christopher Conway, Clerk of the
7th Circuit letter to Mark Bochra docketing Judicial Complaint under Nos. 07-24-90029
through 90043 dated April 4, 2024.
B Copy of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint with Mr. Christopher Conway, Clerk of the
7th Circuit letter to Mark Bochra docketing Judicial Complaint under Nos. Nos. 07-24-
90049 through 90063 dated May 1, 2024.
C Copy of the Letter signed by more than 1200 Jewish faculty and law professors
objecting to the IHRA definition.
D Mark’s letter to the Chair of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery
Sutton.
Page 58 of 62
CC
Via Electronic Mails
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

Chief of Staff for the President Deputy Chief of Staff for the President
Washington, DC 20500
[email protected]
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

Deputy Chief of Staff for the President Senior Advisor for the President
The Honorable Steven J. Ricchetti The Honorable Jacob J. Sullivan

Counselor for the President National Security Advisor for the President
The Honorable Karine Jean-Pierre

White House Press Secretary
[email protected]
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States Hon. Scott S. Harris
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543 [email protected]
[email protected]
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
Page 59 of 62
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Joseph Biden [email protected] // [email protected]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr [email protected]
Donald J. Trump [email protected]
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
Members of the Judicial Conference Committee.75
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT

Judge Joel Flaum [email protected]
Judge Kenneth Ripple [email protected]
Judge Ilana Rovner [email protected]
Judge Diane Wood [email protected]
Judge David Hamilton [email protected]
Judge Thomas Kirsch II [email protected]
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi [email protected]
Judge John Lee [email protected]
7th CIRCUIT STAFF
Mr. Frank Insalaco Docket Supervisor [email protected]

Ms. Sarah Schrup Circuit Executive [email protected]
Mr. Alexander Castaneda Deputy Circuit Executive [email protected]
Mr. Jim Richmond [Former Docket Supervisor] [email protected]
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IL
Judge Sara Ellis [email protected]

Judge Sheila Finnegan [email protected]
Clerk Thomas Bruton [email protected]
5th CIRCUIT STAFF
Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce [email protected]

Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin [email protected]
75
See members https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/jcus_members_2024-mar-3.pdf
Page 60 of 62
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER
Mr. Michael Henry

[email protected]
[email protected]
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

Inspector General of DOJ Director of the U.S. Marshals
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
[email protected]
The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
[email protected]
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Chief of Staff – Pat Souders Chief of Staff – Jennifer Heins
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable Amy Klobuchar

Chief of Staff – Monalisa Dugu Chief of Staff – Tamara Fucile
The Honorable Chris Coon The Honorable Richard Blumenthal

Chief of Staff – Brian Winseck Chief of Staff – Joel Kelsey
The Honorable Mazie Hirono The Honorable Cory Booker

Chief of Staff – Coti Haia Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron
The Honorable Alex Padilla The Honorable Jon Ossoff

Chief of Staff – David Montes Chief of Staff – Reynaldo Benitez
The Honorable Peter Welch The Honorable Laphonza Butler

Chief of Staff – Ali Golden Chief of Staff – Marvin Figueroa
The Honorable John Cornyn The Honorable Mike Lee

Chief of Staff – Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff – Mark Wait
Page 61 of 62
The Honorable Ted Cruz The Honorable Josh Hawley

Chief of Staff – Aaron Reitz Chief of Staff – Chris Weihs
The Honorable Tom Cotton The Honorable John Kennedy

Chief of Staff – Doug Coutts Chief of Staff – David Stokes
The Honorable Thom Tillis The Honorable Marsha Blackburn

Chief of Staff – Shil Patel Chief of Staff – Jon Adame
HOUSE JUDIACRY COMMITTEE

HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House
THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
President Ms. Maya Wiley [email protected]

Executive Vice President Mr. Chris Canning [email protected]
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
President Ms. Janai Nelson [email protected]

Associate Director-Counsel Ms. Tona Boyd [email protected]
JUDICIALWATCH
Mr. Thomas Fitton [email protected]

Mr. Paul Orfanedes [email protected]
Mr. Chris Farrell [email protected]
FIRST AMERICAN LEGAL
President Mr. Stephen Miller [email protected]

Executive Director Mr. Gene Hamilton [email protected]
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL
CEO Pedro Martinez [email protected]

Chicago Board of Education President Jianan Shi [email protected]
Inspector William Fletcher CPS [email protected]
Page 62 of 62

Judicial Misconduct Complaint (Rule 26) Outside Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Misconduct Complaint (Rule 26) Outside Circuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Misconduct Complaint (Rule 26) Outside Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AO 310 (Rev.

Judicial C*uncil of the Seventh Cir*uit

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY

l. Name of Complainant: Mark Bochra

Daytirne teleph**e: { 773 } 95 l-2420

Jree$i*in* C*uncil *f th* Seventh ilirc*it

{:#e,gPLAflNY #S: .} tuffi5ffXih$- IkX.ISC#Nffi{-rCT, {}${ ffigS&ffi'$LEYY

Declaration and signature:

$ig**{$r*: /s/ Mark Bochra {}a{r: 0712212024

I. MOTION SEEKING OUTSIDE CIRCUIT UNDER RULE 26........................................................................ 11

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL

The Honorable John Roberts

The Honorable Christopher G. Conway The Honorable Diane Sykes

Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Attorney General Hon. Mr. Merrick Garland Honorable Benjamin C. Mizer

The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

July 22, 2024

A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT WITH RETALIATION

Dear Mr. Christopher Conway,

The bible teaches us:

Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(a)(3) states “Discrimination. Cognizable misconduct

I. MOTION SEEKING OUTSIDE CIRCUIT UNDER RULE 26

Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council

June 4, 2024 the 7th Circuit Judicial Council previously met.

III. CERTIFIED MISCONDUCT OF THE COMPLAINT

To the simplest mind, the facts went as follow:

Angelina Jolie said.26

A. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE DIANE SYKES AND HER

c) An investigative journalist and his publication are sued for defamation by

01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov).43 During several follow up conversations because he knew it

They both argued with the following:

The words of Inspector General Michael Horowitz come to many mind:

o Study recommends US judiciary improve workplace misconduct systems.45

o Workplace Misconduct Practices Vary by Court, Report Finds.48

The words of Governor Pritkzer also come to many mind:

B. TO INVESITGATE THE REPORTED MISCONDUCTS BY FORMER JUDGE

Here are the leaks.53

The author of the article adds:

In another book written by Judge Richard Posner he said the following:

Was the letter by the Judicial Conference Committee frivolous too?57

Moreover, the complained-of misconduct is unlikely to be corrected outside of the misconduct

C. TO INVESTIGATE JUDGE SARA ELLIS OF WHAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT

In my 124 pages brief, I explained how this tale started. I wrote:

Here is another story:

The United States Department of Justice has subsequently initiated a criminal

You need an agreement of “2 or more to do a certain crime” whether civil deprivation or

D. TO INVESTIGATE CHIEF JUDGE REBECCA PALLMEYER BEING A

Unfortunately, the Marshals Service’s reaction to previous incidents of serious

As one can see an example here:

o Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a U.S. Marshal and Chief Deputy

A different Complainant alleging a series of serious crimes.

Mark’s very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint.

Here is another story:

Conversely, an allegation that a judge conspired with a prosecutor to make a particular

The existence of an appellate remedy is usually irrelevant to whether an allegation is

E. TO INVESTIGATE NEXT TO BECOME CHIEF JUDGE VIRGINIA KENDALL A

Judicial Cuncil of the Seventh Ciruit

Jree$iin Cuncil f th* Seventh ilirc*it