Petition For Review - Judicial Conference Committee Rule 26

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.
” Jesus Christ
Table of Contents
I. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 20
A. THE ROLE OF AN INVESTIGATOR UNDER TITLE IX .............................................................................. 22
B. HOW TO TURN A COMPLAINANT INTO A RESPONDENT. ................................................................... 25
C. CHARACTER LYNCHING MARK THE COPTIC. ....................................................................................... 33
D. MARK DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE 7TH CIRCUIT. ................................................................ 37
E. FIXING MARK’S APPEAL FULFILLING THE WORDS OF JIM RICHMOND ............................................... 38
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 41
Page 1 of 45
“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ
Mark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

Office of General Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
JCD_PetitionforReview@ao.uscourts.gov
The Honorable John Roberts The Honorable Jeffery Sutton

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chair of the Judicial Conference
1 First Street, NE Executive Committee
Washington, D.C. 20543 Administrative Office of the U.S Courts
jroberts@supremecourt.gov jeffrey_sutton@ca6.uscourts.gov
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
chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov
Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

Circuit Executive Deputy Circuit Executive
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780
Sarah_Schrup@ca7.uscourts.gov Alexander_Castaneda@ca7.uscourts.gov
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
info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

Chairman Ranking Member
2157 Rayburn House Office Building 2157 Rayburn House Office Building
oversight.republicans@mail.house.gov oversight.democrats@mail.house.gov
Page 2 of 45
The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

2138 Rayburn House Building 2138 Rayburn House Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Judiciary_Whistleblower@mail.house.gov
Attorney General Hon. Mr. Merrick Garland Honorable Benjamin C. Mizer

Via Chief of Staff Mr. Matthew Klapper Acting Associate Attorney General
Matthew.b.Klapper@usdoj.gov Benjamin.Mizer@usdoj.gov
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
corey.amundson@usdoj.gov Jeffrey.Ragsdale@usdoj.gov
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
Rachel.Rossi@usdoj.gov kristen.clarke@usdoj.gov
AccesstoJustice@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

Inspector General of the Justice Department FBI Deputy Director Mr. Paul Abbate
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov FBI Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler
cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
June 10, 2024
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL DENIAL AND/OR

FAILURE TO APPOINT OUTSIDE CIRCUIT UNDER RULE 26 (INVESTIGATORS
CANNOT INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES) NO JUDGE ADMITS THEIR OWN SINS
BECAUSE OF STATUS AND PRIDE
Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043.

Re: Rule 25(f) stays silent on whether an investigator can investigate himself or herself; this
process doesn’t create a neutral, independent investigatory process under Title IX.
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).
1
See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/
Page 3 of 45
Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability,
I am respectfully filing this petition requesting the review of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council, an
administrative body within the Judicial Branch recent order entered on June 4, 2024 attached
herein as Exhibit “I” for denial or failure to appoint outside circuit under rule 26 of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), given the perceived bias, compounded with self
interest, while the subjects of the complaint cannot be the investigators investigating themselves.
This is not a matter of a case or an appeal wherein, a plaintiff or an appellant is requesting

recusal just as it happens in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).2 The pending
judicial misconduct complaints raise many disputed facts subject to a special committee to
investigate however, members of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council who many of them are the
subjects of the complaints, especially Chief Judge Diane Sykes cannot be the investigator
investigating herself; her self-interest lies within her own status and not Mark’s well being.
When Office of Inspector General at the Justice Department investigated a US Attorney for title
ix violations i.e., Mr. Duane Kees, it was an independent office investigating him rather than he
himself investigating his own conducts because while he was even under an OIG DOJ
investigation, he tried to cover his own misconduct. The report by OIG DOJ notes:
He even tried to block the firing of another employee who had committed “additional acts
of misconduct” to keep his own misconduct out of the spotlight.3
Any honest Justice Department Official would not agree that the same independent process
applied by OIG DOJ cannot be used within the Judicial Branch.
How to prevent cover ups and tempering with evidence in a system of self-policing? How can a
U.S. attorney receive an independent investigation while Judges can investigate their own
misconduct(s) acting as an investigator and a jurist at the same time, violating Title IX.
The process of self policing has destroyed public trust and public confidence in the judicial
branch as the main stream media keeps on reporting.4
2
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html
3
See foiaroom-24-019.pdf (justice.gov) see news This U.S. Attorney Resigned Amid an Ethics Investigation. Yet He
Wound Up Overseeing Judges’ Ethics. - The Intercept
4
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pervasive-judicial-misconduct-raises-question-whos-charge-
here-2021-10-06/
Page 4 of 45
Justice Clarence Thomas speaks of “courage” and how the powerful should protect the weak.5 In
parables, was the leaker from within the D.C. Court System leaking surveys showing misconduct
among judges an act of courage in a system that often tries to cover their own misconducts?6
Congress has delegated these duties to the Judicial Branch to be a Jurist, a manager, and an
investigator but when the role switches to an investigator, an investigator is subject to the same
rules and standards applies to any investigator who might temper with any evidence or cover up
the truth or even worse, destroys an investigation before it even begins.
These were all called public servants however; it doesn’t mean they couldn’t do evil when power
is given to them and thus the official acts of evil work always comingle with motives as Mark
often says to find the truth “look at the person who has power and see how he or she uses that
power, for good or evil” Only then will the truth be revealed.
These were all public servants but it doesn’t mean they couldn’t do evil when no one is looking.
a) See FBI Attorney Admits altering Email Used for FISA Application during “Crossfire
Hurricane” Investigation.7 See also Ex-FBI Agent Who Helped Initiate Trump-Russia
Probe to Plead Guilty to Illegally Working for Russian Oligarch.8
5
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSX5nAjWL90
6
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/dc-court-survey-leak-investigation/
7
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-
crossfire-hurricane
8
See https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ex-fbi-agent-who-helped-initiate-trump-russia-probe-to-plead-
guilty-to-illegally-working-for-russian-oligarch/
Page 5 of 45
b) See Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Supervisor Indicted for Covering Up the
Assault of a Restrained Inmate.9
c) See Deputy U.S. Marshal Indicted and Arrested for Conspiracy, Cyber Stalking and
Perjury.10
d) See 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).
Attached herein as Exhibit “II”, please find a copy of my complaints in Nos. 07-24-90029
through 90043 and 07-24-90049 through 90063; the 3rd judicial misconduct complaint is under
review by the chief circuit judge yet I was not given a case number for it. This 3rd judicial
misconduct complaint ties former members of the executive committee to how my place of work
was targeted at Chicago Public School; mainly Gary Feinerman who resigned on December 5,
2022.11 His resignation came exactly within 2 days right after Mark entry ECF No. 103 in
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) became public, revealing there is an
ongoing OCR complaint against Chicago Public School officials; this entry was docketed
Wednesday November 30, 2022. Gary Feinerman over the weekend immediately tendered his
resignation to President Biden on Monday December 5, 2022; resigned not retired.
It is easier for one to say a powerful judge Gary Feinerman influenced the remaining 6 judges of
the executive committee in an administrative body to follow his lead in craving evil over good
and that is why chief district Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer asked Gary Feinerman to resign, rather
than say all 7 federal judges conspired to time their retaliation by not only stalking Mark’s home
through a 3rd party former US Marshal Jerome Sliva but also the targeting of his place of work at
Chicago Public School ties with the retaliation taken by former members of the Executive
Committee. I understand this tale looks evil but I love Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer and so I always
say I don’t like the evil that took place but I still like her and no one is righteous, this tale proved
that everyone sins. The targeting started over a video about Jesus Christ saying “go and sin no
more” and the Lord, God proved his words with action through my journey.
So the remedy is healing but I don’t trust the system after seeing them fixing my appeal in
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) in Nos. 22-2903 & 23-1388 after the
reported threatening words of a former supervisor at the 7th Circuit under the name Jim
Richmond.12
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.
9
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-supervisor-indicted-covering-assault-
restrained-inmate
10
See https://oig.justice.gov/news/press-release/deputy-us-marshal-indicted-and-arrested-conspiracy-cyber-
stalking-and-perjury
11
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
12
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717275139/Judicial-Misconduct-Reporting-Jim-Richmond-of-the-7th-
Circuit
Page 6 of 45
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).13 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.
What happened next is that Jim Richmond’s words were fulfilled verbatim and my appeal in
Nos. 22-2903 & 23-1388 was fixed wherein another supervisor Mr. Frank Insalaco told Mark
“you were supposed to receive a 3 panel judges, the judges know what happened.” This implies
that someone powerful inside the 7th Circuit fixed my case fulfilling the words of Jim Richmond
verbatim; the order doesn’t reveal any name for any judge who fixed my appeal with false facts
from someone own imagination, not even from the case record.
When Mark petitioned for re-hearing and en banc hearing in Nos. 22-2903 & 23-1388, all 7th
Circuit Judges denied the petition, leaving the fixed appeal as is with false facts not even from
the case record, this begs the question, was that justice under Canon 3 of the Judicial Conduct
and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) and what about the retaliation under Canon 4(a)(4).
The purpose of this complaint is healing not justice but so far every time Mark asks for
mediation and healing, the 7th Circuit treats him like a “trash”. Even one of their own, former 7th
Circuit Judge Richard Posner said “they treat pro se litigants like trash and destroy appeals with
merits.”14 This was a testimony of a whistleblower from within.
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.
For example, members of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council failed to form a quorum because many
of them were 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.”
13
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf
14
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225 and see
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_most_judges_regard_pro_se_litigants_as_kind_of_trash_nor_
worth_the_t see Confidential report pertaining to the Judicial Conference Committee to then Chief Judge Diane
Wood https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://abovethelaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf&hl=en_US
Page 7 of 45
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).15 Yet they all voted to form a quorum
as step (1) and in the second vote as step (2), they voted to appoint Chief Judge Diane Sykes to
handle the complaints, 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.”
15
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judicial-council7.htm
Page 8 of 45
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
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.
In the very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint wherein, Mark was being targeted at Chicago
Public School while also being retaliated against by former members of the Executive
committee, came both Chief Circuit judge Diane Sykes and the 7th Circuit Judicial Council and
all said “they don’t understand” what was clear on the docket.
vs
Page 9 of 45
How Chief Judge Diane Sykes can say she doesn’t understand what is clear on the docket?
While also in Mark’s appeal brief in 22-1815 ECF Nos. 56-57 or ECF No. 120 on pages 39-40
Jim Richmond told Mark “Mark leave the judges alone, we will take care of you”.16
16
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-
22-1815-121-Cv-06223
Page 10 of 45
What is a moral turpitude?
A Moral Turpitude: a phrase that describes wicked, deviant behavior constituting an

immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from ordinary social standards such that it would
shock a community.17
See the story of Jezebel committing a moral turpitude, no one saw her evil work by human
standards because of her given title, a queen but there was a powerful God in heaven watching
all humans and know their hearts, whether they are good or evil. 18 For the Lord, God told
Mark.19
They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you. For I am with you,
says the Lord, “to deliver you” [Jeremiah 1:19].20
When the Roman Emperor persecuted Saint Abanoub, a 12 years old child from Nehisa, Egypt.21
The words of Jesus Christ were spoken on the tongue of Saint Abanoub who told his persecutors
who wanted him to worship idols and renounce his Christianity when they told him “you could
stop of all this, offer incense to God Apollo and obey Master Emperor Diocletian’s orders.”
Abanoub replied at that moment saying:
Diocletian is your master, not mine. But my master is Jesus Christ who subdues the
haughty by bringing down kings from their thrones, and disperses the proud hearts within
their own thoughts.22
These same words when repeating again directly via e-mail to Kenneth Marcus who is the
subject of this litigation Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) for using the
IHRA definition, made Kenneth Marcus extremely disturbed and later Kenneth Marcus
resigned.23
17
See moral turpitude | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
18
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OHvyS_DJ_I&t=1049s
19
See https://www.scribd.com/document/724094101/Letter-4-From-Beginning-to-End-There-is-Always-a-
Carpenter
20
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Jeremiah+1%3A19&version=NKJV
21
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abanoub
22
See the scene https://youtu.be/QPdStY2-7ig?si=sekroRLuAHyqMCt6&t=4044
23
See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/politics/kenneth-marcus-education-department.html
Page 11 of 45
Likewise was true with Jim Richmond, a former supervisor at the 7th Circuit when he told Mark
“nothing will change, I have seen too many judicial misconduct complaints dismissed” and Mark
replied “it isn’t me who will change them but God” and Jim responded “God doesn’t rule this
Court, Judges do” and Mark in return responded “who creates eyes to see, ears to listen, and
mouth to speak the truth, isn’t it God?”
While many humans with power do evil or hide their evil work in moments of temptation, the
Lord, Jesus Christ always tends to reveal the truth before the eyes of multitude for he 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].24
When humans thought they could cover for evil during the midst of Mark’s pain, came the Lord,
God and revealed a pattern of evil in terms of how former members of the Executive Committee
at Northern District of Illinois, places litigants they hate or dislike or wants to discriminate
against on a “certain list” and when the complainants starts to complaint of their unjust
behaviors, these judges send out a specific U.S. Marshal personal to threaten and/or scare these
complainants from speaking up. When the complainants file a judicial misconduct complaint, the
7th Circuit goes in to destroy their complaints, acting as a cover up for their colleagues.
When this happened? Around the same time Mark’s complaint was also being reviewed by Chief
Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, she couldn’t dismiss two similar complaints, so she reassigned the
2nd complaint to Judge Thomas Kirsch; even though he is a former prosecutor and he is his own
identity and personality, he used the same exact words used by chief judge Diane Sykes such as
“disjointed and unwieldy” and wrote similar pattern “threatened by U.S. Marshals” which is a
tactic former members of the executive committee use to scare litigants from speaking up.
A different Complainant alleging a series of serious crimes.
Mark’s very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint.
Here was how a system of self-policing committed cover ups when they are investigators not
jurist anymore. Now combine this with their knowledge as judges or reshaping laws in liberal or
conservative manners, and they would use their knowledge in an investigation not for good but
rather to cover for a system which has evil seeds from within.
24
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0feZQkHbCkM&t=2712s
Page 12 of 45
vs
Page 13 of 45
But Mark will show you something further, how some of the Judges on the 7th Circuit rule
allowing the crimes to go on without providing any protection because it often shows their
characters and hearts whether they are good or evil. Here are two judges in a 2-1 ruling, these
were both Trump and Biden appointees, Judge Scudder (Trump appointee) and Judge Pryor
(Biden appointee), the one who dissented was Judge David Hamilton (Obama appointee).
Came both Mr. Scudder and Ms. Pryor and said the following:
The question before us is whether a federal prisoner can bring a Bivens action alleging
that a prison official failed to protect him from violent attacks by his cellmates. After the
Supreme Court’s recent decisions in this area, the answer is no.25
This case was about an inmate who reported an official, in return that official a woman, assigned
that he lives with violent inmates and they made his life miserable, here the system failed
everyone. When he lawsuit, two judges had no problem telling the public Biven now doesn't
provide any protection. Continue to violently attack that inmate doing what the official wanted.
Wisdom is a gift from God, humans create rules, many rules but they fail society and yet they
love to be called Judges? The term judge means healing; people go to court as a last resort for
healing. When any judge fails that simple duty, then they failed society as a whole.
Here these judges if God forbid, they ever get to imprison Trump, they can seek to place him
with violent inmates who would attack him? And the court would tell him that is fine, because
the Supreme Court is not protecting you? It is just too dark for humans to even spell out.26
So now that we have seen two humans acting how they rule as Jurist on the bench, now witness
them being investigators in an investigation, how would they behave? Like in this complaint
with alleged many crimes such as “kidnapping, murder, conspiracy, and criminal trespass”
25
See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A1024/309855/20240515141103717_Sargeant--
Application%20XT%20Cert%20Pet%20-%20EXHIBITS%20rtf.pdf
26
See https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-
85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0
Page 14 of 45
One would say it is unimaginable for judges to commit such crimes, but what happen if they
were facilitating it by covering for evil? Would that make them an accomplice in the crime? At
least we know one crime is valid because Mark saw it as well, they do send U.S. Marshals to
threaten or scare people from speaking up.
See Mark’s brief and appendix that the 7th Circuit tried to hide. See Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) ECF Nos. 120 and 121.27 When the brief was published publically,
came the order the same day by Judge Frank Easterbrook dismissing the appeal as an oversize
brief. But the order came with many grammar errors such as “Judgee” showing whoever wrote
that order was nervous because of the truth, likewise with the clerks who first docketed the
appendix making the judge rule on it and later switch it with the brief in appeal 22-1815. But not
only that, the clerks were so nervous that they even sent out the order to the wrong Judge, Judge
Virginia Kendall who later became a member of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council.28
Whether that is a coincidence or not, God only knows.
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.29
27
See Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-
Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 Appendix https://www.scribd.com/document/717645429/Appendix-Related-to-
Executive-Committee-in-22-1815-121-cv-06223
28
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judicial-council7.htm
29
See https://www.dechert.com/people/b/andrew-s--boutros.html
Page 15 of 45
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. 30 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?
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.
30
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/betraying-the-bench-could-the-scotus-leaker-face-criminal-
charges
31
Page 16 of 45
These would all be called lawfare, how laws can be used, too liberal or too conservative depends
on who wields power but there is another issue, healing a society in pain. Compound this with
Judge and forum shopping which can alter the destiny of any case. In Trump’s world, his
criminal case pertaining to lust, landed in New York, a liberal state which very much hates
Trump. So here a juror cheered for his conviction before it was even announced. The court had
to send out a letter to counsels on the record notifying them of what happened.32
Trump wasn’t able to find a compassionate judge in New York, but he found one in Florida.
32
See https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v%20DJT%206-7-
24%20Letter%20to%20Parties.pdf
Page 17 of 45
What you see within the Judicial Branch shows the public how Judges who wield power can
either be compassionate or not, for that reason there is a website dedicated to reviewing judges.33
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.34
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
33
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
34
See TMPC-2023.pdf (justice.gov)
Page 18 of 45
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
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.35
Back to Mark’s appeal, Mr. Frank Insalaco asked the clerks after speaking with Mark to correct
the record after a ruling came out as “oversize brief” but the ruling was made on the appendix
not the brief, Mr. Frank after the fact ended up changing the record by asking the clerks to
replace the Appendix with the Brief and by resending the order to Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.
When one sees all of this, both by the Jurist and the Investigators, is there any doubt in one’s
mind that the current judicial misconduct complaints should be handled by the same chief circuit
judge or rather an outside circuit?
35
See https://youtu.be/qXnlWeY5Gw4?si=R-oE5uk3Psuc2JVK
Page 19 of 45
I. ARGUMENT
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.36
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.37
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.
Moreover Mark recites the same rule recited by Justice Department lawyers when they seek
recusal of a judge from a certain case and the 7th Circuit granted it. The question that is often
asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to their rulings but rather whether well-
informed observer might question the Judges’ impartiality and to avoid any appearance of
impropriety. See whether a reasonable, well-informed observer could question the Judge's
impartiality. See, e.g., Hatcher, 150 F.3d at 637.
Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of
the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Supreme Court has
explained that “ ‘[t]he goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of
partiality.’ ” Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct.
2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (quoting Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 179
36
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
37
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
Page 20 of 45
(5th Cir.1983)). Accordingly, we have required recusal “whenever there is ‘a

reasonable basis' for a finding of an ‘appearance of partiality under the facts and
circumstances' of the case.” Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985)
(quoting SCA Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 116 (7th Cir.1977)). Recusal is
required when a “reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve
the case on a basis other than the merits.” In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385 (7th
Cir.1990); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d at 1229.
These Judicial misconduct complaints transforms a Jurist into an Investigator and the role
changes wherein the investigator should be independent, respecting both the complainant and the
respondents; an investigator cannot investigate their own, often their interest lies over the
complainant.
In Complaint of Judicial Misconduct C.C.D. No. 22-01 that was recently ruled on July 8, 2022,
the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee sent the case back ordering the judicial circuit to
conduct an investigation by assigning the judicial misconduct complaint to a special committee
to investigate because the chief judge failed to assign one when there were disputed facts.38
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.
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:
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
38
See entire order c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 21 of 45
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.
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.
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).
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued that 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 witnesses have not been questioned. This
complaint was only assigned a special committee to investigate disputed facts when outside
circuit mentioned disputed facts are present, because originally the chief circuit judge along with
the judicial council dismissed the complaint because this was in their own interest to do so. The
judicial Conference Committee reversed that decision and compelled for a special committee to
be formed to investigate disputed facts.
A. THE ROLE OF AN INVESTIGATOR UNDER TITLE IX
The role of a neutral investigator so they don’t commit sex discrimination, violating Title IX,
they have to respect both the complainant and the respondent rather than trash the complainant
while covering for the respondents’ evil work. Moreover, the subject(s) of the Complaints cannot
be the one investigating themselves; this wouldn’t make any sense in any investigative work, it
also destroys public trust and confidence in the judicial branch.
Page 22 of 45
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.
“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.39
The same Chief Circuit Judge, Judge Diane Sykes as a Jurist came in a popular title ix case and
ruled in favor of John Doe saying “due process violations” leading to title ix sex discrimination
in Doe v. Purdue University, No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019).40
See popular cases reported by Fire:
o Seventh Circuit upholds accused student’s due process, sex discrimination claims.41
39
See https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/10/22/shocking-to-me-investigative-reporter-lise-olsen-
talks-new-book-about-judicial-misconduct/
40
41
See Seventh Circuit upholds accused student’s due process, sex discrimination claims (thefire.org)
Page 23 of 45
Similarly now but the Jurist is now an investigator who wrote with a level of anger during
Mark’s very first 88 pages judicial misconduct complaint with their exhibits “this complaint is
utterly unsupported and frivolous” shouted Chief Judge Diane Sykes.42
Only for the Lord, God to prove her wrong over and over, by revealing the truth.
Not only that, what is on the record proves the truth as well. “Speak again about Jesus Christ and
you will see what happens”, said former members of the Executive Committee. True it was
signed by Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer but this was led by Gary Feinerman.
42
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2022/07-22-
90048_through_90041_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
Page 24 of 45
And this was all just the direct evidence on the docket, not the covert acts that was revealed later
on targeting Mark’s home leading to a hostile environment and later his place of work at Chicago
Public School and later his own case as well.
B. HOW TO TURN A COMPLAINANT INTO A RESPONDENT.
Mark very first major life trial was when he saw his future legal career and academic success and
received awards shattered at the hands of a wicked, evil Jewish man named Michael Roy
Guttentag and his accomplice Jewish law professor Benjamin Priester. It is all docketed in ECF
No. 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). Neither Justice Department
lawyer, Ms. Sarah Terman was able to rebuttal any of this after her filed motion to dismiss was
filled with many false statements nor did Judge Sara Ellis was able to rebuttal or question Ms.
Terman why has she changed her statements within her reply when she often said “don’t see
don’t look”. You see for the Executive committee to remove Mark’s ECF account, established
that everyone wanted to destroy this case one way or another before even a ruling come out in
the future, then later they could retaliate i.e., former members of the Executive Committee.
Who also revealed that Mark’s future appeal would be fixed long before it was even filed, it was
Jim Richmond.
Page 25 of 45
Here many evil minds and hearts learned from Mark’s law school journey in term of how a
complainant could be turned into a respondent and they wanted to replicate it.
To read the truth, see ECF No. 157 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
a) First, you throw false allegations, and then investigate them to change the process turning
a complainant into a respondent.
b) Second, you cut any and all communications to prevent the victim from communicating.
c) Third, you proceed to retaliate.
This was called college lawfare. See ECF 54 again pages 29-30.
Page 26 of 45
Mark was the Complainant with the school, he was assaulted, battered, and threatened to be
killed by Michael Roy Guttentag. Michael Guttentag revealed his plan to Mark’s roommate
Vince Cano, how Michael doesn’t want Mark at all in Jacksonville, not just the school.
But not only that, Mark was also threatened by his tort law professor, Professor Gregory Pingree
and later Prof Pingree admitted to some of his own wrongdoing during a grade appeal process.
Page 27 of 45
All of this and more exhibits are part of ECF No. 54, I don’t write and organize facts and
exhibits so that my case gets fixed at both the District level and the 7th Circuit. People write the
truth to receive healing through the court system. And this is not even getting into Mark’s
journey with Kenneth Marcus and the IHRA definition.
The day Mark reported Prof. Gregory Pingree’s threat to the so called Dean Scott Devito, who
later resigned in 2019.43
Came Scott Devito after reading Mark’s reported threat pertaining to a faculty member and with
the help of Benjamin Priester, a criminal law professor and the professor of Michael Roy
Guttentag, framed Mark using Michael Guttentag to get rid of Mark for good by turning Mark
from a Complainant into a Respondent.
Michael Guttentag at that time was in great joy but God was in its midst.
43
See https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/education/2019/09/11/dean-of-struggling-florida-coastal-school-
of-law-in-jacksonville-abruptly-resigns/3057076007/
Page 28 of 45
The letter didn’t go out January 21, 2016. The letter went out the next day while also Scott
Devito was traveling.
Page 29 of 45
Page 30 of 45
Who was the one who was telling Mark “the school will get rid of you Mark” it was none other
than a supervisor LT Larry Kitchen who told Mark Lauren Levine told him “this is a concern,
you do your job and we will do ours”, he was interviewed by OCR Atlanta, the very first
witness, after he saw Mark’s good heart.
The rest of the tale of lies are history once the truth was out, the school asked Mark to sign on a
waiver and a release of all legal claims if he wished to continue his education i.e., denial of
education. Character and fitness of the students was not important anymore, moral turpitude of
the lawyers and the law professors committing many crimes, was also not important anymore,
what was important to them was “get Mark to sign on a waiver and release of all his claims”
The pain which Mark’s lived through watching his legal career being shattered at the hands of
many evil people committing a moral turpitude left Mark with no choice but to file a complaint
with Office for Civil Rights; his complaint was handled properly under former Secretary Candice
Jackson who told Enforcement Director Randolph Wills “I want this case handled properly”.
Page 31 of 45
Mark’s OCR Complaint destiny changed when his path crosses path with Kenneth Marcus and
his use of the IHRA definition. Then Mark’s journey started to change yet again, from a law
school journey into many tales and visions.44
Who learned from this experience and tried to replicate it verbatim. Both former members of the
Executive Committee and Chicago Public School and yet God was in its midst but Mark ended
up with many emotional damages and now he is on high blood pressure medication because what
happened was 10 folds of what happened at Florida Coastal School of Law. For that reason Mark
wrote within his first original OCR Complaint 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
44
Carpenter
Page 32 of 45
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].45
I questioned the Lord, God for these extended trials by Satan for my heart can’t bare them any
longer for Satan is trying to feed on hate through many injustices but the Lord, God answered my
soul saying “my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in your weakness” but
my heart has crossed many miles filled with thorn, hunter’s traps, and pain, yet the Lord, God
told me “I see good in your trials, for your own soul and many others that are saved” and I could
not object any longer despite my pain ― I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in
persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
C. CHARACTER LYNCHING MARK THE COPTIC.
It's a national disgrace and from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it
is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for
themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to the old order,
this is what will happen to you.46 Said Justice Thomas.
The idea to make someone’s image look so bad that no one would want to read what the victim
is writing mounts psychological abuse of the victim’s well being. But when it also involves
license lawyers and judges, it is a moral turpitude.
At Chicago Public School, four lawyers tried to turn Mark from a Complainant into a
Respondent and to retaliate but much worse, they also tried to time the retaliation with Mark’s
civil right case in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
45
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+118%3A12-20&version=NKJV
46
See https://twitter.com/judicialnetwork/status/1494358457264263178
Page 33 of 45
The Lord, God kept working to reveal the extent of evil and after the truth was revealed, now all
four lawyers are going to respond to an IL Bar Complaints. There are two path for them, either
all of them will conspire together to continue the path of evil or some of them will fight with
another, not wanting to be responsible for the crimes of another like how Jennifer Reger forged
Inspector William Fletcher OIG CPS report.
At that point, Mark will take their responses and provide them to OCR. You see without any
civil right case filed in a court, without begging the judges not to dismiss the case and without
costly depositions and legal maneuvers by many lawyers and judges. Came the Lord, God and
through a state subpoena provided Mark with all internal emails, later Mark used that evidence
and handed it to the IL Bar for the subjects of the complaint to explain why they turned him from
a Complainant into a Respondent. Why were they stalking his civil right case and so many whys
pertaining to a moral turpitude.
Then once they respond to the IL Bar, Mark will work on amending his complaint and provide
their answers to OCR.
In law school, all 3 students Victoria, Elizabeth, and Patrick fought with Michael Guttentag not
wanting to be part of his games anymore, so he accused them of bullying him when they refused
to play the game till the end, so the so called Dean Scott DeVito moved Michael Guttentag to
night classes, all while i was being targeted by him outside the school and Benjamin Priester
Page 34 of 45
working on framing me to get rid of me for good. Then Patrick told Kendall York “Michael has
gone crazy” when Kendall told Patrick “I don't trust you anymore to do this to Mark and
watch two b**** trying to set him up and you standing there not saying anything” then
Patrick replied to Kendall “it is fucked up, I know”
The same thing is happening with Chicago Public School lawyers: Udeme Itiat, Camie Pratt,
Jennifer Reger, and Kelly Tarrant will end up arguing with each others.
People can plan evil, but where is God in all of this? The Devil will not give you any hope.
Page 35 of 45
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 glory and the one who lifts up my head [Psalms 3:1-3]. The
plowers plowed on my back; They made their furrows long. [Psalm 129:3]
That is the voice of the Devil, they made their furrows long. But then here is God's voice
The plowers plowed on my back; They made their furrows long. [Psalm 129:3] and the
Lord is watching ? he is not doing anything !? The Lord is righteous; He has cut in pieces
the cords of the wicked [Psalms 129:4].
ECF 157 revealed much of the truth.
The same issue repeated with many Judges who wanted to destroy Mark for good just like what
happened to Caryn Strickland in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).47 The
public wouldn’t be writing articles such as these if there was a greater oversight. The public is
hungry for equality, justice, and healing but where are the ears which listen, and the eyes that
see, and the mouth which speaks the truth?
o Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who's in charge here?48
47
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html docket
history https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16921419/roe-v-united-states-of-america/
48
here-2021-10-06/
Page 36 of 45
D. MARK DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE 7TH CIRCUIT.
The idea to destroy Mark’s legal career along with his image, was repeated over and over, when
one looks with an honest eyes, judges involved in Mark’s journey kept promoting themselves.
For example, District Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, promoted Judge Sara Ellis to the 7th
Circuit Judicial Council out of all the District Judges.49
While Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, granted Chief Judge Rebeccca Pallmeyer senior status in
August of 2024.50 Only a chief circuit judge can grant a senior status to any judge who requests
it.
49
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
50
See https://www.law360.com/articles/1771440/chief-judge-of-chicago-federal-court-to-take-senior-status
Page 37 of 45
President Biden nominated Ms. Georgia N. Alexakis to take the seat of Judge Pallmeyer.51
So all of this is good and great among humans raising their status before multitudes, but what
about a chance for healing toward Mark the Coptic? When Mark was targeted at Chicago Public
School pertaining to his employment and stable source of income, he found a position open to
apply as a clerk at the 7th Circuit, despite is qualifications, resume, and awards.52 The 7th Circuit
denied an opportunity to hire him, given what was happening at the hands of former members of
the Executive Committee; mainly Gary Feinerman who resigned on December 5, 2022.
E. FIXING MARK’S APPEAL FULFILLING THE WORDS OF 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
51
See https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-nominations-sent-the-senate-138
52
See Awards history https://www.scribd.com/document/740978184/List-of-Mark-Bochra-Awards-including-a-
Presidental-Award
Page 38 of 45
were the one which 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.
What happened to Mark’s appeal?54
1) They called “Assault, battery, and threatened to be killed by Michael Roy Guttentag”
clash with peers.
2) They called “Threatened by his tort law professor Gregory Pingree who admits also on
the record of wrongdoing” a dispute over a grade.
3) They “redacted Kenneth Marcus name and didn't bring anything of what happened at
OCR under his leadership, and they couldn't mention the former secretary Candice
Jackson who told Randolph Wills “I need this case handled properly”
4) They later ended up writing records from their own imagination claiming OCR refused to
investigate his complaint, just a record not even from the case.
53
54
See brief https://www.scribd.com/document/712045074/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-
03887-The-Chevron-Doctrine, seereply brief https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-
Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-Brief see order https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/ca7/23-1388/23-1388-2024-02-27.html
Page 39 of 45
When Mark’s appeal was fixed and Mark was working on his petition for re-hearing and en banc
hearing in 22-2903, 23-1388, remember the words of Mr. Frank Insalaco “Mark you were
suppose to get a 3 panel judges, the judges know what happened.”
So in a follow up conversation when Mark asked him “can you please assign my petition to a
good 3 panel judges” he responded by saying “Mark I can’t anymore, they took that privilege
from me to assign judges to cases.” So Mr. Frank used to have the authority to assign appeals to
certain judges but not anymore.
How can Mark trust this system of 7th Circuit anymore, the reason why the 7th Circuit Judicial
Council failed to appoint outside circuit under rule 26 was to keep control over the path of
Mark’s complaints just as they tried to do with his case in Bochra v. U.S. Department of
Education (1:21-cv-03887). But where is the Lord, God in all of this?
Jim Richmond use to say “nothing will change” and i would reply “it isn't me who will change
them but God” and he would reply “judges rule this court not God” and I would reply “who
created one’s eyes to see, one’s ears to listen, one’s mouth to speak the truth, isn’t it God?”
We often tend to place the Lord, God the last when considering different decisions, but God has
a role, he sees everyone, those who do evil and those who do good.
Page 40 of 45
CONCLUSION
For these mentioned reasons, Mark prays that the Judicial Conference Committee review this
petition and decide for the sake to keep public confidence and public trust in the process to
appoint outside circuit under Rule 26 to handle Mark’s judicial misconduct complaints while
seeking remedial action which brings healing to this situation. Mark did share the remedial
action within his last Judicial Misconduct Complaint which a case number was not given to him.
When Justice is difficult to achieve through equality, equity is the preferred approach to bring the
sort of healing to hearts in pain. This is equity to this difficult journey which proves everyone is
sinful, “Go and sin no more”.55
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
EXHIBIT LIST
I Copy of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council Order.

II Copies of the 3 filed ongoing Judicial Misconduct Complaints, Nos. 07-24-90029
through 90043 and Nos. 07-24-90049 through 90063. Mark was not provided with a
case number for his filed May 16, 2024 Judicial Misconduct Complaint but the intake
Clerk #10 told Mark it is with the Chief Circuit Judge and under review.
III Copy of a Letter to the Chair of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee, Hon.
Jeffery Sutton.
IV Copy of Mark’s recent letter to the 7th Circuit Clerk Mr. Christopher Conway.
55
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5GXnM_TxSQ
Page 41 of 45
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 bruce.n.reed@who.eop.gov
Washington, DC 20500
Jeffrey.D.Zients@who.eop.gov
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

Deputy Chief of Staff for the President Senior Advisor for the President
Jennifer.B.Dillon@who.eop.gov michael.c.donilon@who.eop.gov
The Honorable Steven J. Ricchetti The Honorable Jacob J. Sullivan

Counselor for the President National Security Advisor for the President
steven.j.ricchetti@who.eop.gov jacob.j.sullivan@who.eop.gov
The Honorable Karine Jean-Pierre

White House Press Secretary
Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov
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 SHarris@supremecourt.gov
jroberts@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
cthomas@supremecourt.gov kjackson@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
salito@supremecourt.gov ssotomayor@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
ekagan@supremecourt.gov ngorsuch@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
bkavanaugh@supremecourt.gov abarrett@supremecourt.gov
Page 42 of 45
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Joseph Biden potus@who.eop.gov // joe@joebiden.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr robert@teamkennedy.com
Donald J. Trump trump@donaldjtrump.com
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
Members of the Judicial Conference Committee.56
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT
Chief Judge Diane Sykes chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov

Judge Joel Flaum jflaum@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Frank Easterbrook frank_easterbrook@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Kenneth Ripple kenneth_ripple@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Ilana Rovner ilana_rovner@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Diane Wood dwood@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge David Hamilton david_hamilton@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Michael Brennan Michael_Brennan@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Michael Scudder Michael_Scudder@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Amy St. Eve amy_st_eve@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Thomas Kirsch II Thomas_Kirsch@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi Candace_Jackson-Akiwumi@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge John Lee John_Lee@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Doris Pyror Doris_Pryor@ca7.uscourts.gov
Judge Joshua Kolar Joshua_Kolar@ca7.uscourts.gov
7th CIRCUIT STAFF
Mr. Frank Insalaco Docket Supervisor frank_insalaco@ca7.uscourts.gov

Ms. Sarah Schrup Circuit Executive sarah_schrup@ca7.uscourts.gov
Mr. Alexander Castaneda Deputy Circuit Executive alexander_Castaneda@ca7.uscourts.gov
Mr. Jim Richmond [Former Docket Supervisor] jim_richmond@ca7.uscourts.gov
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IL
Judge Sara Ellis Sara_Ellis@ilnd.uscourts.gov

Judge Sheila Finnegan Sheila_Finnegan@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Judge Virginia Kendall Virginia_Kendall@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Clerk Thomas Bruton Thomas_Bruton@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF
Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce lyle_cayce@ca5.uscourts.gov

56
See members https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/jcus_members_2024-mar-3.pdf
Page 43 of 45
Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin melissa_shanklin@ca5.uscourts.gov
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER
Mr. Michael Henry

Michael_Henry@ao.uscourts.gov
AO_OJI@ao.uscourts.gov
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
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ronald.davis@usdoj.gov
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov
The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
ladon.reynolds@usdoj.gov
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 44 of 45
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 wiley@civilrights.org

Executive Vice President Mr. Chris Canning Canning@civilrights.org
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
President Ms. Janai Nelson jnelson@naacpldf.org

Associate Director-Counsel Ms. Tona Boyd TBoyd@naacpldf.org
JUDICIALWATCH
Mr. Thomas Fitton TFitton@judicialwatch.org

Mr. Paul Orfanedes POrfanedes@judicialwatch.org
Mr. Chris Farrell CFarrell@judicialwatch.org
FIRST AMERICAN LEGAL
President Mr. Stephen Miller Stephen.Miller@aflegal.org

Executive Director Mr. Gene Hamilton gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL
CEO Pedro Martinez ceo-martinez@cps.edu

Chicago Board of Education President Jianan Shi jshi5@cps.edu
Inspector William Fletcher CPS swfletcher@cpsoig.org
Page 45 of 45
EXHIBIT I
THE IUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
219 South Dearborn Street
ChicagO Illinois
June 4,2024
Nos. 07-24-90029 through -90043 &. 0z -24-90049 through -90069
IN-RECOMPLATITFfS ACAINST FOURTtENfi}DGES
ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 25(f) of the Rules for ludicial-Conduct and

ludiciat Disability
Proceedings, the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit* makes the following findings
regarding these complaints: (1) participation by members of the Council who are named in
the complaints is necessary to obtain a quorum for purposes of making the determination
required by Rule 25(f); and (2) in the interest of sound judicial administratiory the Chief
]udge of the Seventh Circuit may dispose of the complaints on the merits.
* Chief
Judge Diane S. Sykes, a member of the Judicial Council, participated in the votes to
establish a quorum but did not participate in the votes on the second question.
EXHIBIT II
EXHIBIT A
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
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 // sarah.terman@usdoj.gov
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
Chicago, IL 60660
The Honorable John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1 First Street, NE


CC




Page 2 of 62

cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
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.
vs. Individual acts done under different motives.1 See also United States v. Isaacs, 493
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
JSliz@usms.doj.gov compare to FBI Director Christopher Wray email is active cawray@fbi.gov.
Former U.S. Marshal Jerome Sliva 312-371-2046. E-mail: JSliz@usms.doj.gov (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
Carpenter
30
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
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
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 was shocking to me how often I heard from people all over the country who had tried to
retaliated against, or had felt completely unable to do anything,” Olsen said.48
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
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
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
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
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
Investigation should determine whether the discriminatory practice telegraphed by the judges has
occurred and whether it is ongoing.
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.
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
THE WHITE HOUSE




Page 59 of 62


7th CIRCUIT STAFF


5th CIRCUIT STAFF

75
Page 60 of 62
Mr. Michael Henry










Page 61 of 62




HOUSE SPEAKER


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

JUDICIALWATCH



Page 62 of 62
EXHIBIT B
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
219 South Dearbom Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Clerk of Court
312-435-5850
April 4,2024
CONFIDENTIAL
Mark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road
Apt l3B
Chicago,IL 60660
In Re: Complaint of ]udicial Misconduct or Disability Nos. 07-24-90029 through -90043
Dear Mr. Bochra:
This will acknowledge receipt of your complaint of judicial misconduct or disability

filed against federal judges on March 29,2024, 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 willbe processed in accordance with Rule 8 of the
Rules for ludicial-Conduct and ludicial-Disability Proceedings. No further action is required 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 confidential in accordance with 28 U.S.C. S 360(a) and Rule 23 of the Rules for ludicial-
Conduct and ludicial-Disability P roceedings.
Sincerely,
ctu& %
Clerk
AO310 (Rev.03116)
Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCOIIDUCT OR DISABILITY
To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement
of facts described in
item 4 (below). The Rules FoR JuDICIAL-CoNoucr AND JuDrcrAL-DrsABtr-ITy pRocEEDrNcs,
adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on r,yhat to include
in a complaint (RulL 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
ofcopies to file, consult the local rules or clerk's office of the courtln which your complaintls
required to be filed.
Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked 'cOMpteINT OF
*COMPLAINT MISC6NDUCT,, or
OF DISABILITY" and submit it to the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the
name of any
judge on the envelope.
I. Name of Complainant: Mark Bochra

Contact Address: 5757 North Sheridan Road
Apt l3B
Chicago IL 60660
Daytime telephone: ( 773 )9st-2420
2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Diane sykes, John Lee, 7th circuit rudges, Jim Richmond &
Court:
thoru.l^ f$ns^
7th Circuit Court of Appeals // Northern Distirct of IL
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit
or lawsuits?
Mv* f*"
If oles," give the following information about each lawsuit:
Court: Northern District of lllinois
Case Number: l:21-cv-06223 Re: Mark Bochra & related case 1 :21-cv-03997
Docket number ofany appeal to the 7th Circuit: 2}-lgl5 & 2-2903
e, %-t3SS
Are (were) you a pariy or lawyer in the lawsuit?
EItu* f]ru*v", IN"i r,",

If you are (were) aparly and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyer's name, address, and telephone
number:
Opposing Counsel Lawyer for the Departrnent of Education
Samh F. Terman
ofiice: {312) 469-6201 llcell: (312) 77r-7167 // sarah.terman@usdoj.gov
Page I of 2
AO3l0 (Rev.03/16)
Judicial Council ofthe Seventh Circuit
C0MPLAINToTJUDICIALMISCoNDUCToRDISABILITY
4. Brief statement of Facts. Atiach a brief statement ofthe specific facts on which the claim ofjudicial
when and where it happened, and any
misconduct or disability is based. Include what happened,
alleges judicial disability,
information ttrat wouiJnelp an investigator check ttr" a"t . Ifthe complaint
also include any additionalfacts that form the basis of that
allegation'
5. Declrrration and signature:

are true and conect to the
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint
best of my knowledge.
Signature: /s/MarkBochra Date: 03D812024
Page2 af 2
Table of Contents
II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 15
A. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JIM RICHMOND AND THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES ...................................... 16
B. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PARTTERN AND PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION: THE WORDS OF JUDGE
RICHARD POSNER AND JUDGE DIANE WOOD ........................................................................................ 17
C. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JUDGE JOHN Z LEE & OUTSTANDING DISCRIMINATORY ORDER WITH
RETALIATION ........................................................................................................................................... 19
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 24
Page 1 of 30
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

1 First Street, NE


CC




Page 2 of 30

cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
March 28, 2024
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
Re: The name Jesus Christ has angered many Judges: the Parable of the Unjust Judge.
Re: Jim Richmond of the 7th Circuit threatened Mark the Coptic during a judicial misconduct
proceeding related to his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-CV-03887)
being fixed pertaining to the Israeli Lobby Kenneth Marcus & the IHRA definition. The
7th Circuit’s fulfilled and completed the words of Jim Richmond and left a trail of
mistakes in a public order by redacting evidence and Senator Dick Durbin’s letter and
writing a fiction not from the case. Discrimination with Retaliation against a Coptic.
Re: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241.
Re: Former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s own words “they treat pro se like trash” &
“they destroy appeals with merits”. A whistleblower against his own colleagues. The
Judicial Conference Committee’s letter is disclosed herein responding at that time to
Chief Judge Diane Wood advising her “confidential internal communications” is their
choice to be kept confidential.
I want to thank you for processing this judicial misconduct complaint to which it explains a
complex journey of discrimination with retaliation which kept on multiplying on multiple fronts
Page 3 of 30
but now it is not about members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois1 but
by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in direct violation of rule 4(a)(4).
The idea of a system of self-policing have allowed Judges to care about being Jurist but
neglecting being managers and investigators yet congress delegated all these duties to the
Judicial Branch and when a Judge turns from a Jurist to an Investigator, the duties change; either
write the truth while providing healing and rescue or cover up a crime and resume with more
retaliation using the Court’s official capacity which is also acting under “color of law”.
The Subjects of this Complaint are: Hon Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit Judge
John Z Lee (Former Member of the Executive Committee of Northern District of IL), 7th Circuit
Judges2, Jim Richmond an employee of the 7th Circuit (Former Docket Supervisor), and Ms.
Rhonda Johnson Courtroom Deputy of Judge Sara Ellis.3
purview. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) stated “if you have concerns
to the clerk of the court where that individual is employed.”4
1
I told the executive committee in many of my filings in 1:21-cv-06223 that I won’t file another judicial misconduct
2
The order issued in Mark Bochra v. Department of Education, No. 22-2903 (7th Cir. 2024)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/22-2903/22-2903-2024-02-27.html said “By the Court”
so Mark doesn’t know whether 3 panel judges came and conspired to fix Mark’s case fulfilling Jim Richmond’s
threatening words then hidden their names behind the “Court” official capacity while using their individual
th
capacity or this order was prepared by a 7 Circuit staff attorney and rubber stamped by a Judge.
Mr. Frank Insalaco told Mark “you were supposed to get 3 panel judges, the Judges know what happened.” Mr.
Frank has always been nice to Mark and always told him “have faith in the process” “have faith in the system”
While the Deputy Circuit Executive Mr. Alex Castaneda told Mark “All judges are professional, there won’t be any
retaliation”
3
She hated the name Jesus Christ and character lynched Mark with lies, this was the start of the targeting only
when Mark was alone. She in many phone calls claims she doesn’t know anything or add “she doesn’t remember”
often answers for cover up but in the last phone call she showed her real heart that she hates the name Jesus
Christ; this was the motive that started the chain of targeting a Coptic over an email about Jesus Christ yet Mark’s
case before Judge Sara Ellis was also about Jesus Christ related to the IHRA definition.
4
Page 4 of 30
I am filing this Judicial Misconduct Complaint and seeking under Rule 26 for the 5th Circuit
pertaining to this complaint and when an honest investigation reveals disputed facts that 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.

accepts the matter.
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.”).
title “Digest of Authorities on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”.5 Most Circuit Chief
Attached herein “Exhibit A”, please see a copy of Mark’s letter to the Chair of the Judicial
Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery Sutton. The letter explains most of this journey
and the issues surrounding the 7th Circuit mistreatment of pro se litigants “destroying appeals
with merits” was reported by a whistleblower former judge Richard Posner. This would be called
pattern and practice and in direct violation of Canon 3.
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.6
5
6
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225 and see
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_most_judges_regard_pro_se_litigants_as_kind_of_trash_nor_
worth_the_t
Page 5 of 30
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially & Diligently
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform
those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive,
prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and
should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should
maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge
should require similar conduct by those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers
to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
This is a complaint about ongoing unlawful judicial national origin and religion discrimination
with retaliation and raises concerns of pattern and practice of treating pro se litigants different
from parties with lawyers and the statement of Former Chief Judge Diane Wood substantiate this
when she wrote to ABA Journal.7
“First, while [Judge Posner] is certainly entitled to his own views about such matters as
our Staff Attorney’s Office and the accommodations we make for pro se litigants, […].
“In fact, the judges and our staff attorneys take great care with pro se filings, and the
unanimous view of the eleven judges on the 7th Circuit (including actives and seniors) is
that our staff attorneys do excellent work, comparable to the work done by our chambers
law clerks. We are lucky to attract people of such high caliber for these two-year
positions.” Said Judge Diane Wood.
7
See
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuits_chief_judge_responds_to_posner_on_pro_se_criticisms
Page 6 of 30
Here former Chief Judge Diane Wood reported that “staff attorneys take care of pro se litigants
filings” while “chamber clerks take care of the cases which involve lawyers.” This would be in
direct violation of several canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”);
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) if staff
attorney replaces Judges, then why do pro se litigants seek Judges to rule on their case, as one
will see in Mark’s appeal, he received what apparently was a staff attorney issuing a 3 page order
with false facts of the case, fixing his case, and signing it under the Court’s official capacity “by
the Court.” Mr. Frank Insalaco a supervisor at the 7th Circuit told Mark “you should have
received a 3 panel judges, the judges know what happened.”
To substantiate this further, see the response from the Judicial Conference Committee to Former
Chief Judge Diane Wood which rather at that time addressing the reported allegations by former
Judge Richard Posner, they told Judge Diane Wood at that time “internal communications” are
confidential but it is up to the Judges to disclose them or not. See Exhibit “B”.
The Judicial Conference Committee didn’t address the merits of Judge Richard Posner
allegations which are “they treat pro se litigants like trash” and they “destroy appeals with
merits.” This would also violate the dear Colleague letter issued by the Justice Department to all
federal financial assistance recipients.8
with retaliation that 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).
justice is upheld healing a society in pain which is a the rule of the justice system “restorative
justice”.
Some employees of the 7th Circuit told Mark “it is about winning or losing” they never
mentioned the word Justice or healing a society in pain which is actually what the justice system
should be about. However, there is nothing more clearly than the threatening words of Jim
Richmond when he called Mark from his private cell phone yelling over the phone with what his
heart craved and he said “we” and “Judges” using both his official and individual capacity.
8
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-and-
fees-youth-and
Page 7 of 30
On June 10, 2022, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals received a copy of my Judicial Misconduct
Complaint, an 88 pages judicial misconduct complaint which lays out selective targeting of a
Coptic by members of the executive committee of northern district of Illinois and occurring
during Mark’s ongoing litigation in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887),
this was a direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights. Complaint # 07-22-
90048 through 07-22-90041. Mark’s investigative work showed the prime suspect was Gary
Feinerman who resigned immediately within 2 days after Mark shared in ECF 103 of his case
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) that there is an ongoing OCR
complaint filed against Chicago Public School and a petition with the Judicial Conference
Committee. Gary Feinerman tendered his resignation to President Biden on December 5, 2022
and it was announced by Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.9
Former known members of the Executive Committee: Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Gary
Feinerman, Judge John Z Lee (currently elevated to the 7th Circuit), Former Magistrate Chief
Judge Sheila Finnegan (stepped down and was replaced with Chief Magistrate Judge Young B
Kim on January 3, 2023)10 and the Clerk of the District Court Thomas Bruton. Mark knew the
identity of Gary Feinerman even though he was part of Mark’s complaint, but he also recused
from voting on the petition for review with the 7th Circuit Judicial Council along with Judge John
Z Lee. Those who recuse from voting were the subjects of the complaint.
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 bulk of the first complaint was how Mark’s home was the first target, later his place of work
at Chicago Public School, and later him and his case. There is no need to retell everything again
and Mark did promise the new members of the Executive Committee in many of his filings in
1:21-cv-06223 that he won’t file a new judicial misconduct complaint against them; Mark
wanted healing and also he saw the beauty within Chief judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, what can I say
“I actually like her”, I won’t say I liked the evil that took place but I like Chief Judge Pallmeyer.
Remember, she is the one who asked Gary Feinerman to resign, not Chief Judge Diane Sykes.
But many former members of the executive committee do know the crimes of Gary Feinerman
because that man is evil, blinded by power and status and at the right time the lord, God removed
him from power so he does not harm anymore person but he left while leaving the effects of sins
with the Court.
The prime suspect linked to Chicago Public School targeting has and always been Gary
Feinerman who resigned and is linked to the Israeli lobby and Mark’s case in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) is about Kenneth Marcus and the Israeli lobby and the
use of the IHRA definition and in that definition it says “Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” a
government endorsed view point discrimination which Mark’s lawsuit tried to seek an injunction
against the definition.
9
10
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/Presiding%20MJ%20Kim01032023FINAL.pdf
Page 8 of 30
vs
Page 9 of 30
After 2 month, Chief Judge Diane Sykes dismissed the Complaint saying in part “she doesn’t
understand it”11 and I filed a petition for review with the 7th Circuit Judicial Council which all
judges denied the petition saying also “they don’t understand it” and failed to appoint a special
committee to investigate disputed facts; the same case was also pending in appeal 22-1815 and
Chief Judge Diane Sykes refused to appoint outside Circuit Judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 291,
294 to handle my appeal. Because everything that took place has been administrative in nature
waving judicial immunities.12 The 7th Circuit ruled with the following in past cases; hence one
can proceed with a judicial misconduct complaint and an appeal as well relative to the same
subject matters and the judges are the same in both proceedings:
The Executive Committee can issue two types of orders: judicial and administrative. See
In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 904 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484
(7th Cir. 1995). The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from the Executive
Committee‘s judicial actions; administrative actions, on the other hand, are reviewed by
this Circuit‘s Judicial Council. See Chapman, 328 F.3d at 904. See In re Long, 475 F.3d
880, 880–81 (7th Cir. 2007).
With my case, the 7th Circuit knew very well they had to close my Judicial Misconduct
Complaint before proceeding to handle my appeals but how can the judges who denied my
petition to appoint a special committee to investigate disputed facts be the same judges who are
also handling my appeal against the Executive Committee 22-1815 and Department of Education
22-2903?
Both appeals Chief Judge Diane Sykes denied appointing outside Circuit Judges to handle the
appeals. This entire tale started because of this case Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of
Education et al (1:21-CV-03887).13 The same Chief Judge Hon. Diane Sykes who denied
appointing a special committee to investigate disputed facts claiming “she doesn’t understand” is
the same Chief Judge who denied to appoint outside circuit judges for both my appeals and with
statement(s) by Jim Richmond the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal docket manager, it proved future
retaliation; time is what matters.
11
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2022/07-22-
90048_through_90041_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
12
Due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment violations, as well as claims pursuant to
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and 1986 - Action for
neglect to prevent; Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the rehabilitation act; and 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
13
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60107808/bochra-v-us-department-of-education/
Page 10 of 30
See Exhibit “C” related to Jim Richmond’s words and threat using both his official and
individual capacity. Referring to “we” and “Judges”. Such threatening words of future retaliation
would be considered “intimidating a witness”, “obstruction of justice”, “and “conspiracy against
rights 18 U.S. Code § 241” and much more.
Jim Richmond’s cell phone calling Mark after he knew Mark filed a second supplement.
I often say to find the truth:
“Look at who has power and how that power was used, for good or evil.” Then the truth
will be revealed.
What happened next was the appeal related to the Executive Committee was fixed by the same
judges involved in the judicial misconduct proceedings because members of the 7th Circuit
Judicial Council are the same members of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal. They returned in
appeal 22-1815 and dismissed a paid appeal claiming “oversize brief” and the en banc panel
affirmed. So now we have the entire 7th Circuit Judges aware of Mark’s case related to the
Executive Committee and the Department of Education.
One can read the brief in 22-1815 ECF Nos. 56 and 57 or in ECF 120 and 121 in Mark Bochra
vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-CV-03887).15 The 7th Circuit has tried so hard to
14
15
See Copy of the Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-
Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 see copy of the appendix
https://www.scribd.com/document/717645429/Appendix-Related-to-Executive-Committee-in-22-1815-121-cv-
06223
Page 11 of 30
limit Mark’s filing by denying him ECF access and having him mail all his filings which
incurred substantial fees and expenses, so while Mark’s source of income was targeted at
Chicago Public School, Mark did not find good hearts within the 7th Circuit.
After Mark’s appeal related to the Executive Committee was fixed, Mark spoke many times to
Mr. Frank Insalaco who has always been nice to Mark and always gave hope to Mark by saying
“this case is different than this” “have faith in the process, have faith in the system.”
So Mark focused on his appeal brief in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-CV-03887)16 No. 22-2903 and 23-1388, ECF 29 Brief and ECF 42 Reply Brief. All of the
arguments raised in the appeal were ignored because Mark used the same legal arguments used
by many judges from the 7th Circuit. They were not able to engage with Mark’s raised arguments
and the facts of the case. So they decided to fix his case. They issued a 3 page order written “by
the Court” fulfilling the threat of Jim Richmond that Mark’s appeal will be fixed. The Order
ignored the consolidated appeal 23-1388 while never engaged in Mark’s raised arguments in
appeal 22-2903 but also had to redact evidence from the case, including the name Kenneth
Marcus and Senator Dick Durbin’s name17, the order also included false facts not from the case
but from the imagination of who wrote the order. The 7th Circuit Court order claimed in the very
first line “Mark lawsuit the Department of Education because it refused to investigate his
complaint of discrimination”. Yet Mark’s case was in resolution agreement negotiation for 2
years, was being investigated, and the next step was enforcement action. Yet the Court claim no
need for oral argument because the record is clear but which record was it clear when they lie on
the record using the Court Official Capacity to achieve personal Individual Capacity which is
conspiring to fix Mark’s case according to Jim Richmond’s words. Even before Mark filed his
reply brief, he sought for appointment of outside circuit judges in ECF 40.18 To which Chief
Judge Diane Sykes denied it in both official and individual capacity in ECF 41.19
If the Court frames it that way i.e., “Mark lawsuit the Department of Education because it
refused to investigate his complaint of discrimination.” then they don’t need to mention Senator
Durbin’s letter or Kenneth Marcus and Mark’s Journey with Kenneth Marcus and the Israeli
lobby.
It is one thing to engage with raised arguments and issue a just and fair ruling, it is another to
actually alter facts not from the case and issue lies in a public order under the official capacity of
the 7th Circuit Court. The question is who wrote this order? A staff attorney or 3 Panel judges?
Since the order said by the “Court” that is why the subjects of this judicial misconduct complaint
are all members of the 7th Circuit because Mark simply doesn’t know the truth at this point.
16
See Appeal Brief ECF 29 https://www.scribd.com/document/712045074/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-
Education-1-21-cv-03887-The-Chevron-Doctrine see Appeal Reply Brief ECF 42
https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-
Brief
17
See letter https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-
Department-of-Education
18
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717280569/Motion-to-Reconsider-Outside-Circuit-Judges-in-Bochra-v-
U-S-Department-of-Education
19
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717282409/Chief-Judge-Diane-Sykes-Order-in-Bochra-v-U-S-
Page 12 of 30
The name Senator Dick Durbin had to be removed from the case along with all the facts.
Who wrote these lies not from the case? Even the Department of Education would disagree
Page 13 of 30
The order continues with the lies claiming Mark clashed with his peers when the law school
journey is about Michael Roy Guttetntag who assaulted, battered, and threatened to kill Mark;
even OCR findings stated the same. Both the Department of Education and the Justice
Department would disagree with the order issued by the 7th Circuit because these are false facts
not from the case.
vs
Mark spoke many times with Mr. Frank Insalaco to which he told Mark “you were suppose to
get 3 panel judges, the judges know what happens.” While Deputy Circuit Executive Mr. Alex
Castaneda assured Mark in a phone call in the past that “all Judges are professional, there won’t
be any retaliation.” The date of the phone call was December 28, 2023 and later Mark followed
via email with him and others, even the justice department officials were on the emails.
Mark knew time and time again that his second appeal will be fixed based on the threat of Jim
Richmond but when one reports a crime, the system didn’t need to double down on it. While
Page 14 of 30
Mark has the option to file a motion for reconsideration if that is denied, he can file a petition en
banc, if that fails, he can petition the Supreme Court, Mark is not challenging the merits of the
decision but rather the non-merit conspiracy to fix Mark’s case by employees of the 7th Circuit.
II. ARGUMENT
with false facts, he will leave that to the proper appeal channels but rather the “conspiracy” to fix
Mark’s appeal based on the threatening words of Jim Richmond’s and Mark asking repeatedly
from Chief Judge Diane Sykes to appoint outside circuit judges and she refused. Here you see
repeated efforts to a non-merit related issues to target Mark and his case. This would also raise
direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.


20
21
Page 15 of 30
Moreover Mark recited the same rule recited by Justice Department lawyers when they seek
recusal of a judge from a certain case and the 7th Circuit granted it, Mark used the same in his
filings when seeking outside circuit judges but Chief judge Diane Sykes ignored it.
The question that is often asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to their rulings
but rather whether well-informed observer might question the Judges’ impartiality and to avoid
any appearance of impropriety. See whether a reasonable, well-informed observer could question
the Judge's impartiality. See, e.g., Hatcher, 150 F.3d at 637.
Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of
might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Supreme Court has
explained that “ ‘[t]he goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of
partiality.’ ” Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct.
2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (quoting Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 179
(5th Cir.1983)). Accordingly, we have required recusal “whenever there is ‘a
reasonable basis' for a finding of an ‘appearance of partiality under the facts and
circumstances' of the case.” Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985)
(quoting SCA Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 116 (7th Cir.1977)). Recusal is
required when a “reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve
the case on a basis other than the merits.” In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385 (7th
Cir.1990); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d at 1229.
A. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JIM RICHMOND AND THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES
The allegations pertaining to the 7th Circuit Judges and the threat made by Jim Richmond in the
past showed that Mark would be discriminated and retaliated against in the future and that his
case would be fixed and indeed it was. This would be in direct violation of several canons of the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”); 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). Along with the retaliation provision, retaliation
for reporting discrimination Under Rule 4(a)(4).
Page 16 of 30
B. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PARTTERN AND PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION:

THE WORDS OF JUDGE RICHARD POSNER AND JUDGE DIANE WOOD
The allegations pertaining to the 7th Circuit Judges pattern and practice of mistreating pro se
litigants like trash and destroying appeals with merits by 7th Circuit staff attorneys have been
recited by a whistleblower from within the system i.e., former Judge Richard Posner, and the
Judicial Conference Committee letter substantiate the ongoing dispute rather than addressing the
dispute at hand.
This Judicial Misconduct Complaint raises this ongoing dispute in direct violation of several
canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”); 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)
1. Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time’.23
2. The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly.24
3. Posner’s new book is bananas, but you might want it anyway.25
4. Letter from the Judicial Conference Committee to the 7th Circuit.26
In the book of “Helping the Helpless” Judge Richard Posner, a whistleblower against his own
colleagues reported that the 7th circuit would destroy good appeals with merit.
which the court disposed of pro se appeals—rejecting them even when they had merit.27
These allegations by itself would violate Judge’s canon 3.28
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should
perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is
harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following
standards:
22
23
See Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' (abajournal.com)
24
See The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly - Above the Law
25
See https://web.archive.org/web/20180817030918/ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-
you-might-want-it-anyway/
26
See Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf (google.com)
27
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225
28
Page 17 of 30
As Mark experienced in his own appeal related to the Department of Education, his appeal was
destroyed by presuming a staff attorney at the 7th Circuit who wrote an order with false facts and
had the judges rubber stamp it under the Court official capacity.
When Judges issue a written order, they write 134 pages when it involves lawyers and the media
as the case in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., No. 21-2475 (7th Cir. 2023).29
Reversed due to the Supreme Court recent ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023.30 And
every judge wanted to appear so eloquent in writing related to facts and the laws.
But when it came to Mark the Coptic, a pro se with a strong faith but he written a well good brief
and reply brief which God helped him with it, that even the Defendants couldn’t rebuttal other
than say “don’t see don’t look”. Then the outcome was 3 pages issued anonymously by the
“Court” with false facts in a public court document and they would call it justice. This is called
destroying an appeal with merits.
29
30
Page 18 of 30
C. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JUDGE JOHN Z LEE & OUTSTANDING

DISCRIMINATORY ORDER WITH RETALIATION
While Mark promised the new members of the Executive Committee that he won’t file any new
judicial misconduct complaint. Mark seeks cure and remedy to ongoing discrimination with
retaliation. The subject of this complaint is one of the former members of the Executive
Committee Judge John Z Lee and for many reasons.
First Mark was targeted and was threatened “not to speak about Jesus Christ or else” retaliation
will take place and it took place in the most egregious form. The prime suspect is Gary
Feinerman who encouraged others to do evil. Gary Feinerman resigned but we all know those
who see a crime and cover it, becomes an accomplice in a crime.
The order pertaining to the threat not to speak about Jesus Christ framing it under “political or
religious” materials still stands and never was rescinded. However, in Complaint 07-24-90020,
07-24-90019, 07-24-90018, 07-24-90011, 07-24-90010, 07-24-90009 filed by America First
Legal Foundation and the Judicial Watch, all 3 Judges including Chief Judge who were subject
of the complaints rescinded their discriminatory order in order to resolve the complaint. See
Chief circuit Judge Diane Sykes Memorandum Order.31
In this case, first Mark was character lynched because of an email related to Jesus Christ sent to
Ms. Rhonda Johnson who hated the name Jesus Christ and she could only target Mark when he
was alone, in fact when he was emailing her and Ms. Sarah Terman was on the emails, she could
31
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2024/07-24-90020-90019_90011-
90009_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
Page 19 of 30
not retaliate against him. This is one of the many facts. One can ask Ms. Rhonda Johnson of all
the emails Mark sent her before he was targeted by the Executive Committee.
The issue became evident is that the more Mark spoke about Jesus Christ, the more he was
threatened “speak again about Jesus Christ and see what will happen” that was the meaning of
the Order issued on February 11, 2022, after that Mark was retaliated further. Neither the
discriminatory order was rescinded nor the retaliations that took place i.e., Mark losing his ECF
account interfering with his ongoing litigation was also addressed.
The truth and the timeline are on the docket history. How many times does a litigant need to say
“stop discrimination only to be retaliated against?” This was done in an administrative capacity.
Page 20 of 30
How did Mark know Judge John Z Lee hates Christians and the name Jesus Christ just like Gary
Feinerman, his own answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
7th Circuit Judge John Z Lee, a former member of the executive committee, how did I know? All
3 judges who recused from voting on my petition for review before the 7th Circuit Judicial
Council were Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Gary Feinerman who resigned32, and Judge John
Z Lee, at that time he was in process of being nominated to the 7th Circuit through lobbying.33
Judge John Z Lee also hated the name Jesus Christ and not only was he a former member of the
Executive Committee but through his rulings he showed that he likes to “limit church goers” vs.
“a movie theater” where he doesn’t place any limits and he was asked that question during his
confirmation hearing, Senator Mike Lee tried to understand his heart more than his reasoning.34
But not only that, he lobbies for his judicial chair, which is something 5th Circuit Judge James Ho
condemned about some Judges who lobby for a lifetime chair. 5th Circuit Hon Judge Ho said the
following:
Too many judges, he said, are motivated by personal achievement, social climbing, and
cowering to public dissent, as opposed to public service. “If your whole life’s purpose is
to wear black robes, then maybe you shouldn’t,” he said, implying “gold star” judges
should resign. “No one forced you to become a judge. You agreed to become a judge.
Some people even lobby and campaign for it. And you can quit anytime you want.” “If
you do the job faithfully, you should expect to be either hated or ignored,” Ho added. The
judge, a 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump, said after his address that
public criticism and making potentially unpopular decisions is part of the job when
32
33
See 07-22-90048_through_90041_Order_pfr.pdf (uscourts.gov)
34
See https://youtu.be/DbMl2fYmuVo?si=ec3hzoqJ9ub5VPyh see also justice Neil Gorsuch which came way too
late but still came to be said and noticed https://fortune.com/2023/05/19/supreme-court-justice-gorsuch-covid-
lockdowns-civil-liberties/ see https://greatestreset.movie/
Page 21 of 30
faithfully interpreting the Constitution. “I’d say that it’s the God-given right of every red-
blooded American to yell at refs,” he said in his speech, referencing Chief Justice John
Roberts's comparison of judges to umpires. “I’d say the exact same thing about criticizing
judges.” Ho told judges to “expect,” “get used to,” and “get comfortable” with public
criticism, noting that sharp dissent his historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson, he noted,
once referred to the judiciary as a "subtle corps of sappers [and] miners constantly
working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric,” while
Theodore Roosevelt said of former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that one “could carve
out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that.”35
If one looks at Judge John Z. Lee, one would see he paid campaign contribution to both Barack
Obama and Senator Durbin campaigns, so in return, favor was his nomination to the district
bench and later to the 7th Circuit. To quote:
Lee has two political contributions to his name, one to President Obama and one to
Durbin, both in the 2008 cycle.36
The heart of the judge relays within his character, meaning if a judge hates the name Jesus Christ
and his teachings, that becomes part of that Judge’s character.
Judge John Z Lee while he was a former member of the Executive Committee, elevated to the 7 th
Circuit, I don’t think he would want to cover for Gary Feinerman’s crimes when he knows them.
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
35
See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-james-ho-challenges-judges-accept-public-criticism
36
See https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-
lookup/results?name=John+Lee&cycle=&state=IL&zip=&employ=Freeborn&jurisdiction=&cand=&type=
Page 22 of 30
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 that started on April 1, 2022 and repeated on June 10, 2022. While Mark has
new evidence, he shared this evidence with OCR and Justice Department Officials. But he can’t
share them in this complaint.
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.”
Put few of the former executive committee members in separate rooms and ask same and
different questions, if all their answers were consistent, then no one is lying but if you find
different answers then you know some are covering for another which would turn another to be
an accomplice knowing the crimes of Gary Feinerman. The subject of this complaint is Judge
John Z Lee, former member of the Executive Committee.
I have forgiven the remaining members of the Executive Committee; the one who asked for Gary
Feinerman to resign was Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer not Chief Judge Diane Sykes.
Mark is aware that Chief Judge Diane Sykes did interview Judge Sara Ellis because on her own
she pushed the hearing date to 3 month in advance after Mark filed his Judicial Misconduct
Complaint on June 10, 2022. See ECF 74 in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-CV-03887) dated June 13, 2022.
These allegations are in direct violations of several canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980 (“Act”); 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). Along with the retaliation provision, retaliation for reporting discrimination
Under Rule 4(a)(4).
How to resolve this complaint: is to cure the discrimination with retaliation by addressing it; the
same way it happened in this Complaint 07-24-90020, 07-24-90019, 07-24-90018, 07-24-90011,
07-24-90010, 07-24-90009 filed by America First Legal Foundation and the Judicial Watch.
Page 23 of 30
CONCLUSION
Public confidence is all the more imperiled because the judges’ discrimination does not end in
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
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.
This Complaint contains several allegations pertaining to different parties but they were all
connected.
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.
37
Page 24 of 30

occurred and whether it is ongoing. Complainant avers, however, that such a finding is
unnecessary. That is because the mere existence of the policies is misconduct enough.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 25 of 30
EXHIBIT LIST
A Mark’s letter to the Chair of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery
Sutton.
B Judicial Conference Committee responding to Former Chief Judge Diane Wood related
to issue of pattern and practice discrimination against pro se litigants reported by
Former Judge Richard Posner. The allegations were never address to this very day i.e.,
7th Circuit staff attorneys destroying appeals with merits and treating pro se litigants
like trash.
C Complaint Pertaining to the threats made by Jim Richmond during a judicial
misconduct proceeding regarding fixing Mark’s appeal in Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) with future retaliation.
Page 26 of 30
CC
THE WHITE HOUSE




Page 27 of 30


Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi Candace_Akiwumi@ca7.uscourts.gov
7th CIRCUIT STAFF


Ms. Rhonda Johnson rhonda_johnson@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Operation Supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker lorenzo_walker@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Assistant Operation Supervisor Mr. Travis Grammer travis_grammer@ilnd.uscourts.gov
HR. Director Ms. Michelle Hennings michelle_hennings@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF

Page 28 of 30
Mr. Michael Henry










Page 29 of 30




HOUSE SPEAKER


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

JUDICIALWATCH


Page 30 of 30
EXHIBIT C
I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World. Jesus Christ
Table of Contents
II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 21
A. ALLEGATION PERTAINING TO RETALIATION ....................................................................................... 23
B. ALLEGATION OF CONTINUED RETALIATION USING THE SANCTION SYSTEM ..................................... 23
C. MONEY EXTORTION UNDER DURESS: 2404 HOBBS ACT .................................................................... 27
D. ACTS UNDER OFFICIAL VS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY .............................................................................. 29
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Page 1 of 40
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

1 First Street, NE


CC




Page 2 of 40

cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
April 29, 2024
A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT OF RETALIATION
Re: The Targeting of Mark the Coptic during Passion Week toward Easter: 2nd time.
7th Circ
was that a commitment or words on paper only?
Re: A complaint of retaliation for filing a complaint of discrimination in Nos. 07-24-90029

through 90043 [ongoing]: Official vs. Individual Capacity [Motive]. See 24-1592 ECF 4
administrative, money extortion under duress 2404. Hobbs Act and 18
U.S. Code § 241. See ongoing appeal 22-2903, 23-1388 for panel re-hearing and en banc.
vs. Individual acts done under different motives. 1 See also United States v. Isaacs, 493
Cir. 1982).
I want to thank you for processing this 3rd 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 .
1
2
I told the executive committee in many of my filings in 1:21-cv-06223
Page 3 of 40
When Office for civil Rights at the Department of Education evaluates a retaliation complaint,
they set forth elements in order to evaluate retaliation.
This was a case of a black student who alleged that in retaliation for asserting that his
professor (the Professor) refused to review a draft of an essay because of his race or color, the
department chair (the chair): (a) overruled the decision to review the essay that
was the subject of his grade dispute; (b) cancelled an independent research course led by the
chair for which he had registered; (c) advised the complainant that he would prevent him from
registering for the course with another professor; and (d) dissuaded two professors from
representing the complainant in a grade appeal.
OCR easily found that retaliation occurred based on the following met elements:
was aware of the protected activity; (3) whether the complainant was
subjected to an adverse action contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the
learning of the involvement in the protected activity; and, (4) whether
OCR determined that the complainant engaged in protected activity by sending the e-mail on
December 19, 2014, asserting that the Professor had refused to review a draft of his
essay because of his race or skin color. Further, OCR determined that the chair was aware of the
protected activity. The chair acknowledged that he instructed the Professor not to
review the grade, cancelled the independent study course, and prohibited the
complainant from taking the independent study course with another professor.
Based on the above, OCR determined that the decision was motivated by a desire to
retaliate against the complainant for his complaint of race discrimination regarding the Professor.
Moreover, OCR determined that the actions could effectively chill future protected
activities. See findings along with a resolution agreement in Case No. 02-15-
University.3
This was the work of a Federal Agency OCR at the Department of Education adjudicating a
retaliation complaint and remedying it. However, how shall the Judicial Branch as an
administrative agency adjudicate a retaliation complaint under the Judicial Conduct and
and remedy the retaliation that was done with the knowledge of
Complaint in Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043.
3
See Findings
https://web.archive.org/web/20201028220551/https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/
more/02152348-a.pdf and see Resolution Agreement
https://web.archive.org/web/20170715124207/https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/
more/02152348-b.pdf
Page 4 of 40
Article II Misconduct and Disability 4(a)(3) Discrimination. Cognizable misconduct

includes intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, religion, national
Article II Misconduct and Disability
Cognizable misconduct includes retaliating against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees,
or others for participating in this complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial
4
and one or several judges from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
violated this canon several times with intent and possibly malice.5

offends the

-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (citations and internal
-El).
When a person reports discrimination based on national origin and religion in complaint Nos. 07-
24-90029 through 90043
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 . 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 intentional discrimination with
retaliation. This is exactly what happened in this situation; if the unknown judge who retaliated is
capacity in order to reach his or her individual motives of targeting a
Coptic and during passion week toward the Coptic Easter May 5, 2024, if this was done by one
judge then it is retaliation per se but if it was done by several judges then it turns into conspiracy
to retaliate and potentially violates 18 U.S. Code § 241; Conspiracy against Rights.
aliate against any person for reporting or

The idea of a system of self-policing and absolute perceived 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.6
4
See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
5
The goal of this complaint is reform https://youtu.be/A14THPoc4-4?t=130 (Restorative Justice)
6
here-2021-10-06/
Page 5 of 40
The Subjects of this Complaint are: All 7th Circuit Judges because the judge or the judges who
implicating
everyone while their motive to retaliate was done in an individual capacity knowing too well
revealing their name would subject him or her to a retaliation complaint. That means the
remaining of the 7th Circuit judges have the duty to either speak up against the evil seed(s) from
within which aimed to retaliate or they would all be in agreement to retaliate which I could
hardly think all 15 Judges of this Circuit wishes to retaliate against Mark the Coptic.7
I often find in life that people often gather in order 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. 8
Section §
are subject to the .
purview. The f you have concerns
to the clerk of the court where that individual is employed. 9
I am filing this Judicial Misconduct Complaint and seeking under Rule 26 for the 5 th Circuit
pertaining to this complaint and when an honest investigation reveals disputed facts that needs a
special committee to investigate it, I am seeking under Rule 26 of the Judicial Conduct and
for the 5th Circuit to conduct the complete investigation.

accepts the matter.
all procedural handling.
7
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judges-biographies/biographies7.htm
8
9
Page 6 of 40
This Judicial Misconduct Complaint contain many disputed facts subject to a special committee
to investigate under
fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute .
10
Most Circuit Chief
Exhibit B
Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery Sutton. The letter explains most of this journey
and the issues surrounding the 7th Circuit mistreatment of pro se litigants.
See a dear Colleague letter issued by the Justice Department to all federal financial assistance
recipients.11
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
justice is upheld healing a society in pain which is a the role of the justice system
.
Mr. Jim Richmond a former supervisor of the 7th Circuit told Mar
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
12
when
10
11
and-fees-youth-and
12
Circuit
Page 7 of 40
rd
o supplement, that will enrage all the judges; you really want to be put on
Conference has jurisdiction over us? That is Robert's
-
Said Jim Richmond.
Jim Richmond 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.14 The Coptic people celebrates
Easter this week on May 5, 2024.
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. On March 29, 2024, Mark delivered a copy of his Judicial Misconduct Complaint via
UPS to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, while he also followed up with a copy of his Judicial
13
14
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeVZRZlt-7Q
Page 8 of 40
Misconduct Complaint directly with Mr. Christopher Conway, the Clerk of the 7th Circuit. On a
personal note, Mr. Conway has been nice to Mark, God bless him. The email also had many
individuals and entities added to it such as all Supreme Court Justices, the Judicial Conference
Committee, and National Office of Judicial Integrity Mr. Michael Henry, All 7 th Circuit Judges,
Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee, House Speaker, President Biden,
Presidential Candidates Trump and Kennedy, Justice Department senior officials, FBI Director
Wray, Inspector Generals and many others. As one can see, this was a pretty lengthy email.
3. On April 4, 2024, Mark received a copy of his filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint with
a receipt case number 07-24-90029 through 90043 sent by Mr. Christopher Conway. Mark did
follow up with a letter dated April 8, 2024, a motion under Rule 26 of the Judicial Conduct and
Di seeking outside circuit to conduct the preliminary review and the
special committee to investigate any disputed facts.
4. In subsequent email dated April 7, 2024, Mark also invited all members of the Judicial
Conference Committee because this is such a complex journey and an important case, the case of
the IHRA definition to which many judges of this Circuit tried to reduce Mark by different
Page 9 of 40
means.15 The targeting direct and covert never ceased to this very day. But it is evil to take
pleasure inflicting pain on the weak.
5. Pope Francis of Holy See and Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria were also invited to the
email and became part of this journey
s way of life completely changed because of this case
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); Mark has endured multiple scheme of
retaliation,
but there is a God who sees everything.
6.
Committee Hon. Jeffery Sutton in ECF 141 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) alon
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).

To my mind, transparency goes with accountab Where you have
reform behavior, and it deters ot
7. 07-24-90029 through 90043

contained several issues with disputed facts, some of which are the allegations of former 7 th
Circuit Judge Richard Posner acting as a whistleblower against his colleagues reporting that the
7th
violate several canons under the .
15
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/jcus_members_2024-mar-3.pdf
16
Page 10 of 40
8. cial Misconduct Complaint in Nos.

07-24-90029 through 90043 involved non-merit related issues such as conspiring to fix and
destroy his ongoing appeal in 22-2903, 23-1388 according to the words of Jim Richmond.
364 and the Rules for
17
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.

ruling is not merits-
challenge to the correctness of the ruling itself. An allegation that a
i . An allegation that a

merits-related. The merits-
9. From this point moving forward, Mark decided to leave the adjudication of his filed
Judicial Misconduct Complaint to the Judicial Branch Administrative Agency while he
proceeded within his case in appeal 22-2903, 23-1388. Mark noted within his complaint:
First Mark does not challenge the merit of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal egregious false
ruling with false facts, he will leave that to the proper appeal channels but rather the
Mark asking repeatedly from Chief Judge Diane Sykes to appoint outside circuit judges
and she refused. Here you see repeated efforts to a non-merit related issues to target Mark
and his case. This would also raise direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy
against rights.
17
18
Page 11 of 40
10. In one phone call with Mr. Frank Insalaco, a good supervisor at the 7 th Circuit who often
told Mark in the past tr have faith in the system . In one phone call Mr.
-hearing and hearing en banc, it takes him time to
re-
11. Mark decided to trust

is trying his best to assure public trust and public
confidence in the system but Mr. Insalaco is a nice supervisor but not the Judges ruling he 7th
Circuit.
12. After Mark prayed, he decided to return to the system to see if it can change on its own,
by turning from evil to good. So Mark filed two things. First he filed and delivered a petition for
re-hearing and hearing en banc in 22-2903, 23-1388 and he also filed a petition for writ
mandamus seeking an injunction against the IHRA definition in 24-1592.
The petition for re-hearing was passed to all the judges of the 7th Circuit on April 19, 2024.
13. Mark was waiting for the system to do justice when they remedy the previous action that
his appeal was fixed with false facts fulfilling the words of J
own to defeat Satan by craving good rather than evil.
Page 12 of 40
14. While Mark was awaiting to hear on the decision pertaining to his petition for re-hearing
and hearing en banc.19 He took notice of something strange, he found that his petition for writ
mandamus seeking an injunction against the IHRA definit
have opposing counsel name on the electronic notification, i.e., Ms Sarah Terman. It had District
Clerk Mr. Thomas Bruton and Judge Sara Ellis.
15. Mark started to call the 7th Circuit and spoke first with Clerk #1 Supervisor, she told
filed the petition correctly just like Caryn Strickland in Strickland v. United States of America
(1:20-cv-00066) when she filed a petition for writ mandamus.20 Mark asked Clerk Supervisor #1
if anyone can add Ms. Sarah Terman on the petition because she would be the one who would
Ms. Sarah Ter
ocketed
Insalaco.
19
See a copy of the petition 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 see
https://www.scribd.com/document/712045074/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-The-
Chevron-Doctrine and reply brief https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-
Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-Brief See
https://www.scribd.com/document/721944918/Department-of-Education-Response-in-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-
of-Education-1-21-cv-03887
20
See copy of Strickland Petition for Writ Mandamus
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.99571/gov.uscourts.ncwd.99571.6.0.pdf
Page 13 of 40
16. Mark spoke with Mr. Insalaco in length and told him if anyone can fix this situation and
after lengthy conversation, Mark told Mr. Insalaco that he will just wait to hear on his petition
for hearing and re-hearing en banc because it also addresses that the court failed to evaluation an
injunction against the IHRA definition and Mr. Insalaco agreed and told Mark he has to go for
other meetings.
17. In the meantime, Mark followed with a series of emails to Mr. Frank Insalaco on April
25, 2024. See ECF 147 in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-CV-
03887).
Page 14 of 40
18. Next day, on April 26, 2024 and during lent toward Passion Week toward the Coptic
Easter, came the retaliation with a section to pay $1600 within 14 days and this was the work of
Satan for he showed the future but this was
Passion Week. The first time it happened was when Mark was targeted at Chicago Public School
on April 1st 2022 and he found a link between Gary Feienrman a former member of the
Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois and Chicago Public School. The targeting
happened also the first time during Passion Week right before Easter dated April 24, 2022.
19. Despite of an ongoing Judicial Misconduct Complaint in Nos. 07-24-90029 through

90043 pertaining to all the judges of the 7th Circuit, meaning no retaliation but came a judge
sanctioned Mark to pay excessive fee in the amount of $1600 ($500 + outstanding fee) stating in
n 24-1592 ECF No. 4.
20. The entered ordered revealed selective targeting and showed retaliation because one of
the judges from the 7th Circuit tried to achieve certain motive to retaliate while hiding behind the
official capacity of the Court during an ongoing Judicial Misconduct Complaint in Nos. 07-24-
90029 through 90043. This was a form of extortion in the middle of an ongoing litigation.
Page 15 of 40
21. But not only that, this retaliatory ordered came before the Panel for Re-hearing and
Hearing en banc in 22-2903, 23-1388 is ruled on because if the case is presumed to return to the
district court, how can Mark file any paper without first paying the excessive arbitrary sanction.
22.
th
filed frivolous appeals, petitions, and motions. Circuit was
based on two appeals, one pertaining to the Executive Committee and it was a paid appeal
Page 16 of 40
many merits. The other appeal is the ongoing appeal related to the Department of Education 22-
2903, 23-1388 and it was never ruled frivolous at all. There is no public record with the 7th
Circuit wherein, the Court ruled in either of these two appeals that any of the filed motions or
their appeals were frivolous; rather both were all sound and came with many merits that were
difficult for the 7th Circuit to adjudicate by rendering justice and healing a society in pain. They
loved evil and hated good while distorting the truth but there is a God who sees everything.
23. Adding to that, Mark entire litigation history in the District Court of Northern District of
the Court retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement in Amin et al v. 5757 North
Sheridan Rd Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66)21 and the other case is the case of the
Department of Education and the Israeli lobby in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education
et al (1:21-CV-03887) the District Court in these two
cases never
24. During the course of litigation in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-CV-03887), Mark disclosed a copy of his Judicial Misconduct complaint publicly in ECF
78 showing selective targeting against a Coptic. To which later through several conversation
with Jim Richmond, Mark discovered that his docket entry 78 was sealed quietly and this
happened when the entire Courts, both the 7th Circuit and the District Court closed to seal Ma
judicial misconduct complaint trying to turn him from a complainant into a respondent; facts
were revealed in Appeal 22-1815. One can read the brief in 22-1815 ECF Nos. 56 and 57 or in
ECF 120 and 121 in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-CV-03887).22
21
See Agreed Order https://www.scribd.com/document/117814007/Fair-Housing-Agreed-Order
22
See Copy of the Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-
Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 see copy of the appendix
https://www.scribd.com/document/717645429/Appendix-Related-to-Executive-Committee-in-22-1815-121-cv-
06223
Page 17 of 40
25. When Mark asked the Court to unseal docket entry 78 because it would also become part
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to
10/31/2022). ECF 102.
26. Mark only other venue seeking to unseal docket entry 78 and why it was sealed in the
first place not by the Court was to file a petition for writ mandamus just like Caryn Strickland
did when her lawsuit was initially sealed in Strickland v. United States of America (1:20-cv-
00066) ECF 8 and she continues to file another petition for writ mandamus with the most recent
filing in ECF 413 right after Trial; this was a lawsuit against the 4 th Circuit judges for Title ix
23
27. When Mark filed his first petition for writ mandamus, 23-1762. Without any due process
or filed briefs vering for the system, hiding behind the
, 45 F.3d 185, 186
(7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)24 that are often used against vexatious
with many filed lawsuits against judges and others, even lawsuit many judges across different
districts. See history of Abul Muhammad and his filings to this very day. 25
1) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10784571/Mohammed_v_Lyft_Inc_et_al
2) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/34813583/In_Re_Abdul_Mohammed
3) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/34727353/Mohammed_v_State_of_Illinois_e
t_al
4) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10808332/Mohammed_v_Sidecar_Technolog
ies_Inc_et_al
5) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10823869/Mohammed_v_Uber_Technologie
s_lnc_et_al
6) https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/42625587/Mohammed_v_United_States_of_
America,_et_al
7) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2534/20-2534-2021-01-
21.html
23
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
24
See Support Systems Intern., Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 | Casetext Search + Citator
25
See Mohammed v. United States, 23-cv-788 (CRC) | Casetext Search + Citator
Page 18 of 40
28.
order
reciting this case , 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)26
mandamus seeking to unseal docket entry 78 and they told Mark file anything frivolous again
, meaning we will sanction you. Often it is the practice of the 7 th Circuit to
either admonish or warn litigants and after several warnings, they proceed to a sanction and they
often explain how certain filings were s understand their
the case here; 23-1762. Without any arguments or briefs, or explanation as to how seeking to
unseal docket entry 78 and who sealed it was frivolous when the district court said
. But this frivolous order was overruled by an en
banc panel when they all ruled in appeal 22-
both issues were pertaining to former members of the Executive Committee of Northern District
of Illinois sealing docket entry 78. The 7th Circuit was also aware of the scheme according to the
words of Jim Richmond.
29. When Mark filed a second petition for writ mandamus but this time pertaining to the
IHRA definition in 24-1592, came the same anonymous angry voices and sanctioned Mark
during an ongoing Judicial Misconduct complaint which is retaliation.
26
Page 19 of 40
30. Mark again is not challenging the Merit behind this frivolous order; he will leave this to
the proper appeal channels i.e., the Supreme Court.
The authority of courts of appeals to issue extraordinary writs is derived from 28 U.S.C.
§1651. Subdivisions (a) and (b) regulate in detail the procedure surrounding the writs
most commonly sought mandamus or prohibition directed to a judge or judges. Those
subdivisions are based upon Supreme Court Rule 31, with certain changes which reflect
the uniform practice among the circuits (Seventh Circuit Rule 19 is a typical circuit rule).
Subdivision (c) sets out a very general procedure to be followed in applications for the
variety of other writs which may be issued under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §1651.
31. Mark in this judicial misconduct complaint is challenging the non-merit related issue and
the scheme to retaliate against him during an ongoing complaint of discrimination in Nos. 07-24-
90029 through 90043.
ny person for reporting or

Page 20 of 40
Moreover, the ruling to sanction Mark was done in an administrative capacity not judicial.
Before a sanction can be levied and not being excessive ($1600 in total), one must first warn and
explain to the simple minds while being humble, what he or she did was wrong and why it was
(we are not trash in your book according to Former
Judge Richard Posner), that would be a relationship between a good
a good
capacity in order to reach their individual capacity motives to retaliate by falsely citing a case
law such as , 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)27 that
is often used against vexatious litigants to deter their practice.
32. The motive to retaliate happened during an ongoing judicial misconduct proceeding in
Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 and an ongoing petition for re-hearing and hearing an en banc
in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al 22-2903, 23-1388 giving rise to
retaliation along with 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
Unless all the judges of the 7th Circuit wanted to retaliate against Mark the Coptic and the
petition for writ Mandamus speeded up the retaliation revealing the truth during Passion Week
right before the Coptic Easter May 5, 2024.
II. ARGUMENT
with false fact
from Chief Judge Diane Sykes to appoint outside circuit judges and she refused. Here you see
repeated efforts to a non-merit related issues to target Mark and his case. This would also raise
direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
364 and the Rules for

27
28
Page 21 of 40
. An allegation that a

Moreover, the excessive fine of $500 plus outstanding filing fees i.e., the costs of the two
petitions for writ mandamus ($500 + $600) sanction to be all paid $1600 in total within 14 days;
no reasonable human being can pay this amount unless he or she is rich. Yet we have here the
sins of the entire Judicial Branch.30
vs
29
30
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159992/Letter-to-the-Judicial-Conference-Committee-The-Judicial-
Branch-Pleads-for-More-Funds See https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-
cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421 and see https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-
thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus
Page 22 of 40
A. ALLEGATION PERTAINING TO RETALIATION
The allegations pertaining to the 7th Circuit Judges and the threat made by Jim Richmond in the
past showed that Mark would be discriminated and retaliated against in the future and that his
case would be fixed and indeed it was. This would be in direct violation of several canons of the
; Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and especially
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). Along with the retaliation provision, retaliation
for reporting discrimination Under Rule 4(a)(4).
rd
c.c.d._no._22-
31
01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov). During several follow up conversations because he knew it
ey need to shut up
Said Jim Richmond.
B. ALLEGATION OF CONTINUED RETALIATION USING THE SANCTION SYSTEM
Clerk Supervisor #1 told Mark on 4/29/2024 that the order entered in 24-1592 was by 3 panel
judges. Thus, 3 judges from the 7th Circuit came, while hiding their name behind the Court
official capacity and retaliated. If they knew what they were doing was sound legally and
morally, they wouldn
achieve their individual capacity retaliatory motives. In simple term, humans have distorted the
oing
was a sin and evil.
The allegations pertaining to some unknown 3 panel judges from 7th Circuit showed pattern and
practice of continued retaliation against Mark the Coptic during his religious holiday while
trying of fix his appeal over and over and in the midst of an ongoing judicial misconduct
complaint is proven through the arbitrary excessive sanction imposed on him with filing bar if he
to reconsider or it; speak to us after

2 years.
31
Page 23 of 40
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.
This would violate canon 4(a)(4) under the .
etaliate against any person for reporting or

Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibi

-El).
This would also violate several Canons, A Judge

Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 3(A)(2), Canon 3(A)(3).32
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
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.
was aware of the protected activity; (3) whether the complainant was
subjected to an adverse action contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the
learning of the involvement in the protected activity; and, (4) whether
A Chief Judge, who must appoint a special committee to investigate disputed facts, would
with a payment within 14 days, almost amount to money extortion.

32
Page 24 of 40
A limited inquiry would find that the subject anonymous judges were (1) aware that Mark was
engaging in a protected activity when he filed a judicial misconduct complaint in Nos. 07-24-
90029 through 90043 allegation discrimination based on national origin and religion and that he
even emailed all the judges of the 7th Circuit a copy of his complaint. A limited inquiry would
also find (2) that the subject anonymous judges hiding behind the official capacity of the court
ould also find (3) that the subject
anonymous judges took adverse action against Mark in the midst of his ongoing civil right
litigation appeal in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) 2903, 23-1388 and
that the adverse action was contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the learning of
the involvement in the protected activity. A limited inquiry would also find that
(4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action from which
a retaliatory motivation reasonably may be inferred: the subject judges were aware of
Judicial Misconduct Complaint and his en banc panel hearing petition, they were also aware of
his judicial misconduct complaint directly via email and when reading the docket history that
was disclosed and generated by the clerk of 7th Circuit court in ECF 1 in 24-1592 when they
docketed the docket history.
When there is evidence of all four elements, the last step is to determine whether the anonymous
judges issuing the arbitrary sanctioning order 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. A limited inquiry would find that the anonymous judges issued a form of
excessive sanction with a filing bar if the amount is not paid while baring Mark from even filing
any paper seeking reduction of the sanction or modification to the sanction while all of this
happened during his en banc petition hearing along with his ongoing judicial misconduct
complaint.
A reasonable mind would come to conclusion that the anonymous judges hidden their names
behind the Court official capacity because they were well aware they were retaliating against
Mark the Coptic for filing a judicial misconduct complaint.
frivolous, this practice was done by Hon. Judge Sara Ellis who on the record admonished Mark
not to direct any new motion to her, so Mark respected her wish and never filed any motion
directed to her since then, ECF 140.
Page 25 of 40
Simply, put the 7th Circuit 3 panel anonymous judges in 24-1592 wanted to retaliate against
Mark with intent and malice in direct violation of canon 4(a)(4) under the Judicial Conduct and
.


71, 81 (D.D.C. -El).
See also Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).33
34
retaliated against, or had felt completely unable to do anything
33
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1346/21-1346-2022-04-26.html equitable
reliefs.
Page 26 of 40
C. MONEY EXTORTION UNDER DURESS: 2404 HOBBS ACT
Humans with power with no oversight and no fear of the Lord, God will use that power for evil
rather than good. If an FBI agent or a Police officer sought money from a private citizen in order
to allow that same private citizen to continue litigating his civil right lawsuit, the FBI agent or
the Police officer would be indicted for money extortion under duress.
The Justice Department released the following two documents titled:
a) 2403. Hobbs Act -- Extortion by Force, Violence, or Fear.35

b) 2404. Hobbs Act -- Under Color of Official Right.36
Justice Department senior official and FBI Director Wray saw my journey ever sense this case
landed in the federal court; Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). They saw
how my home was the first target, and later my place of work at Chicago Public School was the
next target, and later me several times through my on civil right case. They also saw through Ms.
Sarah Terman, a justice department lawyer representing the Department of Education, through
her they saw my medical record and medical diagnosis which were filed under seal in appeal
2903, 23-1388. They saw my high blood pressure to the point the neurologist sent me to the ER
and later I was put on high blood pressure medication, and they saw my history of seizure
epilepsy along with my MRI scan result and they saw that I am not suppose to be exposed to
constant anxiety or depression because it can endanger my history of seizure epilepsy.
And with all of this and we have some Judges at the 7th Circuit who all they care about is their
status and pride and no one else, who are now trying to extort excessive money $1600 from me
money
civil right case is still ongoing Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).
34
35
See https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2403-hobbs-act-extortion-force-violence-or-
fear
36
See https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2404-hobbs-act-under-color-official-right
Page 27 of 40
In order to prove a violation of Hobbs Act extortion by the wrongful use of actual or threatened
force, violence, or fear, the following questions must be answered affirmatively:
In addition to the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, the Hobbs Act
(18 U.S.C. § 1951) the obtaining of property from another, with his
consent . . . under color of official In fact, the under color of official right aspect of the
Hobbs Act derives from the common law meaning of extortion. As the Supreme Court explained
in a recent opinion regarding the Hobbs Act,
[a]t common law, extortion was an offense committed by a public official who took 'by
color of his office' money that was not due to him for the performance of his official
duties. . . . Extortion by the public official was the rough equivalent of what we would
no Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).
In order to show a violation of the Hobbs Act under this provision, the Supreme Court recently
held that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which
he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was ma While the
definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act with regard to force, violence or fear requires the
obtaining of property from another with his consent induced by these means, the under color of
official right provision does not require that the public official take steps to induce the
extortionate payment: It can be said that "the coercive element is provided by the public office
itself. Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992); see United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d
108, 130 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983) ("[t]he public officer's misuse of his
office supplies the necess ).
When an agency within the judicial branch does crosses the line of forgoing their immunity in
both their official and individual based on the acts taken against a private citizen? Which system
The Justice Department released a dated April 20, 2023 to all State and
Federal Courts receiving federal funds, stating.37
37
and-fees-youth-and Letter https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1580546/download
Page 28 of 40
income or background
Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.
When does the official act using individual capacity crosses the line into civil right violations?
This question was answered several times to which the judicial branch tried to shield other
federal judges from it but the Lord, God allowed the question to come before the public over and
over.
D. ACTS UNDER OFFICIAL VS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
The issue with perceived absolute immunity allows evil hearts with power to target the weak
with no remedies because they knew the system was designed to protects the powerful while
neglecting the weak.
In 1974 and 1982 came two indictments against sitting federal judges. See also United States v.
Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1131 (7th Cir. 1974)38 and United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 707
(11th Cir. 1982).39 But after these two federal cases, no one saw a greater oversight by the Justice
powerful holds power, to use that power to heal a society in pain.
The issue of immunity is now revisited in Trump v. United States 23-939.40 One can see the
entire oral argument by the Supreme Court Justices and then each Justice tried to ask questions in
parable.41 Then the questions in parable started to fall on humans, and now humans are trying to
even predict the future and how the future should proceed but only God controls the future.
42
Here humans perverted the simple words of Good vs. Evil by
saying:
So the office of legal counsel looked at this very carefully and determined that number
personally carrying out the drone strike. But the aiding and abetting laws are broad and it
38
See https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-isaacs-8
39
See https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hastings-6
40
41
See entire oral argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-403dUVj80
42
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIsDXQIfD_o see
https://youtu.be/DIsDXQIfD_o?si=4oxdMDtgbLiBBoJH&t=474
Page 29 of 40
determined that a public authority exception that is built into statues and that applied
particularly into the murder statue because it talks about unlawful killings did not apply
43
In simple language, human saw evil but defined it differently according to their own powers.
Next q
rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that
44
ds on the hypothetical
behind the official act.45
In simple language, human saw evil but defined it differently according to their own powers.
the light shining on them tried to behave like a God, trying to determine what is evil and how to
shield evil under official vs. individual act and what is the role of immunity when one with
power does evil.
46
43
See https://twitter.com/USA_Anne711/status/1783550702687486096 see
https://twitter.com/InvestigateEar1/status/1783541752042754411
44
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE7f6J19AIw
45
See https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1783549696373293108
46
Page 30 of 40
Here is the parable; these are the words of Justice Clarence Thomas when he was accused of evil.
It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm
concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for
themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless
you kowtow to the old order, this is what will happen to you. 47 Said Justice Thomas.
48
he
wanted to portray a reality that through Jesus Christ everyone is created equal, but people will
question his heart and his work when they see that he is not using his powers every day to help
the weak, at that moment the Lord, God tested Justice Clarence Thomas by showing that rich
people lobby him with expensive gifts and travel like the Koch family because they seek
49
47
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8&t=187s
48
See Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4YEGT5rsd0
49
See https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus
Page 31 of 40
vs
essed is your heart

50
That is why Mark often skims from time to time the
for the weak.51
The same test, Justice Kavanugh was subject to it when he was accused of evil, he wept as he
saw his reputation is on the line.52 He cared about his status, his character, and his career.
All these powerful judges, the Lord, God put them to the test so that they offer rescue and solace
toward the weak when the weak stands before them, they were all attacked in their characters, in
their status, and their whole way of life could have turned different if God w
them providing
overcome their trials, it was because God was there to give them the chance in life that when the
weak come to them, they learn to offer kindness, rescue, and solace. This was the parable of why
the powerful was subject to public humiliation in order to find compassion towards the weak.
50
51
See http://shadowdocket.net/byjustice.html
52
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjLMnXlT56w
Page 32 of 40
How to resolve this complaint: is to cure the discrimination with retaliation by addressing it; the
same way it happened in this Complaint 07-24-90020, 07-24-90019, 07-24-90018, 07-24-90011,
07-24-90010, 07-24-90009 filed by America First Legal Foundation and the Judicial Watch.53
CONCLUSION
Public confidence is all the more imperiled because th does not end in
prescribed.
case. It does not mount a collateral

attack on the substance of any case. Nor does it challenge See
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
.
determine that the complaint somehow challenges a procedural ruling rather than the policies
53
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2024/07-24-90020-90019_90011-
54
Page 33 of 40
compelling decisions that in turn constitute procedural rulings this complaint should still go
forward under Rule 4(b)(1) because it does not challenge procedu

occurred and whether it is ongoing.
When Office for civil rights issues a letter of findings, they advise the recipient not to intimidate,
discriminate, or otherwise retaliate.55
The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the
purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws. If, for example,
an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights pr
it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also
unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified,
or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding.
55
See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201304.html
Page 34 of 40
This is coming from a federal agency by senior civil right investigator but what about a judge
conducting an investigation acting as an investigator within the judicial branch? How to
adjudicate retaliation and how to prevent future retaliation under Rule 4(a)(4)?

Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 35 of 40
EXHIBIT LIST
A Mr. Christopher Conway, Clerk of the 7th Circuit letter to Mark Bochra docketing
Judicial Complaint Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 dated April 4. 2024.
B
Sutton.
C Copy of OCR in term of how they adjudicated a retaliation complaint in OCR Case No.
02-15-2348. Findings with the resolution agreement. How does the judicial branch
investigate and adjudicate retaliation complaints?
Page 36 of 40
CC
THE WHITE HOUSE




Page 37 of 40


7th CIRCUIT STAFF


5th CIRCUIT STAFF

56
Page 38 of 40
Mr. Michael Henry




Chief of Staff Pat Souders Chief of Staff Jennifer Heins

Chief of Staff Monalisa Dugu Chief of Staff Tamara Fucile

Chief of Staff Brian Winseck Chief of Staff Joel Kelsey

Chief of Staff Coti Haia Chief of Staff Veronica Duron

Chief of Staff David Montes Chief of Staff Reynaldo Benitez

Chief of Staff Ali Golden Chief of Staff Marvin Figueroa

Chief of Staff Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff Mark Wait
Page 39 of 40

Chief of Staff Aaron Reitz Chief of Staff Chris Weihs

Chief of Staff Doug Coutts Chief of Staff David Stokes

Chief of Staff Shil Patel Chief of Staff Jon Adame

HOUSE SPEAKER


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

JUDICIALWATCH


Page 40 of 40
EXHIBIT III
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 28, 2024
The Honorable John Roberts The Honorable Jeffery Sutton

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chair of the Judicial Conference
1 First Street, NE Executive Committee
Washington, D.C. 20543 jeffrey_sutton@ca6.uscourts.gov
jroberts@supremecourt.gov JCD_PetitionforReview@ao.uscourts.gov






Page 1 of 50

cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
Re: Jim Richmond of the 7th Circuit threatened Mark the Coptic during a judicial misconduct
proceeding related to his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-CV-03887)
being fixed pertaining to the Israeli Lobby Kenneth Marcus & the IHRA definition. The
7th lled and completed the words of Jim Richmond and left a trail of
mistakes in a public order by redacting evidence and Senator Dick
writing a fiction not from the case. Discrimination with Retaliation against a Coptic.
Re: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241.
Re: Former 7th

histleblower against his own colleagues. The
Chief Judge Diane Wood advising her confidential internal communications is their
choice to be kept confidential.
Re: The Judicial Conference Committee has a duty to reform and tell judges to change their
evil ways or this would not be a Court (7th Circuit) anymore which heals a society in
pain.
Dear Chair Honorable Jeffery Sutton,
My name is Mark Bochra, I am a Coptic.1 The founder of the Abraham Accord which brought
peace between Arabs and Israel through Jesus Christ, only when I took everyone back to the
origin; Genesis 16 Isaac, the sons of Hagar and Sarah.
1
See Christian Coptic of Egypt http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/ see former president Donald Trump
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-global-
coptic-day-2020/ see https://twitter.com/philosproject/status/1267508827030802432
Page 2 of 50
I want to thank you for taking the time and reading this lengthy letter as the Chair of the Judicial
Conference Executive Committee and then discussing it with members of the Judicial
Conference Committee because it is the Judicial Conference Committee that has jurisdiction over
Circuit Courts .
When a judge sins, the only venue is the system of self policing which across the years proved
according to many public reporting futile to bring any form of concrete reforms.2 However, that
judges or the parable of the unjust judge would not be told by Jesus Christ to the world and it is
the role of the good judges to tell evil judges to change their ways or leave the bench by passing
the baton to a new leaf.
Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told attendees of a conference in Chicago
focused on threats to the independ unimaginable that we
have a segment of our federal judiciary that's not We've had
some judges who've been engaged in atrocious behavior, sexual assault, sexual
intimidation and other misconduct, And many times we haven't been proactive
in punishing them and sanctioning them for what they've done. 3
Judge James Ho of the 5th Circuit decried what he called against

religious conservatives on college campuses. religious viewpoints gets you vilified.
But claiming a right to eliminate a religious group gets you the benefit of the the judge
said, in an apparent reference to the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. traditional
values makes people feel unsafe. But supporting terrorism against innocent civilians
is violence unless speech that cultural elites Ho said.4 Judge Ho also added.
Too many judges, he said, are motivated by personal achievement, social climbing, and
cowering to public dissent, as opposed to p
to wear black r gold st
No one forced you to become a judge. You agreed to become a judge.
Some people even lobby and campaign for it. And If
you do the job faithfully, you should expect Ho added.
-given right of every red-bl he said in
his speech, referencing Chief Justice John Roberts's comparison of judges to umpires.
thing expect,
ge with public criticism, noting that sharp dissent his
historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson, he noted, once referred to the judiciary as a
subtle corps of sappers [and] miners constantly working underground to undermine the
foundati while Theodore Roosevelt said of former Justice
and see https://twitter.com/BonnieCrombie/status/1399836386975535105 and see

https://twitter.com/BishBassilious/status/1399002658313175040
2
here-2021-10-06/
3
See Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code | Reuters
4
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fifth-circuits-ho-calls-on-judges-to-embrace-harsh-criticism
Page 3 of 50
could carve out of a banana a judge with more

5
The role of a judge in a system of self-

and an investigator and when the role changes to a manager and an investigator, it comes down
to either writing the truth or committing a cover up by tempering with the truth and the evidence.
Not only that, but what happens if the subjects of a judicial misconduct complaint were also
defendants in an appeal and both the judicial misconduct complaint and the appeal were fixed by
the same judges; now has the system rendered justice or even healed a society in pain or actually
corrupted the court official capacity by using their individual capacity.
The difference between merit-related vs. non-merit related to a ruling in a colloquial sense under
Rule 11(c)(
364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.6

. An allegation that a

th
Circuit used the official
capacity of the Court while hiding their individual capacity motives; in that sense, they have
dishonored the court which they are employees of, destroyed public confidence in the federal
5
See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-james-ho-challenges-judges-accept-public-criticism
6
7
Page 4 of 50
judicial branch which Chief Justice John Roberts always decries when he recites the
independence of the judicial branch claiming it is the bedrock of public confidence in the system
when the public confidence is at an all time low.8
d your name
was recited as the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee Executive Committee. Certainly
Democrats were partially pleased while Republicans were not but overall people say judge
shopping were not addressed because it is always left to the discretion of the Circuit Courts to
adopt such policy; human love these terms: discretion, immunity, and so on.
o US federal judiciary adopts policy to curtail 'judge shopping'.9

o
.10
Before writing to you, I did a quick Google search of who is Judge Jeffery Sutton asking myself
would he listen to Mark or would he ignore him Would he say we have some serious
another one of those days So I went and looked at your Wikipedia biography page. 11 Then my
eyes were pleased with what I saw, then I went to search some of your lectures and speeches,
12
So now I found that I am speaking to a human first before being a
Before I dive into the concerns of this letter, I want to tell you a simple story, how life was
formed, how humans sinned when they were tempted to having the knowledge of God of
knowing good and evil, and how the Lord, God brought a plan of salvation to the World through
Jesus Christ. So please bear with me and have wide ears for listening, and good eyes that sees,
and then decide afterward to speak the truth
system that often speaks about justice while committing injustice.
The story of Adam and Eve is a story of what happens when humans sinned, in the beginning
God gave human everything, and immortality as well to live forever in the Garden of Eden by
eating from the tree of light. However, when the Serpent deceived Eve through introducing just
know good vs. evil by their own terms but in exchange they were casted out of Eden.
Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of
knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the
8
Now there is a website dedicated at reviewing all federal judges www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
9
See https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-federal-judiciary-adopts-policy-to-curtail-judge-shopping/ar-
BB1jMeeC?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0c843046a7ef49c19207323a8f57eedb&ei=11
10
See https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/03/19/law-professors-say-judicial-conferences-guidance-case-assignment-
practices-toothless/id=174436/
11
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sutton
12
See your lecture https://www.c-span.org/video/?455446-1/judge-jeffrey-sutton-city-club-cleveland
Page 5 of 50
Tree of And the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of
Eden, to till the soil, whence he had been taken. And He drove the man out, and He
stationed from the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the revolving
sword, to guard the way to the Tree of Life [Genesis 3:22-24].
I. THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE: THE PARABLE
Now, the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host [Genesis 2].13 Now the Lord
God took the man, and He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it. And the
Lord rden you may freely eat. But of the
Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof,
The Lord, God was so generous, that he created a partner for Adam, opposite of him And the
Lord G
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his
sides, and He closed the flesh in its place. And the Lord God built the side that He had taken
from man into a woman, and He brought her to man [Genesis 2:21-23].14 And they were both
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Why Lord? Because they knew no sin yet.15
The devil was not happy with what he saw, so he approached Eve to deceive her.16 Now the
serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said
13
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Genesis+2&version=NKJV&showVN=1
14
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Genesis+2%3A21-23&version=NKJV&showVN=1
15
See the scene https://youtu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=50
16
See the scene https://youtu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=100 . How could God be holy yet kind if he does not judge
mankind for their sins. So God created a path for salvation.
Page 6 of 50
Has God indeed said, 'You shall not ea And the

We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it,
You will not surely die. For God knows that
in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and
evil. good vs. evil started when humans
17
command.
The Lord, God did not leave Adam and Eve but rather he judged them yet he gave them hope
how could God be Holy and the source of perfect justice if he did not judge mankind for their
sin. For God promised Eve salvation when he said and I shall place hatred between you and
between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and
you will bite his heel [Genesis 3:15].
Eve waite
And now you see the Chaos dragon on Earth.18

to humans and watches humans fall into sins because his real purpose is to gain as many souls as
he could by expending his kingdom.19
17
See scenes https://youtu.be/B_FpV0CZjxY?t=116, https://youtu.be/o2sjOBiBXSc
18
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt08B4rm0qo
19
Page 7 of 50
II. THE PARABLE BETWEEN THE STORY OF JONAH AND JESUS CHRIST
Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, until the Lord, God heard the voice
onto the shore.
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Am

Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before
Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to
go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.
But the Lord sent out a great wind on the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea,
so that the ship was about to be broken up. Then the mariners were afraid; and every man
cried out to his god, and threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea, to lighten the
load. But Jonah had gone down into the lowest parts of the ship, had lain down, and was
Arise, call on your God; perhaps your God will consider us, so that
le upon us? What is your

occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people
y afraid, and said to
Lord, because he had told them.
-- for the sea

was growing more te
they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. Then the
men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice to the Lord and took vows. Now the
Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Until, the Lord, God heard his
voice, Jonah did not eat for 3 days and 3 night and on the 3 rd day he was freed from the belly of
repented at the preaching of Jonah, the people of Nineveh are now Christians following Jesus
20
The parable between the story of Jonah and the story of Jesus Christ came to the Jewish people
when one day the Pharisees and teachers of religious laws responded to Jesus
a simple request:
20
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15950/jewish/Chapter-19.htm#v25
Page 8 of 50
o prove your authority.
They thought that for someone who said he was the son of God such a thing would be an easy
task. Jesus who had shown his authority and power over and over again by performing miracles
meant to help people not just give evidence t
unfaithful generation would demand a miraculous sign. The only sign I will give you is the sign
a part of Jon
and three nights, so will the son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three
nights.21
The parable of the story is that we all know that the Devil when he was outcaste from heaven
22
the ruler of this world but I am not from this world.
In Eden, the garden of God you were; every precious stone was [set in] your covering;
ruby, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and crystal and
gold; the work of your drums and your orifices is in you; on the day of your creation they
were established. You were a cherub of great measure, that covers, and I gave that to you;
you were on the mount of the sanctuary of God: you walked among stones of fire
[Ezekiel 28:13-14].23
21
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHi9OSPfXGc see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7AiufhXms&t=273s
22
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWcOkuM3Rg see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w5749jLr5E&t=45s
23
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16126#v13
Page 9 of 50
Lucifer, Heylel was his real name, despite all the

knowledge and powers that the Lord, God gave him,
he was envy of the Lord
place And you said to yourself, 'To the heavens
will I ascend, above God's stars will I raise my throne,
and I will sit on the mount of the assembly, in the
farthest end of the north. I will ascend above the
heights of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most
High.' But into the nether World shall you be brought
down, to the bottom of the pit [Isaiah 14:13].24
It was Archangel Michael, the head of the angels who

who is
like God
hell And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his
angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his
angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place
found for them in heaven any longer. So the great
dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the
Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole World; he
was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with
him [Revelation 10:7-9].25
When Jesus Christ was crucified and on the 3rd day he rose up from the dead, during the 3 days
he went to hell to save all those who were waiting for him: King David, King Solomon, Adam
seed he
will crush his head (the serpent) an
24
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945#v13
25
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Revelation+12%3A7-9&version=NKJV&btn=View
Page 10 of 50
III. THE STORY OF THE COPTIC AND THE IHRA DEFINITION
Prophet Daniel in chapter 7:13-14 concerning the lord Jesus Christ said:
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, one like the Son of Man, Coming with
the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before
Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples,
nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.
Pope Tawadros e
had an evil heart, for he wanted to kill him and as we all know, it was King Herod who ordered
the killing of the children of Bethlehem but was not able to find babe Jesus.26
The question that many poses is where do we find Christ?
May be we find Jesus in the big places, and the expensive places and in places where
high technology is available or in places where we think Jesus Christ would live there
places where humans are born but in a manger where farm animals are cared for. We
ended up finding Jesus in a place no human can think of, we find him in a place that is
simple and honest. And that is why when you need to find Jesus Christ, look for the
places that are simple, innocent, righteousness. We find Jesus Christ in the weak hearts
and we find him there.
Therefore, if you want to celebrate Christmas, it is not a celebration of new cloth, and
great food, and Christmas tree; that is a happy celebration but at the social level.
However, at the spiritual level, you must find Jesus Christ and celebrate his birth and you
find him in every person who is carries a humble heart. You find him in every person
who is looking for peace. You find him in every person who wants to serve others.
26
See the scene https://youtu.be/uFcIwF81wrg?si=iqtR-92X9LVCBXkS&t=245
Page 11 of 50
A. THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGE
on such and such day and that Mark will face many beasts, mighty man, great warriors, but the
Lord never left Mark since his birth
destiny so why try to change it if it is already written? The answer is in this verse:
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to
you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it
will be opened [Mathew 7:7-8].27
to humans, that as long as one asks, seeks, and knocks, the Lord
where is faith when the lord Jesus Christ spoke about the parable of the unjust judge; a story
taught by Jesus Christ to humans, it speaks of sin and n
as follows.
Then he spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart,
There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. Now
there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, 'Get justice for me from my
adversary.' And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, 'Though I
do not fear God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her,
lest by her continual Hear what the unjust
judge said. And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him,
t I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.
Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?
This story tells you about the unjust judge who in order to gain his peace of mind, rendered
justice not because it was just but because he was seeking his own peace of mind, then the rest of
the story speaks about will the son of man, i.e., Jesus Christ find faith on earth?
B. THE DANGER OF THE IHRA DEFINITION IS SEPARATION OF THE JEWISH

PEOPLE FROM THE GENTILES IN AMERICA
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan

by eloquently stating:
other and learn with each other to work together across various disagreements for the
greater good.28
Cancel culture would conflate with any democratic nation, let alone in America, meaning
whoever holds the power, and whoever screams the louder, gets to cancel the other side, the
result is leading to a bankrupt society in terms of morals and values, the same was true in Plessy
27
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Matthew+7&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
28
See Justice Elena Kagan and cancel culture - The Observer (ndsmcobserver.com)
Page 12 of 50
v. Ferguson (1896)
schools and for white students to be in white schools, leading to injustice.
Many people and organization have written letters objecting to the IHRA definition for different
reasons, such as ACLU recent letter to the Department of Education. 29
And more and more letters were written but only one person took the case to the Federal Court
because he knew the Israeli lobby and Kenneth Marcus, and that was Mark the Coptic in the
popular case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).30
his place of work at Chicago Public School became the second target, then he himself was a
target.31 th
Circuit Supervisor named Jim
misconduct ongoing proceedings, and the 7th

32
rd
29
See https://www.aclu.org/documents/reject-definitions-of-anti-semitism-that-encompass-protected-speech
30
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60107808/bochra-v-us-department-of-education/
31
See Executive Committee Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-
Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
32 th
See 7 Circuit Order by the Court https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-1388/23-1388-
2024-02-27.html writing a fiction not from the case, even going in length not only redacting Kenneth Marcus
nd fix the appeal, and
this is all in an official court public order. See https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-
Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education The 3 panel judges used the court official capacity
while they were acting in individual capacity based on personal motives unless this order was written by a staff
attorney and rubber stamped by the judges.
Page 13 of 50
Conference has juri
-
33
inappropriate la
See
,
rights 18 U.S. Code § 241 and much more.
Jim Richmond cell phone calling Mark after he knew Mark filed a second supplement.
I often say to find the truth:
Look at who has power and how that power was used, for good or evil.
will be revealed.
C. JUDGE SHOPPING
When Democrats raised the issue of judge shopping, came the judicial conference committee and
tried to come up with a policy which
long as judges are appointed by political parties, they answer the masters who brought them to
power. This was not how the founding fathers envisioned America.
The founding fathers envisioned that America should be raised on the teachings of Jesus Christ,
3 branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), all co-equal in power, all fact check each
Doctrines of Jesus Compared
34
with Others, 21 April 1803 letter by Thomas Jefferson.
33
34
See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-0002
Page 14 of 50
However, the reality now days is that judges gets lobbied with gifts and luxury trips, and they
often rule for the side that aligns with their views and political affiliations, whether they claim
they ar
When Democrats raised the issue of Judge shopping and this came after my letters describing
how the Executive Committee did the judge shopping for my case. My case was assigned to a
targeted but more discussion on that later on in this letter. The focus is now the Judge Shopping.
When , the Republicans

became angry; now you see both leadership sending letters, each fighting with judges who they
Page 15 of 50
35
vs
36
we often hear the words such as
con hich are all terms created by humans but
did their work proved these spoken words?
35
See Democratic leadership announcement https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/after-
nearly-a-year-of-sounding-the-alarm-and-following-the-judicial-conference-heeding-his-call-majority-leader-
schumer-sends-new-letter-calling-for-immediate-adoption-of-new-policy-to-limit-dangerous-practice-of-judge-
shopping See Republican Leadership announcement https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-gop-
colleagues-to-judicial-conference-leave-legislating-to-congress/
36
See https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/03/19/law-professors-say-judicial-conferences-guidance-case-assignment-
practices-toothless/id=174436/
Page 16 of 50
D. BROWN VS BOARD OF EDUCATION (SEPARATED BUT EQUAL)
Humans, humans create rules and laws to rule over others; humans will create rules to enslave
to the infamously racist decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that
African Americans were equal at least as required by the Equal Protection Clause. This was the
When judges ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

of the public pressure came from humans who were white and the Judges answered to power and
their wisdom was removed at that time and the issue was not the color but how Satan decided to
separate humans based on color, so he introduced the idea of the powerful to overrule the weak
because we all remember before segregation took place, there was the slave trade from Africa. 37
Following this decision, a monumental amount of segregation laws were enacted by state and
local governments throughout the country, sparking decades of crude legal and social treatment
by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where the Court said that separate
schools for Africa
37
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-culpable-were-dutch-jews-in-the-slave-trade/
Page 17 of 50
E. BOCHRA VS THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (JEWS AND GENTILES)
new form called the IHRA definition, promoted by the Israeli lobby in America which claim
Jews will have their own definition and the Gentiles will not be part of that definition. But not
kill Jesus Christ
Jews in the far ri -Semitic.38
That same concept was repeated in (Genesis 16)39

Isaac
th
and the result was the birth of Islam in the 7 Century at the hands of a Christian Syriac Monk
named Bahira, the true father of Muhammad.40 See the true story of how God
blessed and judged at the same time, for humans to see the sin of fighting over status.
The question of this journey is while Mark tried to save the Jewish people from what Satan has
done to them because they do not hold the holy spirit, and while trying to help, every evil judge
Mark met in his journey from the Northern District of Illinois or the 7th Circuit went after Mark
and that is why this letter was written; Mark never had a normal litigation in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); his home was the first target, his place of work was
the second target, and he himself was the target by those who perverted justice for the sake of
what they desired and they rejected the truth and replaced it with lies.
The story is as follows:
What happens when a Coptic emails the entire Court urtroom Deputies
telling them he is looking for an angel not a judge when he files his lawsuit and hope to
find justice in the case related to the IHRA definition and the Israeli lobby; nothing at that
time happened to Mark the Coptic because Mark was speaking in the light before
with no fear; the Christian Judges, the Jewish judges, and the Atheist
judges all were aware of Mark. But then many demons were setting their
lawsuit. What happened after Mark filed his lawsuit then came the Executive Committee
and granted a senior Jewish Judge recusal from the case i.e., Judge Robert Gettleman
then the Executive Committee replaced the senior Jewish judge with a junior Judge i.e.,
Judge Sara Ellis, at this point the Executive Committee did the judge shopping for Mark.
What happens when Mark tried to seek several reliefs trying to test the heart of Judge
Ellis but he could see she is on a mission to get destroy his case one way or another. Then
what happened after the courtroom deputy of Judge Ellis, she is Jewish and her name is
Rhonda Johnson, character lynched Mark with the Executive Committee because she
s email was about Jesus Christ and his case
was also about Jesus Christ. Then what happened after Mark tried to vacate the Executive
Committee unjust administrative order, they later threatened him in a public order never
to speak about Jesus Christ again
38
See https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771798882260766825
39
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8211
40
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira
Page 18 of 50
or political materials. Then what happened after Mark continued to speak about Jesus
Christ, 2 month later Mark was targeted by the Executive Committee and at the same
time at Chicago Public School his place of work. Then what happened after Mark filed a
judicial misconduct complaint with the 7th Circuit, that same day in later hours Mark was
targeted at Chicago Public School in the most heinous way and all of this happened while
Mark was litigating his civil right case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.41 Then what
happened when during the Judicial Misconduct proceedings a docket supervisor working
for the 7th Circuit under the name Jim Richmond threatened Mark about his case getting
a Chief Circuit Judge
th
of the 7 Circuit destroys
understand and later 16 more federal judges approved of the same, the judges of the 7 th
Circuit Judicial Council. Then what happened when Mark had a case against the
Executive Committee in a form of appeal and the same judges involved in the judicial
misconduct pro
paid appeal fee and destroyed his appeal with no sort of healing or mediation.42
What happened when Mark shared a copy of his judicial misconduct complaint in his
case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) then came the Chief
District Judge and shut down the entire court, both the District and 7th Circuit and then
asked the Court to unseal ECF 78, then came Judge Sara Ellis in ECF 102 saying the
Then what happened when Mark shared that
there is an ongoing case with OCR related to Chicago Public School and a petition with
the Judicial Conference Committee in ECF 103 Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education
(1:21-cv-03887) docketed November 30, 2022 and within 2 days Gary Feinerman a
former member of the Executive Committee tendered his immediate resignation to the
President on December 5, 2022.43 Gary Feinerman was the head planner who is linked to
w
how many federal judges involved in such scandal decided to forgive everyone and move
to focusing on his case appeal brief related Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education
(1:21-cv-03887). What happened when the 7th
Mark sought for appointment for outside circuit
judicial misconduct complaint? What happened when the 7th Circuit using the Court
official capacity issued a public order while showing they tempered with the case facts
and wrote a fiction of facts not from the case, even went in length to redact Kenneth
to
41
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
42
A 124 page brief is procedural not jurisdiction subject to correction
https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-
1815-121-Cv-06223
43
Page 19 of 50
Mr. Frank Insalaco a good supervisor of the 7th

th
Circuit by their own hands, they fixed
means.
Should Mark continue to trust the 7th Circuit process after he saw all of this? And the words of
the Deputy Circuit Executive Alex Castaneda who told Mark over the phone 312-435-5518
the judges are p
The final words of a good employee of the 7th Circuit were are more powerful
bring someone more powerful who would tell them to change their evil ways, which is the
If the system of self policing turns the justice system into a jungle because a Judge is not just a
Jurist but a manager and an investigator and when the role changes to an investigator, things
changes the
crime of another, the role changes from a Jurist to an investigator.
Not every Jurist is a good manager.44
45
But how to turn these
200 pages released by the Judicial Conference Committee into a great oversight like how office
of inspector general at the justice department has oversight over federal employees.
Cover-up: Under Color of Law.
o Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Supervisor Indicted for Covering Up the Assault
of a Restrained Inmate.46
o Two Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Officers Plead Guilty for Their Roles in
Assault of Restrained Inmate and Subsequent Cover-Up.47
44
See https://abovethelaw.com/2023/08/not-every-good-jurist-is-a-good-manager/
45
46
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-supervisor-indicted-covering-assault-
restrained-inmate
47
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-officers-plead-guilty-their-roles-
assault
Page 20 of 50
Retaliation: The retaliation happened afterward.
o Findings of Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct by a then Senior FBI Official

Related to an Earlier OIG Investigation in which the Senior Official was the Subject.48
Misuse of Position
o Finding of Misconduct by a then-Assistant United States Attorney for Attempted Misuse

of Position.49
And many more of these investigations can be found at OIG DOJ.50
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Special Agent for Contacting Witnesses for an

Improper Purpose, Divulging Law Enforcement Sensitive Information to Unauthorized
Individuals, Providing Misleading Testimony, Providing False Information to the OIG,
Mishandling Classified Information, and Misusing Government Devices and his
Position.51
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Special Agent for Receiving Gifts from a Former FBI
Confidential Human Source, Using the Source after Deactivation, Protecting the Source
Candor, and Computer Security Policy Violations.52

o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Official for Accepting Gifts From Members of the
Media and for Lack of Candor.53
o Findings of Misconduct by a Senior DOJ Official for Ethical Misconduct, Sexual Harass
ment, Sexual Assault, and Lack of Candor to the OIG.54
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Supervisory Special Agent for Making False
Representations, Working for an FBI Contractor, Accepting Gifts from an FBI Applicant,
Assisting the FBI Applicant in the Employment Selection Process, and Misusing a
Government Vehicle and Cell Phone.55
o 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.56
48
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-findings-retaliation-and-unprofessional-conduct-then-
senior-fbi
49
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-finding-misconduct-then-assistant-united-states-
attorney-attempted
50
See https://oig.justice.gov/investigations/criminal_and_civil_cases and see
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/type/investigation
51
See https://web.archive.org/web/20190802015430/https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/f180430.pdf
52
53
54
55
56
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/f190219.pdf
Page 21 of 50
o Deputy U.S. Marshal Convicted of Conspiracy, Cyber stalking, Perjury, and

Obstruction.57
o FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During Crossfire
Hurricane Investigation.58
o Former Acting Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pleads
Guilty to Scheme to Defraud the U.S. Government.59

To my mind, transparency goes w Where you have
transparency is the best disinfectant. If the public knows, if the lawyers
reform behavior, and it deters ot
Operation Greylord.61
The issue of this unjust journey is that many

to them from God . They became the parable of the unjust judge.
57
See https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/3-24-2023.pdf
58
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-
crossfire-hurricane
59
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-acting-inspector-general-us-department-homeland-security-pleads-
guilty-scheme-defraud
60
61
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEky5sb_sJY
62
Page 22 of 50
IV. CHIEF 7th CIRCUIT JUDGE DIANE SYKES: PROMISED HER COURT WOULD
BE FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION
When a pro se filed a serious judicial misconduct complaint and Mark is like no other, when he
files something, he makes sure he has enough evidence to establish what he is saying. But then
came the C
When al filed a judicial

misconduct complaint, Judge Diane Sykes
she wrote
the judges who were subject of the complaints resc
the orders that were built on discrimination with retaliation were never rescinded. 63
Yes Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes promised her court would be free from discrimination. 64
63
See order https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2024/07-24-90020-90019_90011-
64
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-judge-promises-no-bias-in-her-circuit-amid-gop-concerns
see https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-pledges-discrimination-free-courts-after-diversity-
policy-complaints-2024-02-27/
Page 23 of 50
vs
How Chief ?
Page 24 of 50
The question here turns toward does the status of the person filing the complaint, makes the chief
judge care more about the complaint? Because this was how both the Judicial Watch and
America First Legal received public victory.65 They were able to force 3 federal judges, one of
them is a chief district judge to rescind an order and we all know the pride of the judge never to
video in the email that raged many judges of the executive committee.
66
be treated equally regardless of their race or idenity.
65
See https://aflegal.org/huge-victory-u-s-district-court-judges-rescind-discriminatory-policies-following-afls-
judicial-complaint/ see https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-council-vindicates-judicial-
misconduct-complaint-against-discriminatory-judges/ see https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/illinois-
federal-judges-rescind-diversity-policies-after-conservatives-complain-2024-03-22/
66
See https://twitter.com/MarkPaoletta/status/1771574434823893175
Page 25 of 50
Adam Mortar claims liberal judges does not mean to discriminate.67

67
See https://twitter.com/AdamMortara/status/1771166822651338765
Page 26 of 50
V. THE SINS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT LEADERSHIP: THEY TREAT PRO SE LIKE
TRASH AND EVEN DESTROY GOOD APPEALS WITH MERITS
pro se litigants, yet many Courts
reputations, and the power that is brought before the Courts by different means like lobbying.
Date shown by the Judicial Branch.68

Here are few examples:
69
1. Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants a k
2. The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly.70
3. new book is bananas, but you might want it anyway.71
4. Letter from the Judicial Conference Committee to the 7th Circuit.72
Helping the Helpless

colleagues reported that the 7th circuit would destroy good appeals with merit.
which the court disposed of pro se appeals rejecting them even when they had merit.73
74
These allegations by itself would
standards:
watches the watchers? A latin for
68
See https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/02/11/just-facts-trends-pro-se-civil-litigation-2000-2019
69
See Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' (abajournal.com)
70
See The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly - Above the Law
71
See https://web.archive.org/web/20180817030918/ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-
you-might-want-it-anyway/
72
See Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf (google.com)
73
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225
74
Page 27 of 50
describe a situation in which a person or body having power to supervise or scrutinize the actions
of others, is not itself or themselves subject to supervision or scrutiny.
And many more reported Federal Judicial Misconducts, some are civil and others are criminal
and the words of Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton came to many:
Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told attendees of a conference in Chicago
focused on threats to the independ unimaginable that we
have a segment of our federal judiciary that's not We've had
some judges who've been engaged in atrocious behavior, sexual assault, sexual
intimidation a And many times we haven't been proactive
in punishing them and sanctioning them for what they've done. 75
1. Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who's in charge here? 76

2. U.S. Justice Dept sued over records about complaints against federal judges.77
3. A Chief Federal Judge Arrested in FBI Sting Involving Guns, Drugs, Stripper.78
4. Court to investigate leaked survey alleging misconduct among judges.79
5. Ex- -
80
retaliated against, or had felt completely unable to do anything said.
75
See Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code | Reuters
76
here-2021-10-06/
77
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-justice-dept-sued-over-records-about-complaints-against-
federal-judges-2022-10-06/ see ongoing case CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1:22-cv-03025) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65405045/citizens-for-
responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-v-us-department-of/
78
See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-arrested-in-fbi-sting-involving-guns-drugs-stripper/
79
80
See https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/ex-magistrate-judges-16-year-career-marked-by-manipulation-
unpredictable-and-hypercritical-outbursts-judicial-council/
Page 28 of 50
A. THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGE: GO AND SIN NO MORE
Mark the Coptic, although a pro se but he brought to the court a strong case in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); the case of the IHRA definition but many humans,
sadly called judges, targeted Mark over this case. The prime suspect is Gary Feinerman who
resigned.81 Yet Mark had a kind heart to forgive their sins and try to focus on his case.
81
Page 29 of 50
th
Circuit related to the Executive
of Education.
th
Circuit judges when all of
me judges involved in the judicial misconduct
proceedings returned in the appeal 22-1815
procedural not jurisdiction subject to correction. But the scandal surrounding how a Coptic was
targeted, from his home to his place of work at Chicago public school, would prove a much
higher level of evil has taken over the Court.82
So Mark forgave everything and started to focus on his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of
Education (1:21-cv-03887) while he knew the threatening words of Jim Richmond telling ho
how the Judges will fix his appeal.83
rd
-
84
There was a file petition for review with the Judicial Conference Committee.85
What happened next is despite Mark well written brief and reply brief using the 7 th Circuit many
82
See Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-
Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
83
Circuit
84
85
See petition https://www.scribd.com/document/717277165/Petition-for-Review-with-Judicial-Conference-
Committee
Page 30 of 50
an order that was filled with false facts not from the case in order to destroy the appeal. 86 For
instance, the very first line of the order that claim no oral argument is needed because the record
awsuit the Department of
87
spent 2 years in resolution agreement with recipient, if the recipient failed to sign the agreement,
the next step was enforcement action i.e., hand the case to the Justice Department.
would reveal Kenneth Marcus, the Israeli lobby, and the journey of Mark related to Kenneth
Marcus and the IHRA definition. The 7th Circuit ju
they had to alter the facts of the case record. They even went in length to erase Senator Dick
88
86
See brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-
Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 and reply brief https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-
Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-Brief
87
88
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-
Page 31 of 50
Even though Mark asked for appointment of outside circuit judges citing the same case law
justice department lawyers cited in different cases when they seek recusal of judges. 89
Now the question that is often asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to
their rulings but rather whether well-informed observer might question the
impartiality and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. See whether a reasonable, well-
informed observer could question the Judge's impartiality. See, e.g., Hatcher, 150 F.3d at
637.
Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code

might reasona 455(a). The Supreme Court has explained
Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100
L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (quoting Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 179 (5th
Cir.1983)). Accordingly, we have r
Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting SCA
Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 116 (7th Cir.1977)). Recusal is required when a
Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d at 1229.
90
B. OPERATION GREYLORD: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITY/STATE AND

FEDERAL JUDGES
The only cases where federal judges were charged with corruption, in the entire history of
America, were two popular cases 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).91 After this, the system turned
quid pro quo wherein, the Judicial Branch would often
please the Executive Branch and vise versa.
So when sins like these appeared to the public eyes, nothing happened.
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest.92
89
See filed motion https://www.scribd.com/document/717280569/Motion-to-Reconsider-Outside-Circuit-Judges-
in-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education
90
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717282409/Chief-Judge-Diane-Sykes-Order-in-Bochra-v-U-S-
91
See https://cite.case.law/f2d/493/1124/?full_case=true&format=html see
https://cite.case.law/f2d/681/706/?full_case=true&format=html
92
See https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-
financial-interest-11632834421
Page 32 of 50
When FBI Operation Greylord took place, it wanted to send a message to all the judges in the
city court not to fix cases but to render justice, you can show mercy but render justice meaning
healing a society in pain not for who pays more. 93
What was really unique about this case is that a 7th Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, gave a city judge
the 7th Circuit does the same exact thing, even worse, they fix pro se litigant cases and the
whistleblower is Judge Richard Posner.
Judge Ilana Rovner appeared

Department of education.
93
See https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/operation-greylord see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEky5sb_sJY
Page 33 of 50
C. THE PARABLE OF JUDGE ILANA ROVNER: FEDERAL VS CITY JUDGES
IMPRISONED EX-JUDGE GETS 2 MORE YEARS FOR PERJURY.
A federal judge added 2 years prison time to the 10-year sentence that former Judge John
Reynolds is serving, explaining that she wanted to send a message to anyone thinking
about lying under oath.
U.S. District Court Judge Ilana Rovner if ever there were a situation something
must be understood by someone who contemplates not being truthful in similar
Reynolds, a former associate judge, pleaded guilty earlier this year to lying to the federal
grand jury investigating judicial corruption in Cook County Circuit Court. He already is
serving a 10-year prison sentence at a Texas prison for his conviction in the Operation
Greylord investigation.
Reynolds was convicted in 1986 of taking bribes while sitting in Traffic Court and
Misdemeanor Court. He pleaded guilty to lying when he testified before a grand jury that
he had no knowledge of Traffic Court judges receiving bribes. 94
. Yet the
same judge who judged a City Judge, her court, the 7th Circuit did the same exact thing against
the weak and even worst. Would she tell her colleagues that they sinned?95
Before Judge Rovner took senior status, she copied Chief District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer on
her letter. They are friends after all but Mark the Coptic is not a friend but let me share with you
one dream Mark had related to Judge Rovner.96
One night Mark had a weird dream, it was brief but weird, he was in a rich castle, and he
saw Judge Ilna Rovner coming down the stairs and while she was coming down the
stairs, there was Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer along with more judges and they told her
94
See https://www.chicagotribune.com/1988/06/28/imprisoned-ex-judge-gets-2-more-years-for-perjury/
95
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/rovner-first-woman-judge-7th-circuit-take-senior-status-2024-
01-12/
96
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrkjzyope/01122024rovner_letter.pdf
Page 34 of 50
If the Judicial Conference Committee paid attention to the news and the public, they would find
Judges, then what would pro se litigants do when they report the same?
1. Court to investigate leaked survey alleging misconduct among judges.97

2. Fear of Retaliation Silences Law Clerks Employers Should Speak Up.98
3. American Bar Association 2023: .99
In a 319 pages, summary report against Judge Newman, in it they wrote how she wanted to use
law enforcement to retaliate against a clerk.100
97
98
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fear-of-retaliation-silences-law-clerks-employers-should-
speak-up
99
See https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2023/08/see-misconduct-what-to-do/
100
See report July 31, 2023 Report and Recommendation.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 35 of 50
The judicial assistant who received the late-night calls was given permission to work
forcibly removed from the building and arrested, the report said. The judicial assistant
took on a new assignment, taking his computer with him as is the standard practice.
Newman was convinced the computer had been stolen, the report said.
Certainly the Judicial Misconduct Proceeding is not liked by many.
The public should not fear Judges retaliating against them; the role of any judge after all is to
heal a society in pain. Not to please the powerful and ignore the weak. If one wants to find the
ow that power was used when
VI. BOCHRA VS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: KENNETH MARCUS
101
This is precisely the situation wherein some people wanted to change the
Doctrines of Jesus Compared with others, 21 April 1803 102
First came Kenneth Marcus and used a definition IHRA without congress permission, he use it in
appeal case, personally granting it. No need to recite all the facts, one can read docket 54
in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).103
Then when Mark reported Kenneth Marcus acting on behalf of Israel as a foreign agent to senior
DOJ o
Foreign influence operations will be publicly identified as such only when the
Department can attribute those activities to a foreign government with high confidence.
Disinformation or other support or influence by unknown or domestic sources not acting
on behalf of a foreign government is beyond the scope of this policy.
101
See https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
102
See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-0002
103
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712044633/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-
The-Case-of-the-IHRA-definition
Page 36 of 50
Turning any domestic reporting moot and not taken into consideration but he did it after the
fact.104
Kenneth Marcus and Rod Rosenstein both resigned from their official duties but they kept their
status and one covered for the other.105
But not only that, Rod Rosenstein was the acting attorney general who was tasked to responding
to the house republicans subpoenas requests. Look at the debate and within the debate he
appointed US Attorney John Lausch to handle the document production.106
from the past, reading his letters to President Trump, and when Biden won the presidency, Biden
fired all US Attorney but kept two US Attorneys, John Lausch was one of the two who stayed. 107
104
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-rollout-updated-united-states-attorneys-
manual and see https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.730
105
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/kenneth-marcus-steps-down-from-us-education-department/ and see
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-to-resign-may-11 ,
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/videos/news/2019/04/18/he-being-held-hostage-twitter-erupts-over-
rosensteins-stare-barr-spoke/3512554002/
106
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBeDM3iQQME&t=131s
Page 37 of 50
Mr. Lausch was the US Attorney for the Northern District of IL, he knew about Kenneth Marcus
but no one can investigate Kenneth Marcus without an ok from DOJ HQ. Mr. Lausch knew also
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). Wh
was targeted by the Executive Committee and later his place of work, they too tried to turn Mark
from a Complainant into a Respondent. When Mark reached out to FBI director Wray via email,
that same day John C. Kocoras resigned September 14, 2022.108
A.THE DANGER OF THE IHRA DEFINITION IN AMERICA
First came the cancel culture and they tried to cancel Candace Owns, then a Jewish man calling
himself a rabbi started to -Semitic.109 Then
-Semitic.110 Now you see
the start of the sort of speech being used as a sort of oppression by the Israeli lobby.
using the IHRA definition. ZOA is a registered foreign lobby for Israel. 111
Klein is a close friend to Kenneth Marcus and takes money from Qatar. 112
107
See https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/2/9/22274472/us-attorney-chicago-john-lausch-durbin-
duckworth-biden-federal-prosecutor-northern-kinzinger-gop
108
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/first-assistant-united-states-attorney-john-c-kocoras-depart-us-
attorney-s-office
109
See https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1769919495869735126
110
See https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771798882260766825
111
See https://www.israellobby.org/zoa/DOJ-149-1603-ZOA/default.asp
112
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/qatar-used-pro-israel-businessman-to-pay-zionist-group-100000-report/
Page 38 of 50
While it was Israel that fed Hamas to destroy the Palestinians, this is coming straight from
former prime minister of Israel.113
Mark sought an injunction against the IHRA definition but came every evil judge and targeted
Mark for reasons they only can confess to it because of their hearts journey
was innocent and saving the Jewish people from what Satan is doing to them. Often people want
to see the result of IHRA, well the result of IHRA in America is destruction not healing.
The issue now is that the 7th

the threats of Jim Richmond, and that made them an accomplice in a matter that they should
render justice in it, after all this is their duty.
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently.114
standards.
preme
by creating their own version of laws yet the same judges who
corrupted the process would not accept the same treatment on themselves in a judicial
misconduct proceeding. Yet some staff at the 7th
113
See https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1772629541946597838 see
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-israel-mossad-chief-
doha-qatar-continue-hamas-gaza-money-transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000
114
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d
Page 39 of 50
As you see below, this is a law under the IHRA definition. Which the definition already says
-
Semitic.
See also Shmuley, everyone told him to stop, even other Jews, he never stopped, he is a member
of the Israeli lobby. He calls himself a Rabbi.
https://twitter.com/RabbiShmuley/status/1771738639690608641
https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1771744778536784178
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1771747229755208165
https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771521975489278358
B. EQUITY VS EQUALITY: PRESIDENT BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDER 14091
When equality is denied, equity is another approach to reach a fair resolution toward healing a
has a very deep meaning.115
115
See https://youtu.be/A14THPoc4-4?si=DoZh39_qHmT0RVn-
Page 40 of 50
Equity means as follows, equality when it is related to minority groups are often denied for many
due to social structure, lack of money to afford a good education, or lack of connections to
equally before Go
Asians and so on. But we all know that minority in any nation are not treated equally, meaning
Christians of the East are often persecuted and not given the right to self determination because
they live in an area predominantly with many Arabs and the main religion is Islam; the kings of
including the state department yearly enclosed report on the middle-east.116
These are the areas were Christians are mostly persecuted with a concentration in the middle-
east.
The Biden administration came in an executive order 14091 and said minority groups will have
their chances in life through equity, meaning in education, in employment, in housing, and in the
justice system. The idea behind it is to reach equality by giving opportunity to many rather than
the few.
o Justice Department Releases Update to Equity Action Plan.117

o FACT SHEET: U.S. Department of Education Releases 2023 Update to Equity Action
Plan, Outlines New Commitments to Advance Equity.118
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today released its 2023 Update to its Equity
Action Plan, in coordination with the Biden-Harris Administration s whole-of-government
116
See https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/
117
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-update-equity-action-plan
118
See https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-us-department-education-releases-2023-update-
equity-action-plan-outlines-new-commitments-advance-equity
Page 41 of 50
equity agenda. This Equity Action Plan is part of the Department s efforts to implement the
President s Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government, which reaffirmed the
Administration s commitment to deliver equity and build an America in which all can
participate, prosper, and reach their full potential.The Department believes that our nation s
future is brighter when we provide every student and every community with equitable access
to an academically rigorous, well-rounded education in a safe and inclusive school. We are
answering President Biden s call to prioritize equity across government by working
intentionally to ensure our policies, grants, and programs address longstanding disparities in
education still faced by underserved students, families, and communities.
The Justice Department announced today the release of its 2023 Equity Action Plan (Plan),
Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
was finalized in December 2023 and will
including historically marginalized and underserved communities in accessing the

ces, navigating complex legal and regulatory hurdles to
engaging with Justice Department decision-makers.
CONCLUSION
Often the simplest answer is the right answer, Jesus Christ came to this world teaching the
find a solution to every problem, and there are people who find a pro
The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand but we listen to reply.
Many can read all the Judges reviews on the Robin Rooms, some are great while others are
terrible.119
Congress delegated the power of a judge to be a Jurist, a manager, and an investigator. Once a
Judge steps into the field of an investigator and commits a cover-up or tempers with the evidence
during a judicial misconduct proceeding to benefit another, the judge becomes an employee of
the court who commits a cover up just like any other federal employee.
It is a sin to target the weak then watches their reaction to the pain they inflicted upon them;
when judges do this with intent and malice, it corrupt the justice system. Something the
Department of Justice has warned about it.120
119
120
and-fees-youth-and
Page 42 of 50
Associate Attorney General Vanit

addresses practices that disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of
color, can trap individuals and their families in patterns of poverty and punishment and
may violate the civil rights of adults and youth alike. Many jurisdictions have innovated
to reduce reliance on fines and fees, and the Justice Department is building on that
Here is one example out of many.121
You need whether civil deprivation or

criminal
to prove the agreement but look at the circumstantial evidence. 122 Deprivation of Rights under
Color of Law.123 See also 18 U.S. Code § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.
The link to what happened to Mark at Chicago Public School is the resigned Judge Gary
Feinerman124; he resigned immediately after Mark shared that he has an ongoing OCR complaint
121
122
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hC-LyNdkc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeMt5rfzg0
123
See https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
124
Page 43 of 50
against Chicago Public School in docket 103 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-
cv-03887).125
None of this was ever a coincidence. First attempt started April 1st 2022.
The cover up story
Then one could see the 2nd attempt and the after chain of events.
The Judicial Misconduct complaint was delivered on June 10, 2022 at 10:26 a.m. and Mr. B was
character lynched at CPS that same day on June 10, 2022 at 1:46 pm and many shouted within
125
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712044633/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-
The-Case-of-the-IHRA-definition
Page 44 of 50
Mark had the timeline but he wanted the evidence.
Mark now has the evidence of what happened and handed it to OCR and senior DOJ officials. It
was the Lord, God who brought the evidence to Mark after 2 years. Just as he said it that God
will reveal the truth in the time he wants.
misconduct proceeding, and the appeal related to the Executive Committee.126
is reacting. The story started with Ms. Rhonda Johnson who hated the name Jesus Christ.
o Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who s in charge here?127
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
126
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-
in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
127
here-2021-10-06/
Page 45 of 50
EXHIBIT LIST
A Complaint Pertaining to the threats made by Jim Richmond during a judicial

Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) with future retaliation.
B The story of Ishmael, the son of Hagar. How Islam was created by a Christian Syriac
Monk fulfilling Genesis 16.
C Complaint.
Page 46 of 50
CC
THE WHITE HOUSE




Page 47 of 50


7th CIRCUIT STAFF


Ms. Rhonda Johnson rhonda_johnson@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Operation Supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker lorenzo_walker@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Assistant Operation Supervisor Mr. Travis Grammer travis_grammer@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF

Page 48 of 50
Mr. Michael Henry




Chief of Staff Pat Souders Chief of Staff Jennifer Heins

Chief of Staff Monalisa Dugu Chief of Staff Tamara Fucile

Chief of Staff Brian Winseck Chief of Staff Joel Kelsey

Chief of Staff Coti Haia Chief of Staff Veronica Duron

Chief of Staff David Montes Chief of Staff Reynaldo Benitez

Chief of Staff Ali Golden Chief of Staff Marvin Figueroa

Chief of Staff Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff Mark Wait
Page 49 of 50

Chief of Staff Aaron Reitz Chief of Staff Chris Weihs

Chief of Staff Doug Coutts Chief of Staff David Stokes

Chief of Staff Shil Patel Chief of Staff Jon Adame

HOUSE SPEAKER


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

JUDICIALWATCH


Page 50 of 50
EXHIBIT IV
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

1 First Street, NE


CC




Page 1 of 15

cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
June 10, 2024
A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT OF FURTHER RETALIATION
Re: The 3rd Judicial Misconduct Complaint delivered on May 31, 2024 via USPS
9505511788784139965168 was not assigned a case number but it is under review by
Chief Judge Diane Sykes said Clerk #10 i.e., the special intake clerk.

Re: Follow the facts and when you see a change of sudden events, you know destruction of
evidence might be taking place. See original complaint Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through ‐90048
(the origin) and compare it with Nos. 07‐22‐90056 through ‐90075 (for pattern and
practice); different judges but similar writing style yet different personality and identity.
Re: Seek interviewing Ms. Ronsa Franco, the original courtroom deputy for Chief Judge
Rebecca Pallmeyer, they kept moving her around to different judges’ rooms after Mark’s
very first judicial misconduct complaint in Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through ‐90048 and his
filed brief in appeal 22-1815, see ECF Nos. 56-57. When you see a sudden change of
human behavior, it often leads to the truth, similar to Mark’s law school experience. The
idea to turn a Complainant into a Respondent to get rid of liability is a moral turpitude.
Re: The role of a good Judge in an unjust society is to heal a society in pain, when justice is
difficult through equality; equity is the preferred method for healing.
Re: Mark denied employment with the 7th Circuit. They wanted to create a different reality
for Mark just like Strickland. See Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022).
Page 2 of 15
I want to thank you for processing my judicial misconduct complaints and mailing me previous
letters confirming their receipts in Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043 and 07-24-90049 through
90063 but the 3rd Judicial Misconduct Complaint which I’ve revealed some of the documents
connecting Chicago Public School targeting to the Executive Committee and the 7th Circuit. That
complaint I was told by Clerk #10 or her title the special intake that it is in the hands of the chief
judge, it is under review yet it wasn’t assigned a case number.
I did follow up with Mr. Alex, as you saw from some of my previous emails. He did reach out to
me later on and told me the same thing that it is under review and let’s follow up within a week
to see the status of it.
I understand this journey is complex because the involved individuals who did evil are powerful
by human standards only, not by God. Often when human find they can’t resolve issues
pertaining to the powerful, equity is the latter solution i.e., healing through mediation or some
sort of a resolution. The word justice and equality is not the reality of this world, people try to
make the world better but we all should remember, God left the Devil on Earth to test humans so
the Devil will always tempt the powerful to use their power for evil not good to test them. Hence,
Jesus Christ told multitudes to pray so they may not fall into temptation.
Page 3 of 15
For example when Gary Feinerman resigned, they all kept quiet about it. When Jerome Sliva left
the US Marshal Service, they all kept quiet about it. When Judge Diane Wood left official
capacity on the same day Mark’s retaliation base judicial misconduct complaint was received,
they all kept quiet about it. When Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer sought senior status, Mark
took notice that the request been accepted by Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes almost a year ago,
they all kept quiet about it. The one who would take Chief Judge Pallmeyer seat is Ms. Georgia
Alexakis.1
1
See https://vettingroom.org/2024/03/04/georgia-alexakis/
Page 4 of 15
If one paid attention to the 9th Circuit order, issuing a resolution agreement in judicial
misconduct Nos. 23-90037 and 23-90041.2 The conclusion with a remedy said “the judge took
senior status” so that implies, there was a waited until he applied for a senior status and granted
by the circuit chief judge, then they issued their resolution agreement, often this secures a better
resolution agreement that is digestible on the hearts and the mind; pension and lifetime revenue.
As I’ve said before, I do love Judge Pallmeyer, I tried hard to see the good within her, I said I
don’t like the evil that took place but I like her. Does she know what happened; of course she
2
See 23-90037and23-90041.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 5 of 15
does, because she is the one who asked Gary Feinerman to resign. It is also difficult for her to
spell what happened because this was not just one judge, but 7 judges, who all followed the evil
heart of Gary Feinerman, so he ended up resigning and reshuffling of the members of the
executive committee took place, some step down, others retired, and another resigned. This is all
fine by human standards but where is the healing toward Mark the Coptic? When one is lost,
look toward the origin, because the truth is always revealed when one goes back to the origin.
In my appeal brief in 22-1815 many read the start of that brief that when Mark emailed the entire
court’s courtroom deputies, nothing happened; Mark’s home was not targeted, his place of work
at CPS was not targeted, nothing happened.3 Who was on these emails? The entire courtroom
deputies of all the judges of the district court where Mark said he seeks an angel not a judge.
Who was the courtroom deputy for Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer? Ms. Rosa Franco.
If one pays close attention, after Mark’s filed brief with the 7th Circuit, what happened next?
Well they kept moving Ms. Franco from one courtroom to another, first she was the courtroom
deputy for Judge Charles Kocoras and Mark told officials if they want to find the truth speak
3
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-
22-1815-121-Cv-06223
Page 6 of 15
with Ms. Franco. Then Ms. Franco was moved to another courtroom, this time for magistrate
Judge Keri L. Holleb Hotaling.4
When Gary Feinerman resigned, his courtroom deputy Ms. Jackie Deans were doing
administrative work and Mark speaks to her from time to time because she told him, but she
didn’t move to a different room, her room and phone number stayed the same and she became
the courtroom deputy for Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins who was nominated by Biden. Ms. Deans
they didn’t move her around from one courtroom to another, but surprisingly Ms. Franco they
kept moving her from one courtroom to another yet she was the original courtroom deputy for
Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer and a witness to his very first emails as many read in my brief in
22-1815 ECF Nos. 56-57.
So the targeting only started when Mark started to speak about Jesus Christ but much worse, they
all learned how to turn a complainant into a respondent, reading Mark’s case Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); see ECF No. 157. All one has to do is learn history
and follow the pattern of what the hearts did to Mark to destroy him which was evil.
In law school, Mark was not only assaulted, battered, and threatened to be killed by Michael Roy
Guttentag, Mark was also threatened by his own tort law professor, Prof. Gregory Pingree and
Mark cried inside his office. Mark was the complainant with the law school and when Mark
reported some of the crimes to the Dean, they all plotted to turn him into a respondent.
4
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?IuUaWzNcEoNUjC8w36we5vlRy4rjUPMT
Page 7 of 15
All of this is not new for either the 7th Circuit Judges or Judge Sarah Ellis because all of this is
part of ECF No. 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) but they all
wanted to pretend they didn’t read or understood anything. Even Ms. Sarah Terman herself could
not rebuttal the truth because she saw Mark’s pain or else she wouldn’t promise to explore
settlement even when she won the case and she only won it because the executive committee was
targeting Mark and Mark turned into a liability for them.
Ms. Sarah Terman wanted to settle the case but someone told her “not now”
Page 8 of 15
There is a reason why Chief Judge Rebecca Palmmeyer promoted Judge Sara Ellis to the 7th
Circuit Judicial Council after Gary Feinerman left.5 Rewards often take place generally when one
does good job. But here Judge Ellis didn’t ask for the promotion. The promotion came by Chief
Judge Pallmeyer herself out of all the district judges.
Office of Inspector General at the Justice Department Michael Hororwitz wrote recently in his
report, lack of trust and negative views of government:
“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,’”6
Ms. Terman has a heart just like any other human being, that heart pounds and that heart feels
and that heart knows that Mark went through many pain. The case wasn’t just “I am here to win
this case and that is it.” The case turned into something different when she saw the truth. So
often Ms. Terman didn’t want to respond often to my filings and left the Judges to respond on
5
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
6
See https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/TMPC-2023.pdf
Page 9 of 15
their own. When Judge Sara Ellis ruled against Jim Richmond, Judge Sara Ellis didn’t ask Ms.
Terman to respond to my filing nor did Ms. Terman respond to my filing either. So Judge Ellis
ruled by saying “good cause shown.”
Because Mark loved Judge Ellis, he never filed any judicial misconduct complaint against her
and she herself saw that, that the very first judicial misconduct complaint never named Judge
Ellis, but the member of the executive committee. All what Mark cared for was not to be targeted
and for his case to be treated fairly, none of this happened.
On June 4, 2024, the 7th Circuit Judicial Council entered an order under Rule 25(f) to appoint
Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes to depose Mark’s complaints on the merits. Mark took this
order and filed a petition for review with the Judicial Conference Committee to which a copy of
it is attached herein at Exhibit “A”.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 10 of 15
EXHIBIT LIST
A Copy of Mark’s petition to the Judicial Conference Committee seeking review to

appoint outside circuit under rule 26.
Page 11 of 15
CC
THE WHITE HOUSE




Page 12 of 15


7th CIRCUIT STAFF


Judge Virginia Kendall Virginia_Kendall@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF

7
Page 13 of 15
Mr. Michael Henry










Page 14 of 15




HOUSE SPEAKER


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

JUDICIALWATCH



Page 15 of 15

Petition For Review - Judicial Conference Committee Rule 26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Petition For Review - Judicial Conference Committee Rule 26

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

Petition For Review - Judicial Conference Committee Rule 26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL

Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

The Honorable John Roberts The Honorable Jeffery Sutton

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

June 10, 2024

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL DENIAL AND/OR

Re: Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Nos. 07-24-90029 through 90043.

Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability,

This is not a matter of a case or an appeal wherein, a plaintiff or an appellant is requesting

What is a moral turpitude?

A Moral Turpitude: a phrase that describes wicked, deviant behavior constituting an

A different Complainant alleging a series of serious crimes.

Mark’s very first Judicial Misconduct Complaint.

Whether that is a coincidence or not, God only knows.

They both argued with the following:

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

The words of Governor Pritkzer also come to many mind:

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

(5th Cir.1983)). Accordingly, we have required recusal “whenever there is ‘a

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:

A. THE ROLE OF AN INVESTIGATOR UNDER TITLE IX

If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and someone is

See popular cases reported by Fire:

B. HOW TO TURN A COMPLAINANT INTO A RESPONDENT.

C. CHARACTER LYNCHING MARK THE COPTIC.

ECF 157 revealed much of the truth.

o Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who's in charge here?48

D. MARK DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE 7TH CIRCUIT.

E. FIXING MARK’S APPEAL FULFILLING THE WORDS OF JIM RICHMOND

The Words of Mr. Frank Insalaco were:

What happened to Mark’s appeal?54

/s/ Mark Bochra

I Copy of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council Order.

THE WHITE HOUSE

The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

The Honorable Steven J. Ricchetti The Honorable Jacob J. Sullivan

The Honorable Karine Jean-Pierre

THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Joseph Biden potus@who.eop.gov // joe@joebiden.com

MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

Members of the Judicial Conference Committee.56

MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT

Chief Judge Diane Sykes chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov

7th CIRCUIT STAFF

Mr. Frank Insalaco Docket Supervisor frank_insalaco@ca7.uscourts.gov

Judge Sara Ellis Sara_Ellis@ilnd.uscourts.gov

5th CIRCUIT STAFF

Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce lyle_cayce@ca5.uscourts.gov

Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin melissa_shanklin@ca5.uscourts.gov