Petition For Review With Judicial Conference Committee

“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
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 Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Jeffrey R. Ragsdale

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chief Counsel
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Office of Professional Responsibility
Washington, D.C. 20510 jeffrey.ragsdale@usdoj.gov
info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov opr.complaints@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Chairwoman U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
2471 Rayburn House Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510
oversight.democrats@mail.house.gov whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
October 20, 2022
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL DENYING TO

INVESTIGATE A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Re: A Petition for review of a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against the Executive
Committee of Northern District of Illinois: Case No. 07-22-90041 through 90048
Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability,
I am respectfully filing this petition requesting the review of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council for
failure to appoint a special committee to investigate my Judicial Misconduct Complaint when
there were clear disputed facts in term of both clear discrimination and retaliation; they even
refused to reform pattern and practice of the Executive Committee of Northern District of IL; the
very least that was asked from them was reform for we are all created equal on the image of
God.1
It is indicated that “one must file that petition for review within 42 days from the date of the
judicial council’s order.” The 7th Circuit Judicial Council order was issued on October 18, 2022
and delivered to me via regular mail on October 20, 2022 in the evening.
1
See Justice Clarence Thomas created equal https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1262346233328304128
Page 1 of 4
“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ
Attached herein, please find the 7th Circuit Judicial Council Order in addition to a copy of my
petition for review with the 7th Circuit Judicial Council along with 3 supplements with the last
one seeking protection from being retaliated against.
Honorable Chief Judge Diane Sykes said “she doesn’t understand an 88 pages judicial
misconduct complaint” and dismissed it without assigning a special committee to investigate
clear disputed facts. And 17 Federal judges of the Judicial Council said also “they also don’t
understand” by affirming Chief Judge Diane Sykes’ order. Is this a certificate of vindication by a
total of 17 Federal Judges? Because they all don’t understand what the Executive Committee of
Northern District of IL understood and judged me for it. None of them were able to speak his
name “Jesus Christ” the reason for all this targeting.
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.2
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
disputed issue. Any such determination must be left to a special committee appointed
2
See entire order c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 2 of 4
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.
In this present judicial misconduct complaint there are direct evidence that needs the questioning
of the members of executive committee of northern district of Illinois as to why they took
extreme measure against Mark Bochra on April 20, 2022 within their order after he complained
of discrimination based on his Coptic and Coptic identity which is also the center question
surrounding the pending litigation Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-
03887) and what is their knowledge and use of the U.S. Marshals covertly to stalk Mark at his
home since November of 2021 (to the very least we know this is a fact) especially after the U.S.
Marshals visited Mark at home revealing their identity telling him not to e-mail the executive
committee; however a second U.S. Marshal was switch with a good U.S. Marshal who decided
to leave Mark in peace. The reported evil U.S. Marshal to inspector of DOJ Michael Horowitz,
his name appears to be Jerome Sliva. This entire ordeal started with their hate of the name Jesus
Christ and they want to ruin Mark Bochra’s life for good; they can’t change these facts, not now
nor later, nor even with their attempt to paint Mark Bochra someone he is not; they are evil.
Page 3 of 4
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee concluded in the case C.C.D. No. 22-01 that
“because a special committee was not appointed to investigate the complaints, there is not
enough information in the record to determine how the matter should be concluded. Accordingly,
the Circuit Judicial Council erred in affirming the Chief Circuit Judge’s dismissal of the
complaints. Pursuant to the standards provided by Section 352 of the Act and Rule 11, the
appointment of a special committee to thoroughly investigate the facts of the complaints is
necessary.”
PRAYERS
For these mentioned reasons, Complainant Mark Bochra respectfully requests to vacate the
Circuit’s Chief Judge dismissal of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint and to refer the case back
to the Chief Judge to appoint a special committee to investigate the complaint under Section 353
of the Act and Rules 11(f) or to the very least seek reformation of the “restricted filer listing” in
order to address disparate impact discrimination and thus bringing a reform in terms of pattern
and practice.
The Northern District of Illinois is the only District in America that dehumanize many
Americans by creating this “restrictive list” while using it and abusing it to their like to which
can harm a persona’s career, reputation, and character to whoever falls into their web. My
personal story was selective targeting over an e-mail about Jesus Christ.
There was also a complaint filed with Office of Professional Responsibility.3
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
3
See https://www.justice.gov/opr/submit-professional-misconduct-complaint
Page 4 of 4
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
October 18, 2022
Nos. 07 22 90041 through 90048
IN RE COMPLAINTS AGAINST EIGHT JUDGES
ORDER
The Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit* has reviewed the complainants petition
for review of the memorandum and order entered by Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes on August
16, 2022, dismissing the complaints in the above captioned matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
352(b)(1)(A)(i) and (iii). Having considered the relevant materials, the Judicial Council
denies the petition for review and affirms Chief Judge Sykess memorandum and order.
This is the final decision. The complainant is not entitled to any further review. See
28 U.S.C. § 352(c); see also RULES FOR JUD. CONDUCT & JUD. DISABILITY PROC. 19(e).
_______________________________________
* Judicial Council members Chief Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge John Z.
Lee, Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, and District Judge Gary S. Feinerman did
not participate in this decision.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
August 16, 2022
Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes
Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through ‐90048
IN RE COMPLAINTS AGAINST EIGHT JUDGES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The complainant filed a 368‐page misconduct complaint accusing several judges and
the clerk of court of unspecified misconduct. The allegations are disjointed and unwieldly,
but it appears that the complainant disagrees with the decision of the district’s executive
committee to place him on the restricted filer list and believes that the judges and the clerk
are discriminating against him based on his religious and political beliefs.
The complainant’s allegations of bias are utterly unsupported and frivolous. The
complaints must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii). In
addition, the allegations against the clerk of court are beyond the purview of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i); see also id. § 351(a), (d) (permitting a
complaint against “a judge” and defining that term to include only circuit, district,
bankruptcy, and magistrate judges).
Accordingly, the complaints are dismissed pursuant to § 352(b)(1)(A)(i) and (iii). The
complainant may petition the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit for review of this
order in accordance with Rule 18(b) of the Rules for Judicial‐Conduct and Judicial‐Disability
Proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 352(c); see RULES FOR JUD.‐CONDUCT & JUD.‐DISABILITY PROC. 11(g)(3).
A petition for review must be filed in the clerk’s office of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit not later than 42 days of the date of this order.
EXHIBIT A
_|_
|
C O P | T I C
Prophesies Concerning Egypt
“The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt;
the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst” [Isaiah
19:1].1 This prophesy was fulfilled when the Holy Family entered Egypt. With this entrance,
Egypt‟s idols collapsed forever. Since this time, Egypt and its faithful Christians were blessed,
fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy, “Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will
know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to
the LORD and perform it” [Isaiah 19:21] and also “In that day there will be an altar to the
LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border” [Isaiah 19:19].
Today, in the middle of Egypt the monastery of St. Mary (a.k.a. El-MoHarrak) stands (in the
middle of Egypt) witness to the fulfillment of this prophesy. In that monastery, the Holy Family
stayed for about six months as we learned from Pope Theophilos, the twenty third patriarch of
Alexandria, who was told of the details of the Holy Family's journey in a vision. The “pillar in
the border of it” speaks of St. Mark who preached in Egypt starting from Alexandria – at Egypt's
northern border.
God blessed Egypt since the beginning of time. Firstly He made it as the paradise, “like the
garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt” [Genesis 13:10]. Secondly, He blessed it as it
welcomed many fathers of the Old Testament. For example, Egypt welcomed Abraham and Sara
(see [Genesis 12:10]), and Jacob and his family (see [Genesis 39:50]). Egypt also welcomed
other prophets like Jeremiah. Even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself chose Egypt to be the spiritual
equivalent of Golgotha during the first Passover “... Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified”
[Revelation 11:8]. Amazingly, Egypt was mentioned in the Holy Bible approximately 600 times,
second only to Jerusalem (Egypt: 595 times, Egyptian(s): 120 times).
The Holy Family dwelt throughout Egypt, from the north to the south and from the east to the
west. Today we know of about thirty three blessed areas where the Holy Family dwelt. Lastly,
St. Mary herself blessed Egypt again with daily appearances in her church in Zaitoon, Cairo to
express her love to the country that welcomed her. She intercedes on our behalf to her Son and
her God, and He answers her: “Blessed is Egypt my people” [Isaiah 19:25].
Copts, being hosts of the Holy Family, follow the verse “You shall not be afraid of the terror by
night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, Nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness, Nor of
the destruction that lays waste at noonday” [Psalms 91:5-6]2, for the Lord is our shelter as our
land sheltered Him.3 When He came in the past, our forefathers welcomed Him. Now He knocks
at the gates of our hearts, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and
opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with me” [Revelation 3:20].
1
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15950/jewish/Chapter-19.htm see
https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Isaiah+19&version=NKJV&showVN=1
2
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+91%3A5-6&version=NKJV&showVN=1
3
See Saint George https://youtu.be/rzwRZShVaK8?t=1785 , https://youtu.be/rzwRZShVaK8?t=3084
Page 1 of 26
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC AND CERTIFIED MAIL

Judicial Council of the 7th Circuit The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin
Clerk of the Court Christopher Conway U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
219 South Dearborn Street 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Washington, D.C. 20510
Christopher_Conway@ca7.uscourts.gov info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov

August 21, 2022
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
Re: A Petition for review of a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against the Executive
Committee of Northern District of Illinois: Case No. 07-22-90041 through 90048
Request to vacate the dismissal and to appoint a special committee to investigate
Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability & the Judicial Council
of the 7th Circuit,
They say that in America, anything is possible; Martin Luther King said “I have a dream” and he
also spoke with parables taught by Jesus Christ when he said “injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere” i.e., “which one among you is without a sin shall cast a stone at her.”4
People say that in American there is something called the “American Dream” while others said
“the real owners of America i.e., the powerful calls it only the American Dream because you
have to be asleep in order to believe it” said George Carlin.5
I wanted to live a life, not watch it. What can I say? What can I say and what can be said after
everything that was written and said? and yet, the powerful said “they don‟t understand.”
4
See https://youtu.be/w5GXnM_TxSQ
5
See https://youtu.be/KLODGhEyLvk?t=588 why do we fall? https://youtu.be/mgmVOuLgFB0
Page 2 of 26
FINDINGS BY CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES
On August 16, 2022 a letter was mailed to the Complainant Mark Bochra with Honorable Chief
Judge Diane S. Sykes findings; the findings came with few words and less than 1 paragraph
answering an 88 page judicial misconduct complaint with its supportive exhibits.6 What does the
memorandum written by Chief Judge Diane Sykes says? It said the following in parts:
Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes described the complaint as disjointed and unwieldy that she can‟t
understand it at all. She later wrote a new sentence that came with her conclusion without
conducting an investigation by assigning the complaint to a special committee stating that the
complaint is “utterly unsupported and frivolous” and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.
Code § 352 (b)(1)(a)(iii). I want to thank Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes for her own words and
conclusion because here is the parable Jesus Christ spoke of when Pontius Pilate, the governor of
Judaea asked Jesus Christ “are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus Christ replied “so you say.”7
Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes said “she doesn‟t understand the complaint and what is written in it”,
and she also said “it is unsupported and frivolous”; hence she has vindicated Mark by her own
written words because what was written inside the judicial misconduct complaint, Mark Bochra
was judged for it by members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois. For
6
Statement of facts starts on page 21 of the Complainant’s judicial Misconduct Complaint.
7
See and hear for those who have eyes that see and ears that listens https://youtu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=5924
Page 3 of 26
what do the members of the executive committee understood and judged Mark for it that Chief
Judge Diane S. Sykes said she doesn‟t understand; vindicating Mark for it. By Chief Judge Diane
S. Sykes‟ own words, she can redirect members of the Executive Committee of the Northern
District of Illinois not to judge Mark Bochra based on her own analysis that she doesn‟t
understand the complaint by finding that the complaint is without merit without even appointing
a special committee to investigate the complaint.
The question before us here is whether a special committee should be appointed to investigate
the complaint. Both the Act and the Rules provide that a chief judge cannot make factual
findings about a matter that is reasonably in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(a) (“The chief judge
shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.”); 28
U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B) (dismissal is appropriate “when a limited inquiry . . . demonstrates that the
allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective
evidence.”); Rule 11(b) (“In conducting [a limited] inquiry, the chief judge must not determine
any reasonably disputed issue. Any such determination must be left to a special committee
appointed under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the committee‟s report.”).
The Commentary to Rule 11 notes that “if potential witnesses who are reasonably accessible
In Mark‟s Judicial Misconduct Complaint there are many disputed facts that are subject to a
special committee to investigate the complaint. Take for instance Judge Diane Sykes‟ own words
within her memorandum when she said “complainant believe Judges and the clerk discriminated
against him based on his religious and political beliefs.” That indeed happened, see page 24 of
the Judicial Misconduct Complaint and the Clerk of the Court Thomas Bruton who is a member
of the executive committee objecting to hear about Jesus Christ via a direct e-mail exchange, the
more Mark spoke of Jesus Christ, the more the Executive Committee told him if he don‟t stop
they will take further action with him despite Mark informing them that they are discriminating
against him from the very beginning. Please see ECF No. 9 in 1:21-cv-06223 dated 02/11/2022.
“Mr. Bochra is warned not to submit any additional religious or political materials to the
executive committee”
After the warning and after Mark Bochra reported discrimination in writing reciting the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), came the judgment and the retaliation order in ECF
No. 12 in 1:21-cv-06223 dated 04/20/2022 with the ultimate restrain and removal of all rights to
the point it interfered with an ongoing litigation Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education
et al (1:21-cv-03887) like removing access to CM/ECF system.
However all of this was planned from the very beginning from the day the deputy courtroom
Rhonda Johnson of Judge Sara Ellis who presided over Mark‟s case tried to character lynch him
with the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois over his e-mail about “Jesus
Christ”; not to mention that it was the Executive Committee who replaced Judge Robert
Gettleman with Judge Sara Ellis and assigned her to Mark‟s case i.e., Mark Bochra vs. U.S.
Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887). The judicial misconduct complaint is long
because it is filled with evidence and timeline that is part of the evidence; it is never without
merit, frivolous, or even utterly unsupported; the complaint speaks for itself.
Page 4 of 26
SHORT SUMMARY OF THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
Honorable Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes claims in her writings that Mark‟s Complaint is
disjointed and unwieldy. If one opens up the dictionary and looks up the meaning of the word
“disjointed” it means “lacking a coherent sequence or connection”; however that is far from the
truth because if one follows the table of content of the judicial misconduct complaint, he or she
would read the statement of facts on pages 21 – 27.8 Honorable Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes also
added another word “unwieldy” which if one looks at its definition it means “difficult to carry or
move because of its size, shape, or weight” and that is also not true, judges have read cases with
thousands of pages; it really comes down to the heart of who is reading the complaint and what
they want to do with it; do they want to resolve it leading to reformation or not.
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.9
In order to summarize this judicial misconduct complaint in few short sentences for any future
reader and after Mark completed his investigation parallel to the initial preliminary review by
Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes; the judicial misconduct complaint describes the following:
Complainant before initiating his lawsuit i.e., Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et
al (1:21-cv-03887) e-mailed the entire judges of Northern District of Illinois on June 20, 2021
and told them in part that God will chose a judge who Mark hopes is an angel not a judge for a
case that he will file in the near future; see ECF No. 4 page 2 in 1:21-cv-06223.
Mark knew how judges treat pro-se litigants “kinda like trash” and “not worth their time” and
these were the exact words of a former 7th Circuit Appellant Judge, Judge Richard Posner to
ABA Journal.10 Also from a personal experience, in case Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd
Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66)11 however, the Lord, Jesus Christ completed and
settled the case in Mark family‟s favor protecting their lives in the building where they live.
The Tale of selective targeting started when the deputy courtroom of Judge Sara Ellis who is
presiding over Mark‟s case i.e., Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-
03887), used his e-mail about Jesus Christ and set him up with some “evil” and “corrupt” U.S.
Marshals and the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois. They didn‟t just placed
Mark on a restricted list to defame him but they sent U.S. Marshals to Mark‟s home while he was
at work at Chicago Public School and they accused Mark of wrongdoing that he never
committed in order to install an informant in the building and that informant is a dangerous man,
the valet by the name Sergio Hernandez with a violent history and a history of drug abuse
8
Within few pages of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint, the entire set of timeline and allegations is laid out
before discussing the evidence, this entire ordeal started with the name “Jesus Christ” and Federal Judges
objecting to hear his name or his teachings but that is part of the Coptic identity.
9
See 'Shocking to Me': Investigative Reporter Lise Olsen Talks New Book About Judicial Misconduct | National Law
Journal
10
See Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' (abajournal.com)
11
See Agreed Order https://www.scribd.com/document/117814007/Fair-Housing-Agreed-Order
Page 5 of 26
cocaine based on the doorman‟s own testimony. From that point on, the evil U.S. Marshals kept
stalking Mark through Sergio Hernandez and the manger Alicia McNeal, reading his e-mails to
management about his case and the Jewish lobby infiltrating the department of education on
behalf of Israel and what his federal case in the court is all about. The name of the evil U.S.
Marshal who did all this and was reported to the inspector general of the justice Department
Michael Horowitz, as well as director of the U.S. Marshals Donald L. Davis and the director of
Northern District of Illinois U.S. Marshals LaDon A. Reynolds. The name of the evil U.S.
Marshal who stalked Mark Bochra everywhere on behalf of the executive committee covert
orders, his name is “Jerome Sliva” according to an e-mail by the manager of the building Alicia
McNeal; his name was finally revealed to the Complainant on June 9, 2022.
The goal of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois knowing Mark is a Coptic
American Citizen with a strong faith in Jesus Christ was not only to discriminate and retaliate
against him after he complained of discrimination to them turning it into intentional
discrimination and retaliation but to also target Mark covertly by their use of evil U.S. Marshals
doing their bidding to target Mark at home leading to a hostile environment; target Mark in the
court by stripping him of every right to the point it is interfering with his current litigation that
Judge Sara Ellis is presiding over it; and targeting Mark at Chicago Public School to ruin his
career and life all together just as his legal education was ruined by a set of evil Jewish men and
the law school was shut down by the Department of Education in the end. Mark has been
reporting this journey to many officials as the “Jewish Mafia”. This tale of injustice cannot be
explained in few words, what it needs is a compassionate heart that seeks the very least to reform
members of the executive committee of northern district of Illinois. Which Judge can judge
another? Which law enforcement can judge another? Which teacher can judge another? Which
system can judge its own? For this is the parable of a humble heart that Mark tried to teach to
former attorney general William Barr and he went to teach his own ranks at the justice
department telling them no one is righteous.12
12
See Remarks by Attorney General William P. Barr at Hillsdale College Constitution Day Event | OPA | Department
of Justice
Page 6 of 26
Law enforcement of different agencies if they don‟t fear God, could be evil even lethal ruining
people‟s lives without any care; see Senator Chuck Grassley letter to attorney general Merrick
Garland.13
See also history of evil U.S. Marshals: Deputy U.S. Marshal Indicted and Arrested for
Conspiracy, Cyber Stalking and Perjury.14
On May 13, 2021, a Deputy U.S. Marshal assigned to the U.S. District Courthouse in Los
Angeles, CA, was arrested following an Indictment charging him with one count of
conspiracy, one count of cyber stalking, and one count of perjury. Ian Diaz was indicted
in the Central District of California. According to the Indictment, from at least in or
about May 2016 through at least in or about September 2016, Diaz along with his former
wife, who is alleged to be an unindicted co-conspirator, conspired to harass and
intimidate an individual with whom Diaz was formerly in a relationship, identified as
Jane Doe to protect her privacy, by framing her for criminal conduct that she did not
commit. According to the Indictment, Diaz and his former wife sent to themselves
harassing and threatening electronic communications that contained apparent threats to
13
See Grassley to DOJ - Failure to Prosecute OIG Criminal Referrals (senate.gov)
14
See Press Release https://oig.justice.gov/news/press-release/deputy-us-marshal-indicted-and-arrested-
conspiracy-cyber-stalking-and-perjury
Page 7 of 26
harm Diaz‟s former wife; solicited and lured men found through Craigslist “personal”
advertisements to engage in so-called “rape fantasies” in an attempt to stage a purported
sexual assault on Diaz‟s former wife; and staged one or more hoax sexual assaults and
attempted sexual assaults on Diaz‟s former wife. Diaz and his former wife then allegedly
reported this conduct to local law enforcement, falsely claiming that Jane Doe posed a
genuine and serious threat to Diaz and his former wife, and thereby caused local law
enforcement to arrest, charge, and ultimately detain Jane Doe in jail for nearly three
months for conduct for which they framed her and in fact perpetrated themselves.
According to the Indictment, Diaz and his former wife also allegedly took steps to
conceal their conduct including using falsely registered email accounts, using virtual
private networks to access the internet anonymously, and communicating with one
another using encrypted messaging services. Diaz also allegedly provided false
testimony in a deposition in connection with a federal civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe.
The investigation is being conducted by the OIG‟s Cyber Investigations Office with
substantial assistance provided by the OIG‟s Los Angeles Field Office.
See also Deputy U.S. Marshal charged with using cops‟ cell tracking tool to target „personal
relationships.
Federal prosecutors revealed charges Tuesday against a deputy U.S. Marshal for
allegedly using the government‟s real-time cell phone tracking tool on people with whom
he had a “personal relationship” and also their spouses. Adrian O. Pena then lied to
investigators who confronted him about his abuse, prosecutors said, going so far as to
pressure one of his tracking targets to sign a bogus document saying she had authorized
the surveillance.
All these underlined violations occurred and were reported within the Judicial misconduct
Complaint that was filed by Mark Bochra, however, the chief judge of the 7th circuit declined to
assign a special committee to investigate the complaint. Under the Conduct and Disability Act of
1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability
Proceedings, it states the following:
Intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (Title IX), gender, gender
entity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion (faith in Jesus Christ), national origin
(Title VI Coptic), age, or disability (reported history of seizure epilepsy and not to be
exposed to anxiety and/or depression); retaliating against complainant, witnesses,
judicial employees, or others for participating in the judicial conduct and disability
complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct or disability.
All these violations occurred by preponderance of the evidence but there are no findings or an
investigation for it; why? Mark doesn‟t have the answer, only Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes. All
the Judicial Misconduct Complaints that gets filed with the 7th Circuit are tossed in the (recycle
bin)15, this one is different because the Lord, Jesus Christ is driving the wheel; God opens and no
one closes and God closes and no one opens. The blind can see, the lame can walk, the deaf can
hear, how happy are those who see the truth.
15
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2022.htm
Page 8 of 26
I. BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2022, Complainant Mark Bochra filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint pursuant to
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. The bases for the Complaint were
intentional discrimination on the bases of “sex, religion, disability, national origin (Coptic and
Coptic identity)16, and retaliation for reporting discrimination.”
The Coptic Identity is embedded in the faith of Jesus Christ since the 1st century.17
Under the Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, it states the following:
Intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, gender entity,
pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, or disability; retaliating
against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees, or others for participating in the
judicial conduct and disability complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial
misconduct or disability; see https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-
conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-disability-complaint
The Complaint was filed with supported evidence by preponderance of the evidence; the only
missing portion is a fair and neutral investigation seeking reformation rather than scrutiny even
after the selective targeting by the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois targeting
16
See Coptic Identity http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/
17
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_saints
Page 9 of 26
the Complainant at his (1) home despite the same court agreeing to protect him and his family in
a settled fair housing case Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-
00446) (Dkt 66)18, (2) in court by interfering with his filed civil right case in the federal court i.e.,
Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887), and (3) at work by
targeting him covertly at Chicago Public Schools. It is a tale of covert targeting but who would
want to investigate 8 members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois and
question them about the produced evidence? Please see Exhibit “A” a Copy of the Judicial
Misconduct Complaint. Please see Exhibit “B” a receipt confirmation letter from the 7th circuit
when the Complaint was opened for an investigation on June 10, 2022 and assigned 8 case
numbers. Please see Exhibit “C” a brief memorandum between “judicial and administrative
orders” filing with the 7th circuit court of appeal relative to the Executive Committee in appeal
No. 22-1815 and last see Exhibit “D” Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes concluding her own review of
the judicial misconduct complaint stating if Mark Bochra doesn‟t agree with her findings, he can
appeal it with the Judicial Council of the 7th Circuit but in all their orders that Mark reviewed it is
a process of denial which never leads to any reformation of the judicial branch and more outcry
by the public; hence the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
which is the last step is copied on this appeal as well for they are more independent and far away
from the 7th Circuit Judicial Council; they are located in Washington D.C. not Chicago.
Because the Complaint for Judicial Misconduct was based on intentional discrimination based on
“Sex, Religion, Disability, National Original, and Retaliation for reporting discrimination” The
Complainant asserted violations of due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth
Amendment, 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.
After the Judicial Misconduct Complaint was delivered to the 7th circuit of appeal on June 10,
2022 at 10:26 a.m., two incidents happened (1) Mark Bochra was retaliated against turning him
from Complaint into a Respondent few hours later at Chicago Public School and the Chicago
Teacher Union became involved in the case and a class wide complaint was filed with a Federal
Agency against Chicago Public School senior leadership to which this same judicial misconduct
complaint was part of the complaint; and (2) on her own account and without Plaintiff or
Defendants seeking a reschedule for their hearing to rule on the Department of Justice motion to
dismiss in case Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887), on her
own account honorable Judge Sara L. Ellis rescheduled the hearing to September 27, 2022; it
appears that Judge Sara Ellis was notified not to rule on Mark‟s case until Chief Judge Diane
Sykes closes the filed judicial misconduct complaint because he reported retaliation but the
retaliation already happened on multiple front; they know they want to destroy his case.
Complainant shared his thought with some leadership inside the 7th circuit court of appeal to
which some said “yes we see it Mark, we see the reschedule of the hearing.” Based on the merits
of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Judge Sara Ellis was looking forward to this hearing after
18
Page 10 of 26
several reschedules; she indeed may wants to dismiss this lawsuit by any means possible because
it was her courtroom deputy who initiated the targeting of Complainant Mark Bochra and later
denied having anything to do with the Executive Committee set of ravage orders; some of these
orders are public while others are done covertly like their use of evil U.S. Marshals to stalk and
target Mark Bochra at his home causing a hostile environment, that fact is known by
preponderance of the evidence and there is a filed complaint with Inspector Michael Horowitz at
the Justice Department along with direct e-mails to him; please refer to the Complainant‟s
Judicial Misconduct Complaint pages 59-63.
The day the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois tried to initially target
Complainant Mark Bochra and their plan failed was back in April of 20, 2022; they won‟t be
able to explain or justify why they took extreme measures after Mark reported discrimination to
them, the only other means to get rid of Mark was to wait for him to be setup at Chicago Public
School but Mark Bochra was the Complainant with CPS and their 1st attempt failed.
Page 11 of 26
The Second attempt was when Mark Bochra delivered his Judicial Misconduct Complaint to the
7th Circuit Court of Appeal on June 10, 2022 and within hours he was retaliated against by CPS
also on June 10, 2022 to which led to a 159 page complaint filed with a federal agency and
supported by the Chicago Teacher Union. The case is known to City of Chicago Board of
Education, and many officials. What evil several men and woman tried to plan, God took it and
put it to shame and with every trial they tried to destroy Mark Bochra, the Lord, Jesus Christ
uplifted Mark however, Mark is in great pain and can‟t take the amount of wickedness some men
and woman commits in order to hold onto power; power that the Lord, God can take away any
moment but he gives humans chances to repent and change; some change while others do not.
Moreover, after the delivery of the judicial Misconduct Complaint to the 7th circuit court of
appeal, on June 13, 2022, Judge Sara Ellis rescheduled the hearing on her own account to rule on
the Justice Department motion to dismiss not on June 21, 2022 but on September 27, 2022 in
order to circumvent the claim of retaliation however retaliation happened covertly on multiple
fronts at home, in court, and at Chicago Public School; simply put an investigation and
interviewing members of the executive committee would reveal the selective targeting “why they
retaliated on April 20 after Mark complained of discrimination? Why the extreme measures?
What were they waiting for? This is neither frivolous nor without merit.
The Judicial Misconduct Complaint was delivered on June 10, 2022 to the 7th circuit.
Judge Sara Ellis rescheduled the hearing on her own account to September 27, 2022
Page 12 of 26
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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).
The entire Judicial Misconduct Complaint is subject to the 7th circuit judicial council because it
is administrative in nature while it covertly comingles with judicial orders like the executive
committee of northern district of Illinois use of U.S. Marshals to stalk and target Mark as his
home over his email about Jesus Christ; facts can‟t change although they have attempted to
change them over and over.
Members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois has a long history of
selective targeting of whoever they like, regular citizens or even lawyers that for the first time
Mark Bochra came to seek reformation not judgment but 7th Circuit declined to reform their
colleagues. See for example Executive Committee of the Uni v. Andrew Shalaby, No. 20-2689
(7th Cir. 2022).
The order assigning U.S. Marshals to escort Mr. Shalaby based entirely on fabrications
was issued only three days after Mr. Shalaby reached out to Magistrate Johnston to
discuss his fabrication made to the Senate, a fabrication that no Court can say does not
exist (see doc. 3 attachment). Mr. Shalaby sought to afford Magistrate Johnston an
opportunity to rectify because under IRPC 8.3(b) Mr. Shalaby was required to report the
fabrication. Instead of doing the right thing, which would have been to rectify the
misrepresentation, the Court served this horrible order containing the horrible untruths
three days later. There can be no doubt that the Executive Committee is acting as a
“plaintiff” in this instance, well outside of its authority as an Article III Court, and there
is only one Court available to serve as the proper “tribunal”, this Court. A motion to
compel the failure to respond to the discovery is one issue which makes this clear. This
defendant cannot move to compel responses if the same entity that brought the false
charges is also acting as the court. There must be a tribunal in between, and that tribunal
can only be the Court of Appeals.
Andrew Shalaby is an Egyptian, a Muslim Arab not a Christian Coptic, a lawyer not a pro se
litigant. The Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois set Mr. Shalaby up and they
can do it with anyone without care but they do care very much about their own status, title, fame,
reputation, and how they appear in public and before members of congress. This is not justice.
You could be in the middle of a hurricane, or you could be on a calm day, north is still
north; you could be in a thunderstorm north is still north; people can yell at you north is
still north; it doesn‟t change fundamental things and in this business, right is still right,
said Justice Clarence Thomas.19
19
See Heritage Foundation on Twitter: ""Right is still right, even if you stand by yourself." - Justice Clarence
Thomas https://t.co/qbvsOgld8T" / Twitter
Page 13 of 26
Justice Clarence Thomas in a recently released book said that his opponents tried to turn him into
“something that is repulsive” after he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, comparing
them to the gnats that were part of his formative years in Georgia. In the book, “Created Equal:
Clarence Thomas in His Own Words”20 Justice Thomas said “they have to make you into
somebody who you're not,” he said “you have to be reduced to this little object. And I don't
know whether the right word is reified, but it's just to be made into an object, and made into
something that is repulsive, reduced, so they can't see you as a human.”21
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
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
because the chief judge failed to assign one when there are disputed facts.22
this Committee to review a judicial council order affirming a chief judge‟s dismissal of a
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:
erroneous).
20
See documentary https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1262346233328304128
21
See Thomas Says Critics Sought to Make Him 'Repulsive' Amid SCOTUS Nomination: Book (businessinsider.com)
22
Page 14 of 26
under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the committee‟s report.”). The
view that an appropriate evaluation of the judges‟ conduct cannot be accomplished
The Commentary to Rule 11 provides a useful illustration of how a similar factual dispute should
be resolved:
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.
In this present judicial misconduct complaint there are direct evidence that needs the questioning
of the members of executive committee of northern district of Illinois as to why they took
extreme measure against Mark Bochra on April 20, 2022 within their order after he complained
of discrimination based on his Coptic and Coptic identity which is also the center question
surrounding the pending litigation Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-
03887) and what is their knowledge and use of the U.S. Marshals covertly to stalk Mark at his
home since November of 2021 (to the very least we know this is a fact) especially after the U.S.
Marshals visited Mark at home revealing their identity telling him not to e-mail the executive
committee; however a second U.S. Marshal was switch with a good U.S. Marshal who decided
to leave Mark in peace. The reported evil U.S. Marshal to inspector of DOJ Michael Horowitz,
his name appears to be Jerome Sliva. This entire ordeal started with their hate of the name Jesus
Christ and they want to ruin Mark Bochra‟s life for good; they can‟t change these facts, not now
nor later, nor even with their attempt to paint Mark Bochra someone he is not; they are evil.
Page 15 of 26
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee concluded in the case C.C.D. No. 22-01 that
“because a special committee was not appointed to investigate the complaints, there is not
the Circuit Judicial Council erred in affirming the Chief Circuit Judge‟s dismissal of the
necessary.”
IV. CONCLUSION
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].23
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.
23
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+118%3A12-20&version=NKJV
Page 16 of 26
PRAYERS
For these mentioned reasons, Complainant Mark Bochra request to vacate the Circuit‟s Chief
Judge dismissal of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint and to refer the case back to the chief
Judge to appoint a neutral special committee to investigate the complaint under Section 353 of
the Act and Rules 11(f). In addition to seek reformation of the “restricted filer listing.”
I do not have faith in the 7th Circuit Judicial Council; looking at their history, they take 2 month
to issue their ruling on the Chief Judge‟s memorandums; most of their findings say the standard:
The Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit has reviewed the complainant‟s petition for
review of the memorandum and order entered by Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes on […],
dismissing the complaint in the above‐captioned matter pursuant to […]. Having
considered the relevant materials, the Judicial Council denies the petition for review and
affirms Chief Judge Sykes‟s memorandum and order.24
It looks like a pattern and practice for Chief Judge of the 7th circuit to dismiss the complaints and
it is affirmed by the 7th circuit judicial council, it is a process filled with many conflict of
interest, compounded with lack of transparency and honesty, most importantly fear of God.
The one case I actually found the Chief Judge appointing a special committee to investigate was
the case of a Jewish family reporting just an “anti-Semitic remark.” I don‟t believe in such word
as the middle-east are all Semite tribes including me.25 I believe in the word “good vs. evil” in
plain language. This case was also recited within my judicial misconduct complaint on page 41.
When a Jewish person was litigating a case in a court and the Judge said “I know what
the Jewish families in Champaign do. The husbands put the businesses in their own
names and their houses in their wives‟ names.” The chief judge convened a special
committee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 353(a), consisting of Circuit Judge David Hamilton as
chair, District Judge Gary Feinerman, and Chief Judge Wood, ex officio, pursuant to §
353(a) and the order resulted in admonishing the judge calling him “anti-Semitic” No.
07‐16‐90021.26 Please bear in mind that Judge Gary Freinerman is a member of the
Jewish/Israeli lobby who defended the famous Mezuzah case of Helen Bloch before the
7th circuit when he was a lawyer. Here you see a Jewish complainant received the
backing of a Jewish Judge as well. See also Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.) No. 06-3376.27
See also Michael W. McConnell, Gary S. Feinerman and Steffen N. Johnson, of Mayer,
Brown Platt, of Chicago, for amicus curiae American Jewish Committee et al.28
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
24
You can take a look at history https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2022.htm
25
See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite
26
See Order http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2016/07-16-90021_Final_Order.pdf
27
See Court ruling en banc https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498717.html
28
See Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach, 196 Ill. 2d 1 | Casetext Search + Citator
Page 17 of 26
Via Electronic Mails
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Ronald A. Klain The Honorable Bruce Reed

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

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

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

White House Press Secretary
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

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

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
Page 18 of 26
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENIOR LEADERSHIP
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland The Honorable Eric W. Treene

Assistant Attorney General Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Division
Washington, DC 20530-0001 Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Matthew Klapper The Honorable Lisa O. Monaco

Chief of Staff for AG Merrick Garland Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Kristen Clarke The Honorable Matt Olsen

Acting Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
Civil Right Division National Security Division
The Honorable Doha G. Mekki The Honorable Kenneth A. Polite, Jr

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Right Division Criminal Division
The Honorable John Carlin The Honorable Kate Heinzelman

Acting Deputy Attorney General Chief Counsel
The Honorable Brian Fletcher The Honorable Michael Granston

Department of Justice Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Kevin Andrew Chambers The Honorable Emily Loeb

Associate Deputy Attorney General Associate Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Matthew Axelrod The Honorable Brian Netter

Associate Attorney General Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Brian H. Fletcher The Honorable Varu Chilakamarri

Acting Solicitor General Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Helaine Greenfeld The Honorable Kevin Jones

Acting Assistant Attorney General Acting Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Anthony Coley The Honorable Richard A. Powers

Office of Public Affairs Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Joseph Gaeta The Honorable Anita M. Singh

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Matthew Colangelo The Honorable Nicholas McQuaid

Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Page 19 of 26
U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader
322 Hart Senate Office Building S-230, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Chief of Staff – Michael Lynch Chief of Staff – Terry Carmack
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives
204 Capitol Building
Chief of Staff – Robert Edmonson
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Chief of Staff – Pat Souders Chief of Staff – Aaron Cummings
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Chief of Staff – John Dowd Chief of Staff – Richard Perry
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable John Cornyn

Chief of Staff – David Grannis Chief of Staff – Beth Jafari
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable Michael S. Lee

Chief of Staff – Sam Goodstein Chief of Staff – Allyson Bell
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar The Honorable Ted Cruz

Chief of Staff – Lindsey Kerr Chief of Staff – Steve Chartan
The Honorable Christopher A. Coons The Honorable Ben Sasse

Chief of Staff – Jonathan Stahler Chief of Staff – Raymond Sass
The Honorable Senator Richard Blumenthal The Honorable Joshua D. Hawley

Chief of Staff – Joel Kelsey Chief of Staff – Kyle Plotkin
The Honorable Senator Mazie Hirono The Honorable Tom Cotton
Chief of Staff – Alan Yamamoto Chief of Staff – Doug Coutts
The Honorable Cory Booker The Honorable John Kennedy

Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron Chief of Staff – David Stokes
Page 20 of 26
The Honorable Alex Padilla The Honorable Thom Tillis

Chief of Staff – David Montes Chief of Staff – Ted Lehman
The Honorable John Ossoff The Honorable Marsha Blackburn

Chief of Staff – Reynaldo Benitez Chief of Staff – Sean Farrell
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STAFF
Dan Swanson
General Counsel
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Dick Durbin, Chair
daniel_swanson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Judd Smith
Counsel
Senate Judiciary Committee
Judd_Smith@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Zack Rosenblum
Counsel, Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer
Zack_Rosenblum@schumer.senate.gov
Andrew Ferguson
Chief Counsel, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Andrew_Ferguson@mcconnell.senate.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic Counsel:

Danny Smith, daniel_smith@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Rachel Appleton, rachel_appleton@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Alex Aronson, alex_aronson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Sarah Bauer, sarah_bauer@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Tona Boyd, tona_boyd@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Keagan Buchanan, keagan_buchanan@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Lindsay Erickson, lindsay_erickson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Debu Gandhi, debu_gandhi@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Ches Garrison, ches_garrison@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Alex Haskell, alex_haskell@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Gabe Kader, gabe_kader@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Ajay Kundaria, ajay_kundaria@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Lauren Moxley Beatty, lauren_moxleybeatty@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Amalea Smirniotopoulos, amalea_smirniotopoulos@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Shanna Winters, shanna_winters@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Nick Xenakis, nicholas_xenakis@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Sara Zdeb, sara_zdeb@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Page 21 of 26
Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Counsel:

Andrew Davis, Andrew_Davis@cruz.senate.gov
Drew Hudson, Drew_Hudson@cotton.senate.gov
John Ehrett, John_Ehrett@hawley.senate.gov
Jessica Vu, Jessica_Vu@blackburn.senate.gov
Franci Rooney, Franci_Rooney@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Brad Watts, Brad_Watts@tillis.senate.gov
Wendy Baig, Wendy_Baig@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
William Payne, William_Payne@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Andrew Harding, Andrew_Harding@kennedy.senate.gov
Lee Holmes, Lee_Holmes@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
U.S. HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney The Honorable James Comer

Chairwoman Ranking Member
House Committee on Oversight and Reform House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Chief of Staff – Emily Crerand Chief of Staff – Caroline Cash
The Honorable Eleanor Norton The Honorable Stephen Lynch

Chief of Staff – Raven Reeder Chief of Staff – Kevin Ryan
The Honorable Jim Cooper The Honorable Gerald Connolly

Chief of Staff – Lisa Quigley Chief of Staff – Jamie Smith
The Honorable Raja Krishnamoorthi The Honorable Jamie Raskin

Chief of Staff – Mark Shauerte Chief of Staff – Julie Tagen
The Honorable Ro Khanna The Honorable Kweisi Mfume

Chief of Staff – Geo Saba Chief of Staff – Eric Bryant
The Honorable Alexandria O-Cortez The Honorable Rashida Tlaib

Chief of Staff – Ariel Eckblad Chief of Staff – Britteny Jenkins
The Honorable Katie Porter The Honorable Cori Bush

Chief of Staff – Jordan Wood Chief of Staff – Abbas Alawieh
The Honorable Danny Davis The Honorable Debbie Schultz

Chief of Staff – Yul Edwards Chief of Staff – Tracie Pough
The Honorable Peter Welch The Honorable Hank Johnson

Chief of Staff – Patrick Satalin Chief of Staff – Scott Goldstein
The Honorable John Sarbanes The Honorable Jackie Speier

Chief of Staff – Dvora Lovinger Chief of Staff – Josh Connolly
Page 22 of 26
The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier The Honorable Jimmy Gomez

Chief of Staff – Betsy Arnold Marr Chief of Staff – Bertha Alisia Guerrero
The Honorable Robin Kelly The Honorable Brenda Lawrence

Chief of Staff – Julius West Chief of Staff – Curtis Doster
The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Paul Gosar

Chief of Staff – Kevin Eichinger Chief of Staff – Tom Van Flein
The Honorable Virginia Foxx The Honorable Jody Hice

Chief of Staff – Carson Middleton Chief of Staff – Tim Reitz
The Honorable Glenn Grothman The Honorable Michael Cloud

Chief of Staff – Chris Grawein Chief of Staff – Adam Magary
The Honorable Bob Gibbs The Honorable Clay Higgins

Chief of Staff – Hillary Gross Chief of Staff – Kathee Facchiano
The Honorable Ralph Norman The Honorable Fred Keller

Chief of Staff – Mark Piland Chief of Staff – Jon Anzur
The Honorable Peter Sessions The Honorable Andy Biggs

Chief of Staff – Warren Bell Chief of Staff – Kate LaBorde
The Honorable Byron Donalds The Honorable Nancy Mace

Chief of Staff – Tyler Haymore Chief of Staff – Mara Mellstrom
The Honorable Yvette Herrell The Honorable Jake LaTurner

Chief of Staff – Michael Horanburg Chief of Staff – Braden Dreiling
The Honorable Pat Fallon The Honorable Andrew Clyde

Chief of Staff – Shannon Sorrell Chief of Staff – Nicolas Brown
The Honorable Ayanna Pressley The Honorable Scott Franklin

Chief of Staff – Sarah Groh Chief of Staff – Melissa Kelly

CC
Senate Democratic leadership
The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Dick Durbin

Senate Majority Leader Senate Majority Whip
Chief of Staff – Michael Lynch Chief of Staff – Pat Souders
Page 23 of 26
The Honorable Patty Murray The Honorable Debbie Stabenow

Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Chair Democratic Policy & Communication
Chief of Staff – Mindi Linquist Chief of Staff – Matt Van Kuiken
The Honorable Mark Warner The Honorable Elizabeth Warren

Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus
Chief of Staff – Elizabeth Falcone Chief of Staff – Jon Donenberg
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar The Honorable Bernie Sanders

Chair Democratic Steering Committee Chair Democratic Outreach
Chief of Staff – Lindsey kerr Chief of Staff – Misty Rebik
The Honorable Cory Booker The Honorable Joe Manchin

Vice Chair Policy and Communication Vice Chair Policy and Communication
Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron Chief of Staff – Lance West
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin The Honorable Gary Peters

Secretary Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Senatorial Campaign Committee
Chief of Staff – Ken Reidy Chief of Staff – Caitlyn Stephenson
The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto

Vice Chair Democratic Outreach
Chief of Staff – Scott Fairchild
Senate Republican leadership
The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable John Thune

Senate Minority Leader Senate Minority Whip
Chief of Staff – Terry Carmack Chief of Staff – Ryan Nelson
The Honorable John Barrasso The Honorable Roy Blunt

Chair Republican Conference Chair Republican Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Dan Kunsman Chief of Staff – Stacy McBride
The Honorable Joni Ernst The Honorable Rick Scott

Vice Chair Republican Conference Chair National Senatorial Committee
Chief of Staff – Lisa Smittcamp Goeas Chief of Staff – Craig Carbone
The Honorable Mike Lee

Chair of the Senate Republican Steering Committee
Chief of Staff – Allyson Bell
House Democratic leadership
The Honorable Steny Hoyer The Honorable James Clyburn

House Majority Leader House Majority Whip
Chief of Staff – Alexis Covey-Brandt Chief of Staff – Yebbie Watkins
Page 24 of 26
The Honorable Katherine Clark The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries

Assistant Speaker of the House Chair of the House Democratic Caucus
Chief of Staff – Brooke Scannell Chief of Staff – Tasia Jackson
The Honorable Pete Aguilar The Honorable Sean Patrick Maloney

Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Chair Congressional Campaign Committee
Chief of Staff – Boris Medzhibobsky Chief of Staff – Matthew McNally
The Honorable Matt Cartwright The Honorable Debbie Dingell

Co-Chair Policy and Communications Co-Chair Policy and Communications
Chief of Staff – Hunter Ridgway Chief of Staff – Dan Black
The Honorable Ted Lieu The Honorable Joe Neguse

Chief of Staff – Marc Cevasco Chief of Staff – Lisa Bianco
The Honorable Collin Allred The Honorable Mondaire Jones

Junior Caucus Leadership Representative Freshman Class Leadership Representative
Chief of Staff – Paige Hutchinson Chief of Staff – Zach Fisch
The Honorable Cheri Bustos The Honorable Barbara Lee

Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Trevor Reuschel Chief of Staff – Julie Nickson
The Honorable Eric Swalwell The Honorable G.K. Butterfield

Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee Senior Deputy Whips
Chief of Staff – Michael Reed Chief of Staff – Kyle Parker
The Honorable Jan Schakowsky The Honorable Henry Cuellar

Senior Deputy Whips Chief Deputy Whips
Chief of Staff – Syd Terry Chief of Staff – Amy Loveng
The Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee The Honorable Dan Kildee

Chief Deputy Whips Chief Deputy Whips
Chief of Staff – Kenneth Nealy Chief of Staff – Mitchell Rivard
The Honorable Stephanie Murphy The Honorable Jimmy Panetta

Chief of Staff – Brad Howard Chief of Staff – Joel Bailey
The Honorable Terri Sewell The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Chief of Staff – Hillary Beard Chief of Staff – Tracie Pough
The Honorable Peter Welch

Chief Deputy Whips
Page 25 of 26
Chief of Staff – Patrick Satalin

House Republican leadership
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Steve Scalise

House Minority Leader House Minority Whip
Chief of Staff – James Min Chief of Staff – Megan Miller
The Honorable Elise Stefanik The Honorable Mike Johnson

Chair of the House Republican Conference Vice Chair of the Republican Conference
Chief of Staff – Patrick Hester Chief of Staff – Hayden Haynes
The Honorable Richard Hudson The Honorable Gary Palmer

Secretary of the House Republican Conference Chair of the Republican Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Billy Constangy Chief of Staff – William Smith
The Honorable Tom Emmer

Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee
Chief of Staff – Chris Maneval
Page 26 of 26
EXHIBIT B
_|_
|
C O P | T I C
Prophesies Concerning Egypt
“The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt;
the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst” [Isaiah
19:1].1 This prophesy was fulfilled when the Holy Family entered Egypt. With this entrance,
Egypt‟s idols collapsed forever. Since this time, Egypt and its faithful Christians were blessed,
fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy, “Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will
know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to
the LORD and perform it” [Isaiah 19:21] and also “In that day there will be an altar to the
LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border” [Isaiah 19:19].
Today, in the middle of Egypt the monastery of St. Mary (a.k.a. El-MoHarrak) stands (in the
middle of Egypt) witness to the fulfillment of this prophesy. In that monastery, the Holy Family
stayed for about six months as we learned from Pope Theophilos, the twenty third patriarch of
Alexandria, who was told of the details of the Holy Family's journey in a vision. The “pillar in
the border of it” speaks of St. Mark who preached in Egypt starting from Alexandria – at Egypt's
northern border.
God blessed Egypt since the beginning of time. Firstly He made it as the paradise, “like the
garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt” [Genesis 13:10]. Secondly, He blessed it as it
welcomed many fathers of the Old Testament. For example, Egypt welcomed Abraham and Sara
(see [Genesis 12:10]), and Jacob and his family (see [Genesis 39:50]). Egypt also welcomed
other prophets like Jeremiah. Even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself chose Egypt to be the spiritual
equivalent of Golgotha during the first Passover “... Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified”
[Revelation 11:8]. Amazingly, Egypt was mentioned in the Holy Bible approximately 600 times,
second only to Jerusalem (Egypt: 595 times, Egyptian(s): 120 times).
The Holy Family dwelt throughout Egypt, from the north to the south and from the east to the
west. Today we know of about thirty three blessed areas where the Holy Family dwelt. Lastly,
St. Mary herself blessed Egypt again with daily appearances in her church in Zaitoon, Cairo to
express her love to the country that welcomed her. She intercedes on our behalf to her Son and
her God, and He answers her: “Blessed is Egypt my people” [Isaiah 19:25].
Copts, being hosts of the Holy Family, follow the verse “You shall not be afraid of the terror by
night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, Nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness, Nor of
the destruction that lays waste at noonday” [Psalms 91:5-6]2, for the Lord is our shelter as our
land sheltered Him.3 When He came in the past, our forefathers welcomed Him. Now He knocks
at the gates of our hearts, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and
opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with me” [Revelation 3:20].
1
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15950/jewish/Chapter-19.htm see
https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Isaiah+19&version=NKJV&showVN=1
2
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Psalms+91%3A5-6&version=NKJV&showVN=1
3
See Saint George https://youtu.be/rzwRZShVaK8?t=1785 , https://youtu.be/rzwRZShVaK8?t=3084
Page 1 of 27
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

Christopher_Conway@ca7.uscourts.gov info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov

September 7, 2022
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW
of the 7th Circuit,
This filed supplement to my filed petition for review will begin with the “persecuted Christians
of the East.” A march under the title “March for the Martyrs 2022” that will begin on September
24, 2022 in Washington D.C wherein, the churches in America will not stand silent anymore
toward the persecuted Christians; founder Gia Chacón stated within her video.4
The heart of a judge comes in different colors; for Jesus Christ himself spoke about the Parable
of the Unjust Judge. A high ranking staff within the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal told me “Mark
God does not rule this Court, Judges do.” Yet, the Lord, God rules this entire Earth; after all he is
the one who gave these judges the brain to think, the eyes to see, the ears to listen, and the mouth
to speak the truth. Should I reveal to you who that person is or should I stay quite? I will stay
4
See https://youtu.be/QMqc7ibr6pk see https://twitter.com/forthemartyrs/status/1228920090000650241 and
see former President Trump remarks relative to the 21 Coptic https://youtu.be/TmrRILM9wFQ?t=248 see book
https://www.amazon.com/21-Journey-into-Coptic-Martyrs/dp/0874868394/ see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_saints
For I am a Coptic.
Page 2 of 27
quite because I respected his or her kind heart yet I know the staff i.e., the manager tried to
gather information from me. I was told “the 7th Circuit Judges won‟t change” but my response
was “it isn‟t me who will change them but God.”
This parable of the Unjust Judge angered members of the Executive Committee for they told me
“not to speak anymore about Jesus Christ” because their hearts raged from within knowing how
dark they were; for how can evil speaks good things for out of the abundance of their hearts the
mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things and an
evil man out of the evil treasure of the heart brings forth evil things.
And he told them a parable to show that they must always pray and not be discouraged,
saying, “There was a certain judge in a certain town who did not fear God and did not
respect people. And there was a widow in that town, and she kept coming to him, saying,
„Grant me justice against my adversary!‟ And he was not willing for a time, but after
these things he said to himself, „Even if I do not fear God or respect people, yet because
this widow is causing trouble for me, I will grant her justice, so that she does not wear me
down in the end by her[a] coming back!‟” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the
unrighteous judge is saying! And will not God surely see to it that justice is done to his
chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, and will he delay toward them? I tell you
that he will see to it that justice is done for them soon! Nevertheless, when the Son of
Man comes, then will he find faith on earth?” [Luke 18:1-8].5
The Chief Judge, Rebecca Pallmeyer of the Northern District of Illinois who stood there
lecturing students (My Valpo Story)6 about her Christian life, the Lord, Jesus Christ will tell her
“truly I tell you, I don‟t know you.” I have tried to change her, she refused; I have tried to reach
her closed heart and she refused; members of the executive committee perverted justice for the
sake of what they desired and they rejected the truth and replaced it with lies and cover-ups.
Those problems call into question the systems of self-policing for judges, but there‟s been
no serious public engagement with that issue. Although it‟s unusual for justices to
comment publicly, the silence on these revelations of misconduct from the highest-
ranking officers of the federal courts – like U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts –
comes across as an abdication of responsibility and hinders a necessary public
conversation and reform.7 Quoted by Reuters News.
“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.8
Can a court system judge its own? Can Judges Judge their colleagues? No system judges itself.
5
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Luke+18%3A1-14&version=NKJV&showVN=1
6
See her own testimony https://youtu.be/t1V6YOxUzQg?t=733
7
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pervasive-judicial-misconduct-raises-question-whos-charge-
here-2021-10-06/
8
See https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/10/22/shocking-to-me-investigative-reporter-lise-olsen-
talks-new-book-about-judicial-misconduct/
Page 3 of 27
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 10, 2022 Plaintiff Mark Bochra filed an 88 page Judicial Misconduct Complaint against
members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois and Judge Robert
Gettleman based on intentional discrimination based on “Sex, Religion, Disability, National
Original, and Retaliation for reporting discrimination” The Complainant asserted violations of
due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, 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.
The filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint was based on a recent 4th circuit court of appeal ruling
“Judges can be lawsuit”9 in Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et.al.10
After the Judicial Misconduct Complaint was delivered to the 7th Circuit of Appeal on June 10,
2022 at 10:26 a.m., two incidents happened (1) Mark Bochra was retaliated against turning him
from Complainant into a Respondent few hours later at Chicago Public School and the Chicago
Teacher Union became involved in the case and a class wide complaint was filed with the
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Chicago Public School senior
leadership to which the same judicial misconduct complaint was part of the complaint; and (2)
Judge Sara Ellis on her own account and without Plaintiff or Defendants seeking a reschedule for
their hearing to rule on the Department of Justice motion to dismiss in case Mark Bochra vs. U.S.
Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887), rescheduled the hearing to September 27, 2022;
it appears that Judge Sara Ellis was notified not to rule on Mark‟s case until Chief Judge Diane
Sykes closes the judicial misconduct complaint because Mark Bochra reported retaliation but the
retaliation already happened on multiple front.
Chief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal failed to assign a special committee
to investigate when there are clear disputed facts which contradicted with a recent ruling by the
Judicial Conference Committee C.C.D. No. 22-01 that was recently ruled on July 8, 2022.11 The
manager of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal asked me “Mark what makes you think the Judicial
Conference Committee have jurisdiction over us?” I replied there is a court ruling on it. The staff
added “when that case ruling came in, the 80s, an older case?” I replied “no recently in July of
2022” and the staff added “so you think you got everything figured out?” I replied “no I haven‟t,
I am the weak person here, the pro se; God is leading this trial” but the staff reply came in part
“God doesn‟t rule this court, Judges do.” I pleaded with the staff for judges of the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeal to change and seek good by reforming the executive committee but the staff
reply was always the same “Mark they won‟t change.” And the staff added “these are the best
legal scholars.” I replied back “the mighty proud hearts, here we go again; as wise as Solomon
was, his richest and wisdom but God rejected him as king when he forgot the lord, God.”
9
See 4th Circuit Revives Ex-Public Defender's Sex Harassment Lawsuit Against Judiciary Officials | National Law
Journal
10
See https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211346.P.pdf
11
Page 4 of 27
On September 2, 2022 I filed a Motion with Judge Sara Ellis in my case Mark Bochra vs. U.S.
Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887) seeking for her to postpone the September 27,
2022 hearing pending the outcome of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint review before the
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability & the Judicial Council of the
7th Circuit. The Motion appeared on the docket September 6, 2022 and within a matter of hours,
Judge Sara Ellis read the entire document and ruled on it the next day with few words “deny and
refusal to seek a settlement conference among the parties because defendants‟ counsel haven‟t
indicated so” Dkt 80. See Exhibit “A” a copy of the filed motion with the court. Yet, Judge Sara
Ellis (public reviews)12 showed that she always compel parties to meet for settlement conference
even against lawyers‟ will but that is when the case involves lawyers not pro se litigants.
vs.
12
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=2109
Page 5 of 27
An emergency motion for recusal under 28 U.S. Code § 45513 and 28 U.S. Code § 14414 was
filed with the emergency judge on the calendar, honorable judge Sharon Johnson Coleman; see
Exhibit “B”. The bases were clear; Judge Sara Ellis intention is to dismiss Mark Bochra‟s case
by any means possible because Mark turned into a liability for the executive committee and her.
They have tried to cut Mark off the ECF system so he won‟t be able to file documents properly
and they will be able to monitor and limit his filings; they have tried to target Mark at his home
despite a fair housing settlement agreement that protects Mark and his family from Fair Housing
violation Amin et al v. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66)15 (is
Judge Joan Lefkow a member of the Executive Committee?); they have tried to target Mark in
the court by placing him under the microscope; and they have tried to target Mark at his work
and each trial was doomed to fail because their hearts were evil and when Mark sought the help
of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal, the manager of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal without
revealing names told Mark “they won‟t change” and who would I go to for protection then? God
would be the answer not humans.
Out of the mouth of the Courtroom Deputy Ms. Rhonda Johnson; action speaks louder.
After everything that occurred, and was said and done, clearly without any rebuttal or cover-ups,
the judge whom the Executive Committee chose for my case i.e., Judge Sara Ellis, the selective
targeting came from her own courtroom through her courtroom deputy Ms. Rhonda Johnson who
denied knowing anything about the Executive Committee; hence as I stated within my petition
for review, either one is lying or all are lying but they are all not righteous. They rely on their
status to demean the weak and the poor and make everyone else believe them; but that is not
what the Lord, God sees and yet they don‟t fear God because they believe God does not exists.
Justice Thomas said “they have to make you into somebody who you're not,” he said
“you have to be reduced to this little object. And I don't know whether the right word is
13
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
14
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144 Bias or prejudice of judge
15
Page 6 of 27
reified, but it's just to be made into an object, and made into something that is repulsive,
reduced, so they can't see you as a human.”16
They wanted to reduce me into an object with no voice using their power and status.
Even the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal, my appeal before the executive committee 22-1815, a
judge did not grant me access to the ECF system and said I have to mail all my papers in. The
manager within the court revealed to me that it wasn‟t a staff member who did that but a judge
who looked at the executive committee case and decided not to grant ECF access; yet that 7th
Circuit Judge did not reveal his or her name on the order. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeal treats
pro se litigants like trash just as former 7th Circuit Judge Posner claimed within his interview
with ABA Journal.
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.
II. JUDGE SHOPPING: THE WORDS OF A HIGH 7TH CIRCUIT STAFF
During the last phone call that lasted nearly 45 min on September 8, 2022 and yes I do have the
direct phone number of the 7th Circuit manager with the 7th Circuit because he or she provided it
16
See https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-critics-repulsive-1991-supreme-court-nomination-2022-
6
Page 7 of 27
to me and he or she added “Mark they told me not to speak to you anymore.” When I brought
few facts about Judge‟s true hearts; there are the merciful, there are the evil, and there are the
good and the bad. The staff replied in part “everyone should start judge shopping, the democrats
use to love us but when we rule against them now they hate us and want to change the rules.”
Then I pointed out the case of former President Donald Trump to the staff when I told him or
her; look at the Judge, Judge Bruce Reinhart who signed up on the raid of former president of the
united states of America, he had ties related to Jeffery Epstein17 as reported by the media and he
himself criticized Trump on social media18; Democrats loved him while Republicans hated him.
However, look at the Judge who appointed a special master to review the seized documents; U.S.
District Judge Aileen Cannon in West Palm Beach, Florida. Republicans loved her but
Democrats hated her and the media came descending on her with derogatory comments. She also
refused amicus curiae briefs seeing them as pr noise.19 Of course over the phone I didn‟t go over
these details explicitly with the manager but he understood me when it comes to judges because
the manager too, does read the news. In short the staff told me “nothing is fair or equal in life.”
To explain the reality we all live in:
Each side went judge shopping, that was the reality of the world we live in but they have
money and power, yet each side wanted a judge that would feel their own pain for no one
is righteous; God allowed America to see these trials among the titans to show how the
systems fully run. Are we a nation in decline according to Trump recent video release?20
I believe what America needs is going back to its forgotten root, to see Jesus Christ back into the
courtroom and people‟s lives. Created Equal was the documentary created by Justice Clarence
Thomas.21 A true Judge‟s heart will appear when he or she treats the poor and the weak with
mercy and love when no one is looking and the cameras are off; but this is not the reality here.
Judge Sara Ellis in her confirmation hearing promised she will treat everyone fairly and with
open-mind.22 But that is far from the truth; many say one thing in front of the cameras and do the
opposite once they attain power; and they love power.
17
See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11095583/Judge-signed-FBI-raid-Mar-Lago-represented-Jeffrey-
Epsteins-workers.html
18
See https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/24/tea-party-patriots-complaint-bruce-reinhart-mar-a-lago-raid/
19
See https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-refuses-to-allow-anti-trump-former-gop-administration-
officials-to-weigh-in-on-special-master-but-appreciates-their-willingness-to-participate/
20
See https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1557006319139397633
21
See https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1262346233328304128
22
See her answers to congresshttps://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/061913-qfrs-ellis
Page 8 of 27
III. BACKGROUND LEGAL DISCUSSION
The entire Judicial Misconduct Complaint is subject to the 7th Circuit Judicial Council
jurisdiction because it is administrative in nature while it covertly comingles with judicial orders
like the executive committee of northern district of Illinois use of U.S. Marshals to stalk and
target Mark at his home over his email about Jesus Christ; facts can‟t change although they have
attempted to change them over and over.
Mark proceeded with two sets of actions: an appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal against
the Executive Committee and a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against members of the
Executive Committee to which is now pending before the 7th Circuit Judicial Council.
The question here is how a court can judge its own? For many members of the 7th Circuit
Judicial Council are also members of the Northern District of Illinois including the chief judge
herself, Rebecca Pallmeyer.23 Both Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Chief Judge Rebecca
Pallmeyer are friends and colleagues; no system judges its own.
As one can see both Judge Sykes and Judge Pallmeyer appears together in many events.24
23 th
See members of the 7 circuit judicial council https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judicial-
council7.htm
24
See https://mobile.twitter.com/ISBAlawyer/status/1521603533027565573
Page 9 of 27
I didn‟t ask for accountability in the first place. I asked to reform the “Restrictive Filer Listing”
managed by the executive committee, for they use it to demean people they see unworthy of their
time and they never backtrack on doing evil and if one challenges their practice, they head to
destroy that person with intent and malice first by removing his or her rights calling it “order”
and later by selectively targeting that person if they see persistence.
My Judicial Misconduct Complaint explains this tail of injustice on multiple fronts and yet the
powerful wrote “they don‟t understand.”
IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION
The filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint that is now pending a petition for review was based
intentional discrimination based on “Sex, Religion, Disability, National Original, and Retaliation
for reporting discrimination” The Complainant asserted violations of due process and equal
protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, 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.
The Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois, through their administrative orders not
judicial in nature, have changed the Courthouse procedure into something similar to a college
dispute wherein, if a student reports discrimination to the school, the school is forbidden from
retaliating against him or her.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated retaliation against civil rights complainants
as a form of intentional discrimination. The Court has held that “retaliation offends the
Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right” and “is thus
akin to an unconstitutional condition demanded for the receipt of a government-provided
benefit.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Chandamuri v. Georgetown Univ., 274 F. Supp. 2d
71, 81 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing Court‟s approach to retaliation in Crawford-El).
The same is true with members of the executive committee wherein, Mark Bochra Complained
of Discrimination based on his national origin, his Coptic identity and his faith in Jesus Christ
and the executive committee came with retaliation turning it into intentional discrimination. See
Dkt 11 dated 2/18/2022 in 1:21-cv-06223.
Page 10 of 27
MARK'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

and COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMIMATION BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
AGAINST A COPTIC [Dkt 11] 1:21-cv-06223
See the Executive Committee retaliatory plan Dkt 12 dated 4/20/2022, however this was more
than just retaliation but it appears that their 1st attempt to target Mark Bochra at Chicago Public
School was put to shame. An investigation is required to question members of the executive
committee why have they retaliated and why they waited from April 7, 2022 till the order
appeared April 26, 2022 on the docket as if they were waiting for something terrible to happen to
Mark Bochra and God never allowed them to harm Mark during the Coptic Orthodox Passion
Week of Easter. What an evil set of Judges they were and they all lie and cover up for each
others for who wants to believe a pro se litigant over 8 federal judges until they became a house
divided because they took pride in their powers that was given to them by the lord, God.25
Intentional discrimination is proven by preponderance of the evidence. A report of

discrimination was met with retaliation turning it into intentional discrimination and everything
that followed after Dkt 11 was intentional discrimination with retaliation; how else can one stops
or put an end to further discrimination if one doesn‟t say “you‟re discriminating against me?”
Title IX: Sex Discrimination
Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex that receives federal financial
assistance. Title IX states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
The Judicial Branch are subject to title ix regulations under 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 and they do receive federal funding as well from congress under Budget
Control Act (BCA) of 2011, P.L. 112-25 and many more bills.26
Moreover, how can the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal rules on title ix cases when it comes to
students rights to due process but refuses the same when it comes to judging judges who violated
Title ix?
In an opinion issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal Doe v. Purdue University,
928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) which ruled that an accused student has plausibly alleged
that Purdue University held an unfair proceeding that violated the student‟s due process
rights. The 7th circuit court also held that the university may have unlawfully
discriminated against the plaintiff, suing anonymously as John Doe, on the basis of his
25
See https://youtu.be/2D7AiufhXms A house divided
26
See https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ25/PLAW-112publ25.pdf
Page 11 of 27
sex.27 The 7th circuit court ruled “for one thing, Plaintiff was not allowed to see the
investigative report. “And withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his
guilt was itself sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair.” The court also
found that the hearing was a “sham” because two of the three panelists openly admitted
they had not read the investigative report, meaning that “they decided that [Plaintiff] was
guilty based on the accusation rather than the evidence,” and because they had deemed
Plaintiff‟s accuser more credible without ever speaking with her or even receiving a
statement she had written herself. This lack of a meaningful credibility assessment was
“all the more troubling because [Plaintiff] identified specific impeachment evidence,”
such as the fact that his accuser may have been angry with him for reporting her suicide
attempt.
The selective targeting started with an e-mail about Jesus Christ to Courtroom Deputy of Judge
Sara Ellis i.e., Ms. Rhonda Johnson, who later denied knowing anything about the executive
committee. Hence who is saying the truth here and who is lying? 1 e-mail was the subject to
selective targeting and the hiring of evil U.S. Marshal to stalk Mark at his home and possibly at
his work. One email that is clear to the naked eyes.
Yet the Executive committee denied Mark‟s motion to vacate, doubled down on him, violated
title ix and his right to due process to question the witness i.e., Ms. Rhonda Johnson before them
but they had the intent and malice to target Mark from the very beginning; their use of U.S.
Marshal to stalk and implement an informant at his home explains their selective targeting; they
can lie, they can twist words, and use their status to demean others but God sees all.
27
See Court ruling http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D06-28/C:17-
3565:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2362429:S:0
Page 12 of 27
When Mark filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Chief Judge Diane Sykes refused to assign a
special committee to investigation by saying in part “I don‟t understand this complaint” Who
gets to investigate the truth when it comes to title ix sex discrimination? How can the 7th circuit
rule on college cases concerning shame investigations and due process violations but refuses to
do the same when it comes to federal judges or key witnesses? And they all refused to mention
his name, the Lord, Jesus Christ.
They used evil U.S. Marshal to stalk Mark Bochra at his home over an email about Jesus Christ
but it was ok for Senator Chuck Schumer to threaten Supreme Court Justices over abortion
ruling?28
Chief Justice John Roberts denounces “threatening” Schumer comments in rare rebuke.29
Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this
sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,
Roberts said in the statement released by the Supreme Court.
Or for protesters who gathered outside Supreme Court justices‟ homes protesting their abortion
ban ruling; both members of congress and the justice department claimed it is within their 1 st
amendment rights.30
Mark spoke about Jesus Christ and his teachings, nothing more and nothing less and the
executive committee of northern district of Illinois came down on him with a ruling hammer
never once did they want to back track the route they took; they never even said “we are sorry
Mark for what we did to you.” They have put Mark in a lot of pain while they sat on their thrones
pretending in front of the cameras that they fair and good judges; remember a judge real heart
appears with the weak and the poor when the cameras are off and no one is looking.
Title VI: National Origin (Coptic)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color
or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI
states that:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The Judicial Branch are subject to title vi regulations under the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980 (“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-
28
See the video: https://youtu.be/v14EazTKyyQ
29
See Chief Justice John Roberts denounces "threatening" Schumer comments in rare rebuke - CBS News
30
See https://youtu.be/cOhIPBywSu4 see Senator Chuck Schumer remarks Schumer 'OK' With Protests At SCOTUS
Justices' Homes If 'They Are Peaceful' - YouTube
Page 13 of 27
Disability Proceedings and they do receive federal funding as well from congress under Budget
Control Act (BCA) of 2011, P.L. 112-25 25 and many more bills.31
Intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (Title IX), gender, gender
entity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion (faith in Jesus Christ), national origin
(Title VI Coptic), age, or disability (reported history of seizure epilepsy and not to be
exposed to anxiety and/or depression); retaliating against complainant, witnesses,
judicial employees, or others for participating in the judicial conduct and disability
complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct or disability.
The Executive Committee is well aware of Mark‟s Coptic identity since his filed motion to
vacate in Dk 2 in case 1:21-cv-06223. However intentional discrimination occurred when Mark
reported discrimination in Dkt 11 just to be retaliated against with an extreme measure in Dkt 12
by the Executive Committee.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated retaliation against civil rights complainants
as a form of intentional discrimination. The Court has held that “retaliation offends the
Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right” and “is thus
akin to an unconstitutional condition demanded for the receipt of a government-provided
benefit.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Chandamuri v. Georgetown Univ., 274 F. Supp. 2d
71, 81 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing Court‟s approach to retaliation in Crawford-El).
The executive committee can deny and deflect and come up with excuses and receive the support
of their colleagues but the truth is there to the naked eyes for all to see.
Religion Discrimination: The Coptic identity and their faith in Jesus Christ
In ECF No. 9 in 1:21-cv-06223 dated 02/11/2022, the Executive Committee warned Mark not to
speak about Jesus Christ by warning him not to submit any further religious or political
materials.
“Mr. Bochra is warned not to submit any additional religious or political materials to the
executive committee”
After the warning and after Mark Bochra reported discrimination in writing reciting the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”), came the judgment and the retaliation order in ECF
No. 12 in 1:21-cv-06223 dated 04/20/2022 with the ultimate restrain and removal of all rights to
the point it interfered with an ongoing litigation Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education
et al (1:21-cv-03887) like removing access to CM/ECF system.
How can the Executive Committee forbid Mark Bochra from speaking about Jesus Christ or his
teachings but there are Supreme Court rulings that protected a coach prayer on school‟s ground
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District; Supreme Court backed coach in praying on field after
31
Page 14 of 27
games.32 Or the Christian flag to show on top of a government‟s building in Shurtleff v. Boston,
20-1800.33
The remaining claims of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint in terms of 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 is well established when the executive committee granted Judge Robert
Gettleman‟s request for recusal from my case and replaced him with Judge Sara Ellis who has
shown clear bias toward Mark Bochra, the bias is shown through her courtroom deputy Ms.
Rhonda Johnson who tried to character lynch Mark with the Executive Committee.
From the very beginning the Lord, God chose a Jewish Judge to handle Mark‟s case but he
refused his assigned duties for he can‟t handle the name Jesus Christ. The same would be true for
a teacher who refused to teach a student because he continues to speak to him about Jesus Christ.
What is the difference between a Teacher and a Judge? A judge can rule against a teacher if he or
she ever discriminates against a student but who would rule against a judge if he or she ever
discriminates against anyone?
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
The Judicial Branch receives federal funding from congress under Budget Control Act (BCA) of
2011, P.L. 112-25 and many more bills.34
No program or activity receiving “Federal financial assistance” shall discriminate against

individuals based on their race, color, or national origin. The clearest example of Federal
financial assistance is the award or grant of money. Federal financial assistance may be
received directly or indirectly. For example, colleges indirectly receive Federal financial
assistance when they accept students who pay, in part, with Federal financial aid directly
distributed to the students. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564 (1984); see also
Bob Jones Univ. v. Johnson, 396 F. Supp. 597, 603 (D.S.C. 1974), aff'd, 529 F.2d 514
(4th Cir. 1975). In Bob Jones Univ., the university was deemed to have received Federal
financial assistance for participating in a program wherein veterans received monies
directly from the Veterans Administration to support approved educational pursuits,
although the veterans were not required to use the specific Federal monies to pay the
schools for tuition and expenses. 396 F. Supp. at 602-03 & n.22. Even if the financial aid
to the veterans did not reach the university, the court considered this financial assistance
to the school since this released the school's funds for other purposes. Id. at 602. Thus, an
entity may be deemed to have “received Federal financial assistance” even if the entity
did not show a “financial gain, in the sense of a net increment in its assets.” Id. at602-03.
Aids such as this, and noncapital grants, are equally Federal financial assistance. Id.
32
See ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf see the news Supreme Court Sides
With Coach Over Prayers at the 50-Yard Line - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
33
See ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf see the news In Boston flag case,
ACLU and Biden administration take the side of a conservative Christian group – Baptist News Global
34
Page 15 of 27
In December 2013, Congress passed a two-year budget deal (P.L. 113-67) that significantly
raised the discretionary spending caps for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years.
Similarly, in 2015, congressional leaders agreed to replace the BCA spending limits with a plan
to raise discretionary caps by $80 billion over two years and suspend the debt limit until March
17, 2017. The cap increase − $50 billion in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017 − was split evenly
between defense and nondefense accounts, a precondition that Democrats demanded from the
start.
True to form, in February 2018, the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,” which was signed into law,
raised the spending limits for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Nondefense discretionary funding was
raised $63 billion in FY 2018 and $68 billion in FY 2019.
The last two years of the spending caps for FY 2020 and FY 2021 were also undone after months
of wrangling on August 2, 2019, when H.R. 3877, the Bipartisan Budget Act, was signed into
law. The two-year budget deal suspended the debt limit through July 31 ,2021 and raised the
spending caps for FY 2020 and FY 2021 by $324 billion over the amount originally set under the
BCA. The spending increases are not divided equally between defense and non-defense
spending.
The Judiciary has benefitted from these adjustments over the past five years and is likely to
benefit again in FY 2020.
 In FY 2014, Congress restored the Judiciary‟s discretionary funding to its pre-

sequestration level of $6.516 billion.
 In FY 2015, the Judiciary received $6.7 billion in discretionary funding, a 2.8% increase
over the prior year.
 In FY 2016, the Judiciary was funded at $6.78 billion in discretionary funding, a 1.2%
increase over FY 2015 funding.
increase over the prior year‟s funding.
increase over the prior year's funding.
 In FY 2020, the Judiciary received $7.487 billion in discretionary funding, a 3.2%
 In FY 2021, the Judiciary received $7.8 billion in discretionary funding, a 4.4% increase
of the prior year‟s funding
Justices Alito and Kagan testified at a hearing on March 7, 2019, before the House
Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee regarding the FY 2020 budget request for the
Supreme Court, which is a separate line item in the Judiciary's budget. They requested $87.7
million in discretionary spending for the Supreme Court, about $6.7 million over the FY 2019
Page 16 of 27
appropriation. Justice Alito's written statement is available here.35 In a break with tradition, no
other testimony was solicited from the Judiciary.
House and Senate Appropriations for the Judiciary.
On June 26, 2019, the House passed its Financial Services appropriations bill, which included
$7.9 billion in discretionary funding for the Judiciary. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Financial Services and General Government approved its FY 2020 spending bill on
September 27, and it included $7.418 billion in discretionary funding for the Judiciary.
Final FY 2020 Spending Bills Enacted.
With spending limits set just before the August 2019 recess, Congress reverted to its usual
pattern of passing a series of short-term continuing resolutions to avoid a government shutdown
on September 30, 2019, which marks the end of the government's 2019 fiscal year. Following
days of intense negotiations, a FY 2020 spending deal comprised of two minibus bills (HR
1158, HR 1865) were signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 20, 2019, just
hours before the final stopgap funding measure expired.
The Judiciary received $7.487 billion in discretionary funding, just slightly higher than the
amount approved by the Senate Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee in September.
This represented a $234 million increase over the FY 2019 enacted level and provided sufficient
funding for the federal courts to conduct its business.
The Judiciary's FY 2021 discretionary budget request of almost $7.8 billion was approximately a
4.4 percent increase over the Judiciary's FY 2020 appropriation of $7.49 billion. The FY 2021
request is accessible here.36
FY 2021 Omnibus Bill Signed into Law.
After a series of continuing resolutions, and once again, within hours of a government shut-
down, on December 27, 2020, the President signed into law an omnibus bill that was tied to a
COVID-19 stimulus package. The Judiciary received $7.72 billion in discretionary funding,
$233.3 million above the FY 2020 enacted level. It includes the following:
With all these federal funding from congress, a Judicial Misconduct Complaint with a ground
magnitude of serious misconduct as this one here, should not be treated with few sentences and
not become subject to a special committee to investigate.
PRAYERS
The alternative resolution is seeking reformation and the removal of the “restricted filer listing”
and to stop the use of U.S. Marshals within public orders by the executive committee to demean
35
See https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP23/20190307/108993/HHRG-116-AP23-Wstate-AlitoS-
20190307.pdf
36
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2021_congressional_budget_summary_0.pdf
Page 17 of 27
people publicly; orders that appear on Google search engine. They knew what they were doing;
they simply never care about anyone but their own self and status.
The 7th Circuit judicial Council has jurisdiction over the executive committee of northern district
of Illinois and can do any of the following (1) send the case back to the chief judge to appoint a
special committee to investigate the judicial misconduct complaint or (2) reform the restricted
filer listing by removing the (public list)37 which gets indexed on Google search engine giving
hope to everyone as a second chance in life and that will also prove that the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeal judges do not treat pro se litigants like trash according to former 7th Circuit Judge
Richard Posner.
I believe the latter, option 2 is the best route to this pending complaint, to hit the reset button by
removing the “restricted filer listing” giving everyone a second chance; they will bring joy to
many and they will see that judges carries a humble a heart before the eyes of multitudes.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
37
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/RestrictedFilers.aspx
Page 18 of 27
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Ronald A. Klain The Honorable Bruce Reed

Chief of Staff for the President Deputy Chief of Staff for the President
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

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

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

White House Press Secretary
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

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

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
Page 19 of 27
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENIOR LEADERSHIP
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland The Honorable Eric W. Treene

Assistant Attorney General Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Division
Washington, DC 20530-0001 Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Matthew Klapper The Honorable Lisa O. Monaco

Chief of Staff for AG Merrick Garland Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Kristen Clarke The Honorable Matt Olsen

Acting Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
Civil Right Division National Security Division
The Honorable Doha G. Mekki The Honorable Kenneth A. Polite, Jr

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Right Division Criminal Division
The Honorable John Carlin The Honorable Kate Heinzelman

Acting Deputy Attorney General Chief Counsel
The Honorable Brian Fletcher The Honorable Michael Granston

Department of Justice Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Kevin Andrew Chambers The Honorable Emily Loeb

Associate Deputy Attorney General Associate Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Matthew Axelrod The Honorable Brian Netter

Associate Attorney General Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Brian H. Fletcher The Honorable Varu Chilakamarri

Acting Solicitor General Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Helaine Greenfeld The Honorable Kevin Jones

Acting Assistant Attorney General Acting Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Anthony Coley The Honorable Richard A. Powers

Office of Public Affairs Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Joseph Gaeta The Honorable Anita M. Singh

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General
The Honorable Matthew Colangelo The Honorable Nicholas McQuaid

Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Page 20 of 27
U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader
322 Hart Senate Office Building S-230, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Chief of Staff – Michael Lynch Chief of Staff – Terry Carmack
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives
204 Capitol Building
Chief of Staff – Robert Edmonson
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Chief of Staff – Pat Souders Chief of Staff – Aaron Cummings
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Chief of Staff – John Dowd Chief of Staff – Richard Perry
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable John Cornyn

Chief of Staff – David Grannis Chief of Staff – Beth Jafari
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable Michael S. Lee

Chief of Staff – Sam Goodstein Chief of Staff – Allyson Bell
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar The Honorable Ted Cruz

Chief of Staff – Lindsey Kerr Chief of Staff – Steve Chartan
The Honorable Christopher A. Coons The Honorable Ben Sasse

Chief of Staff – Jonathan Stahler Chief of Staff – Raymond Sass
The Honorable Senator Richard Blumenthal The Honorable Joshua D. Hawley

Chief of Staff – Joel Kelsey Chief of Staff – Kyle Plotkin
The Honorable Senator Mazie Hirono The Honorable Tom Cotton
Chief of Staff – Alan Yamamoto Chief of Staff – Doug Coutts
The Honorable Cory Booker The Honorable John Kennedy

Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron Chief of Staff – David Stokes
Page 21 of 27
The Honorable Alex Padilla The Honorable Thom Tillis

Chief of Staff – David Montes Chief of Staff – Ted Lehman
The Honorable John Ossoff The Honorable Marsha Blackburn

Chief of Staff – Reynaldo Benitez Chief of Staff – Sean Farrell
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STAFF
Dan Swanson
General Counsel
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Dick Durbin, Chair
daniel_swanson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Judd Smith
Counsel
Senate Judiciary Committee
Judd_Smith@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Zack Rosenblum
Counsel, Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer
Zack_Rosenblum@schumer.senate.gov
Andrew Ferguson
Chief Counsel, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Andrew_Ferguson@mcconnell.senate.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic Counsel:

Danny Smith, daniel_smith@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Rachel Appleton, rachel_appleton@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Alex Aronson, alex_aronson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Sarah Bauer, sarah_bauer@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Tona Boyd, tona_boyd@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Keagan Buchanan, keagan_buchanan@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Lindsay Erickson, lindsay_erickson@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Debu Gandhi, debu_gandhi@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Ches Garrison, ches_garrison@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Alex Haskell, alex_haskell@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Gabe Kader, gabe_kader@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Ajay Kundaria, ajay_kundaria@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Lauren Moxley Beatty, lauren_moxleybeatty@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Amalea Smirniotopoulos, amalea_smirniotopoulos@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Shanna Winters, shanna_winters@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Nick Xenakis, nicholas_xenakis@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Sara Zdeb, sara_zdeb@judiciary-dem.senate.gov
Page 22 of 27
Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Counsel:

Andrew Davis, Andrew_Davis@cruz.senate.gov
Drew Hudson, Drew_Hudson@cotton.senate.gov
John Ehrett, John_Ehrett@hawley.senate.gov
Jessica Vu, Jessica_Vu@blackburn.senate.gov
Franci Rooney, Franci_Rooney@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Brad Watts, Brad_Watts@tillis.senate.gov
Wendy Baig, Wendy_Baig@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
William Payne, William_Payne@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Andrew Harding, Andrew_Harding@kennedy.senate.gov
Lee Holmes, Lee_Holmes@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
U.S. HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney The Honorable James Comer

Chairwoman Ranking Member
House Committee on Oversight and Reform House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Chief of Staff – Emily Crerand Chief of Staff – Caroline Cash
The Honorable Eleanor Norton The Honorable Stephen Lynch

Chief of Staff – Raven Reeder Chief of Staff – Kevin Ryan
The Honorable Jim Cooper The Honorable Gerald Connolly

Chief of Staff – Lisa Quigley Chief of Staff – Jamie Smith
The Honorable Raja Krishnamoorthi The Honorable Jamie Raskin

Chief of Staff – Mark Shauerte Chief of Staff – Julie Tagen
The Honorable Ro Khanna The Honorable Kweisi Mfume

Chief of Staff – Geo Saba Chief of Staff – Eric Bryant
The Honorable Alexandria O-Cortez The Honorable Rashida Tlaib

Chief of Staff – Ariel Eckblad Chief of Staff – Britteny Jenkins
The Honorable Katie Porter The Honorable Cori Bush

Chief of Staff – Jordan Wood Chief of Staff – Abbas Alawieh
The Honorable Danny Davis The Honorable Debbie Schultz

Chief of Staff – Yul Edwards Chief of Staff – Tracie Pough
The Honorable Peter Welch The Honorable Hank Johnson

Chief of Staff – Patrick Satalin Chief of Staff – Scott Goldstein
The Honorable John Sarbanes The Honorable Jackie Speier

Chief of Staff – Dvora Lovinger Chief of Staff – Josh Connolly
Page 23 of 27
The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier The Honorable Jimmy Gomez

Chief of Staff – Betsy Arnold Marr Chief of Staff – Bertha Alisia Guerrero
The Honorable Robin Kelly The Honorable Brenda Lawrence

Chief of Staff – Julius West Chief of Staff – Curtis Doster
The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Paul Gosar

Chief of Staff – Kevin Eichinger Chief of Staff – Tom Van Flein
The Honorable Virginia Foxx The Honorable Jody Hice

Chief of Staff – Carson Middleton Chief of Staff – Tim Reitz
The Honorable Glenn Grothman The Honorable Michael Cloud

Chief of Staff – Chris Grawein Chief of Staff – Adam Magary
The Honorable Bob Gibbs The Honorable Clay Higgins

Chief of Staff – Hillary Gross Chief of Staff – Kathee Facchiano
The Honorable Ralph Norman The Honorable Fred Keller

Chief of Staff – Mark Piland Chief of Staff – Jon Anzur
The Honorable Peter Sessions The Honorable Andy Biggs

Chief of Staff – Warren Bell Chief of Staff – Kate LaBorde
The Honorable Byron Donalds The Honorable Nancy Mace

Chief of Staff – Tyler Haymore Chief of Staff – Mara Mellstrom
The Honorable Yvette Herrell The Honorable Jake LaTurner

Chief of Staff – Michael Horanburg Chief of Staff – Braden Dreiling
The Honorable Pat Fallon The Honorable Andrew Clyde

Chief of Staff – Shannon Sorrell Chief of Staff – Nicolas Brown
The Honorable Ayanna Pressley The Honorable Scott Franklin

Chief of Staff – Sarah Groh Chief of Staff – Melissa Kelly

CC
Senate Democratic leadership
The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Dick Durbin

Senate Majority Leader Senate Majority Whip
Chief of Staff – Michael Lynch Chief of Staff – Pat Souders
Page 24 of 27
The Honorable Patty Murray The Honorable Debbie Stabenow

Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Chair Democratic Policy & Communication
Chief of Staff – Mindi Linquist Chief of Staff – Matt Van Kuiken
The Honorable Mark Warner The Honorable Elizabeth Warren

Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus
Chief of Staff – Elizabeth Falcone Chief of Staff – Jon Donenberg
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar The Honorable Bernie Sanders

Chair Democratic Steering Committee Chair Democratic Outreach
Chief of Staff – Lindsey kerr Chief of Staff – Misty Rebik
The Honorable Cory Booker The Honorable Joe Manchin

Vice Chair Policy and Communication Vice Chair Policy and Communication
Chief of Staff – Veronica Duron Chief of Staff – Lance West
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin The Honorable Gary Peters

Secretary Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Senatorial Campaign Committee
Chief of Staff – Ken Reidy Chief of Staff – Caitlyn Stephenson
The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto

Vice Chair Democratic Outreach
Chief of Staff – Scott Fairchild
Senate Republican leadership
The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable John Thune

Senate Minority Leader Senate Minority Whip
Chief of Staff – Terry Carmack Chief of Staff – Ryan Nelson
The Honorable John Barrasso The Honorable Roy Blunt

Chair Republican Conference Chair Republican Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Dan Kunsman Chief of Staff – Stacy McBride
The Honorable Joni Ernst The Honorable Rick Scott

Vice Chair Republican Conference Chair National Senatorial Committee
Chief of Staff – Lisa Smittcamp Goeas Chief of Staff – Craig Carbone
The Honorable Mike Lee

Chair of the Senate Republican Steering Committee
Chief of Staff – Allyson Bell
House Democratic leadership
The Honorable Steny Hoyer The Honorable James Clyburn

House Majority Leader House Majority Whip
Chief of Staff – Alexis Covey-Brandt Chief of Staff – Yebbie Watkins
Page 25 of 27
The Honorable Katherine Clark The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries

Assistant Speaker of the House Chair of the House Democratic Caucus
Chief of Staff – Brooke Scannell Chief of Staff – Tasia Jackson
The Honorable Pete Aguilar The Honorable Sean Patrick Maloney

Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Chair Congressional Campaign Committee
Chief of Staff – Boris Medzhibobsky Chief of Staff – Matthew McNally
The Honorable Matt Cartwright The Honorable Debbie Dingell

Chief of Staff – Hunter Ridgway Chief of Staff – Dan Black
The Honorable Ted Lieu The Honorable Joe Neguse

Chief of Staff – Marc Cevasco Chief of Staff – Lisa Bianco
The Honorable Collin Allred The Honorable Mondaire Jones

Junior Caucus Leadership Representative Freshman Class Leadership Representative
Chief of Staff – Paige Hutchinson Chief of Staff – Zach Fisch
The Honorable Cheri Bustos The Honorable Barbara Lee

Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Trevor Reuschel Chief of Staff – Julie Nickson
The Honorable Eric Swalwell The Honorable G.K. Butterfield

Co-Chair Steering and Policy Committee Senior Deputy Whips
Chief of Staff – Michael Reed Chief of Staff – Kyle Parker
The Honorable Jan Schakowsky The Honorable Henry Cuellar

Senior Deputy Whips Chief Deputy Whips
Chief of Staff – Syd Terry Chief of Staff – Amy Loveng
The Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee The Honorable Dan Kildee

Chief of Staff – Kenneth Nealy Chief of Staff – Mitchell Rivard
The Honorable Stephanie Murphy The Honorable Jimmy Panetta

Chief of Staff – Brad Howard Chief of Staff – Joel Bailey
The Honorable Terri Sewell The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Chief of Staff – Hillary Beard Chief of Staff – Tracie Pough
The Honorable Peter Welch

Chief Deputy Whips
Page 26 of 27
Chief of Staff – Patrick Satalin

House Republican leadership
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Steve Scalise

House Minority Leader House Minority Whip
Chief of Staff – James Min Chief of Staff – Megan Miller
The Honorable Elise Stefanik The Honorable Mike Johnson

Chair of the House Republican Conference Vice Chair of the Republican Conference
Chief of Staff – Patrick Hester Chief of Staff – Hayden Haynes
The Honorable Richard Hudson The Honorable Gary Palmer

Secretary of the House Republican Conference Chair of the Republican Policy Committee
Chief of Staff – Billy Constangy Chief of Staff – William Smith
The Honorable Tom Emmer

Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee
Chief of Staff – Chris Maneval
Page 27 of 27
EXHIBIT C
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov

September 22, 2022
In Re:
A Supplement to Petition for review of a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against the
Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois: Case No. 07-22-90041 through 90048
Mark Bochra vs. the Executive Committee Appeal Case No. 22-1815 [Seeking Mediation]
of the 7th Circuit,
Enclosed herein please find a copy of my recent filing in the case Mark Bochra vs. the
Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois No. 22-1815 seeking mediation. I cannot
both be the victim and the legal counsel i.e., pro se for myself; for I will always use my heart and
emotion because it is my life and yet I can’t affectively at the same time represent myself
meaning “I can’t be the victim and the lawyer at the same time; it never works because I am in
pain for someone to listen and rescue me but I found no rescue from humans.”
The investigatory body is also the same body that rules on the appeal because members of the 7 th
Circuit Judicial Council are also members of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal. My recent filing
seeks limited legal representation and a mediation in order to resolve this case, meaning I really
want someone to lead this and resolve this case not just for me but for the good of many if they
Page 1 of 2
are willing to remove the restrictive filer listing, giving a second chance to everyone and may be
reform the use and practice of administrative orders.
I am pleading for help because my home is affected, my work is affected, and even my case in
the court Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887) was affected by
this journey and no one heard my pained voice. No one tried to understand why all of this started
and why these constant trials with no rescue and solace; no one understand history either.
The 7th Circuit Court staff keep telling me in part “Mark we will treat you fairly in the 7 th
Circuit” but I always say action not words for people see actions not words.1
I am also currently focusing on my appeal, appealing Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of
Education et al (1:21-cv-03887) which is a case for the good of all students; no one challenged
the IHRA definition but me, a pro se; no one wanted to seek reformation and no one said “wait a
minute, this definition is evil.” The cost I paid for this litigation was 10 folds, the pain doubled
and tripled not removed and no one took me in their arms and told me “do not worry Mark.”
If we cannot heal, then how can we set a good example for all, for no one is righteous. 2 It is the
leadership that sets the example for Jesus Christ himself the king of kings and the lord of lords,
descended from his throne leading the crowd teaching them the parables about life.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra

Enclosure(s)
1
See
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_most_judges_regard_pro_se_litigants_as_kind_of_trash_nor_
worth_the_t
2
See https://youtu.be/w5GXnM_TxSQ
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Case: 22-1815 Document: 21 Filed: 09/20/2022 Pages: 74
STATUTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. 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).
2. The Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois, from day 1 has selectively
targeted Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Bochra because of his Coptic identity and his faith in Jesus
Christ, not only that, but because of his case Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-cv-03887), it involved the Jewish lobby infiltrating the federal government to implement
the IHRA definition attacking also Jesus Christ; please refer to (ECF No. 54 in case 1:21-cv-
03887) because the initial issue started with the courtroom deputy of honorable Judge Sarah
Ellis, Ms. Rhonda Johnson who denies knowing anything over the phone and if Mark Bochra
were to believe her, then this entire ordeal rests on the shoulder of the Executive Committee
from the very beginning.
3. On June 10, 2022 Plaintiff Mark Bochra filed an 88 page Judicial Misconduct Complaint
against members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois and Judge Robert
Gettleman based on intentional discrimination based on “Sex, Religion, Disability, National
Original, and Retaliation for reporting discrimination” The Complainant asserted violations of
due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, 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.
4. The filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint was based on a recent 4 th circuit court of appeal
ruling “Judges can be lawsuit”2 in Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et.al.3 The body that
has jurisdiction to investigate administrative orders is the 7 th Circuit Judicial Council which is
2
See 4th Circuit Revives Ex-Public Defender's Sex Harassment Lawsuit Against Judiciary Officials | National Law
Journal
3
See https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211346.P.pdf
2
also what the judicial Misconduct Complaint explains in details; it waves judicial immunity in a
sense it is all based on administrative order but the body that investigates how can also be the
same body that rules on the appeal?
5. After the Judicial Misconduct Complaint was delivered to the 7th Circuit of Appeal on
June 10, 2022 at 10:26 a.m., two incidents happened (1) Mark Bochra was retaliated against
turning him from Complainant into a Respondent few hours later at Chicago Public School and
the Chicago Teacher Union became involved in the case and a class wide complaint was filed
with the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Chicago Public School
senior leadership to which the same judicial misconduct complaint was part of the complaint;
and (OCR Case # 05-22-1497) (2) Judge Sara Ellis on her own account and without Plaintiff or
Defendants seeking a reschedule for their hearing to rule on the Department of Justice motion to
dismiss in case Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887),
rescheduled the hearing to September 27, 2022; it appears that Judge Sara Ellis was notified not
to rule on Mark’s case until Chief Judge Diane Sykes closes the judicial misconduct complaint
because Mark Bochra reported retaliation but the retaliation already happened on multiple front.
6. Chief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal failed to assign a special
committee to investigate when there are clear disputed facts which contradicted with a recent
ruling by the Judicial Conference Committee C.C.D. No. 22-01 that was recently ruled on July 8,
2022.4 Her reason she stated in parts in plain language “I don’t understand the complaint.”
7. 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 because the chief judge failed to assign one when there are disputed facts. 5
this Committee to review a judicial council order affirming a chief judge’s dismissal of a
4
5
3
8. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:
erroneous).
under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the committee’s report.”). The
view that an appropriate evaluation of the judges’ conduct cannot be accomplished
9. The Commentary to Rule 11 provides a useful illustration of how a similar factual dispute
should be resolved:
4
10. 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.
11. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee concluded in the case C.C.D. No. 22-01
that “because a special committee was not appointed to investigate the complaints, there is not
the Circuit Judicial Council erred in affirming the Chief Circuit Judge’s dismissal of the
necessary.”
12. The filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint that is now pending a petition for review
(please see Exhibits A and B) was based on intentional discrimination based on “Sex, Religion,
Disability, National Original, and Retaliation for reporting discrimination” The Complainant
asserted violations of due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, 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. There is also a recent court findings by the 10th Circuit Judicial Council against Judge
Carmen E. Garza for what amounts to creating a hostile environment for Court’s employee (No.
10-21-90022)6 based on abusive behaviors and while the case is different but the Court’s
employees feared retaliation but the 10th Circuit Judicial Council came to their rescue; however
in this instant case, Mark Bochra was retaliated against at home, in court, and at possibly at his
work and no one seems to have prevented the retaliation.
Even when action on a complaint has been concluded due to intervening events, Judicial
Councils retain the authority to identify and act on potential institutional issues related to
the complaint. Cmt. to RJCD 20. Judicial Councils can assess what conditions may “have
6
See 10-21-90022.J.pdf (uscourts.gov)
5
enabled misconduct or prevented its discovery,” and determine “what precautionary or

curative steps could be undertaken to prevent its recurrence[.]” Id
In this matter, two conditions allowed the apparent misconduct to continue and prevented
its discovery: 1) a lack of awareness about what constitutes abusive conduct and/or a
hostile work environment, and 2) widespread fear of retaliation that deterred reporting.
14. There is currently an ongoing Domestic Violence case against the valet Sergio Hernandez
in the state court for going after Mark Bochra and his mother, including assault and a variety of
other crimes; this was the informant a U.S. Marshal by the name Jerome Silva used to stalk Mark
Bochra at his home, read about his case to management Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of
Education et al (1:21-cv-03887) and caused him imminent fear for his life and Sergio Hernandez
didn’t stop there, he also went after Mark’s mother. Based on the information and belief and the
doorman’s own testimony, Sergio Hernandez has a long history of drug abuse cocaine and
violent behaviors. The Court that was supposed to protect Mark Bochra and his family in a
6
“II came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.”
World Jesus Christ
settled fair housing case of a Jewish Condominium Association targeting a Coptic family is the
same Court that created the Hostile Environment for Mark and his family; see Amin et al v. 5757
North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn. et al (1:12-CV-00446) (Dkt 66).7
15. Given the dangerous nature of the selective targeting and Plaintiff-Appellant
Appellant case Mark
Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887),, Mark has reached out with a
Complaint directly to FBI Director Christopher Wray via ee-mail
mail on September 14, 2022.
16. Currently there is a pending Judicial Misconduct Complaint before the 7th Circuit Judicial
Council and the Judicial Conference Committee in D.C. Please see Exhibit “C”.
17. There is also an ongoing case with the Department of Education Office For Civil Rights
against Chicago Public School senior leadership on both personal and class wide investigation
pursuant to the
he (“OCR”) Case Processing Manual (“CPM”) which sets out OCR’s
OCR processes for
investigating complaints
omplaints pursuant to the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See also 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.
7
See Agreed Order https://www.scribd.com/document/117814007/Fair
https://www.scribd.com/document/117814007/Fair-Housing-Agreed-Order
Order
7
World Jesus Christ
Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

programs,, including the procedural regulations for
Title IX, 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1-106.71;
106.71; Title VI, 34 C.F.R. §§ 100.03, 100.4, 100.7,
100.7 100.8 et esq;
104.11-104.14 and 104.61.8
and Section 504, 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.11
18. Plaintiff-Appellant
Appellant has been targeted on all fronts in the year 2022 because he dared to
speak about Jesus Christ and told the Execut
Executive
ive Committee they have discriminated against him;
the case is as simple as this; going back to the origin; what triggered this entire ordeal ? A Jewish
Judge Hon Robert Gettleman recused himself from handling Plaintiff
Plaintiff-Appellant’s
Appellant’s case Mark
Bochra vs. U.S.. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887);; the executive committee
granted his request and appointed Judge Sara Ellis and when Mark spoke about Jesus Christ and
decided to write a letter; the targeting started right away by the executive committee.
REQUEST FOR LIMITED LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND MEDIATION
19. Plaintiff-Appellant
Appellant Mark Bochra is not legally equipped to handle a heavy appeal and is
currently suffering constant mental anguish the likes have never seen before but he has hope in
Jesus Christ for this is the Coptic faith; he saw the same in law school by evil Jewish Student
under the name Michael Roy Guttentag and Benjamin Priester Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department
of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887)
03887) (see Dkt 54) and Dkt (86);; he never wished to experience the
same trial 10 folds.
8
See 34 CFR Chapter I - OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | CFR | US Law | LII / Legal
Information Institute (cornell.edu)
8
20. There is no constitutional or statutory right to court-recruited counsel in federal civil

litigation, James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320, 326 (7th Cir. 2018); Santiago v.Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760
(7th Cir. 2010), although an indigent litigant may ask the court to request an attorney to represent
her. Thomas v. Wardell, 951 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 2020). All a court can do is seek a volunteer.
Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866-67 (7th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Most
indigent parties in civil litigation must fend for themselves. See generally Bracey v. Grondin,
712 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for recruitment of counsel to handle a civil
case in the district court discussed).
21. Unlike this court — which generally has an easier time recruiting counsel because of an
appeal’s limited scope and ability to draw on attorneys from throughout the nation in addition to
the entire circuit — district courts are inevitably in the business of rationing a limited supply of
free lawyer time due to the realities of recruiting from within the district for cases much broader
in scope, which may include discovery, motion practice and trial. McCaa v. Hamilton, 959 F.3d
842, 845 (7th Cir. 2020). This court, therefore, often does not second guess a district court’s
discretionary decision to deny recruitment of counsel to an indigent litigant, and particularly
recognizes the difficulty of accurately evaluating the need for counsel in the early stages of pro
se litigation. Mapes v. State of Indiana, 932 F.3d 968, 971 (7th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
22. Still, in a number of recent opinions, the court determined that the district court should
have tried harder to recruit counsel. See Thomas v. Wardell, 951 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2020)
(district court’s discretionary call fell short of weighing the factors described in Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc), and presence of counsel could have made a difference in
the outcome of the litigation); see also Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2018); McCaa v.
Hamilton, 893 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2018); James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2018); Robinson v.
Scrogum, 876 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2017); Davis v. Moroney, 857 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.2017). Of
course, trying but failing to recruit counsel is another matter. A court that decides to recruit
counsel need not continue the search indefinitely. See McCaa v. Hamilton, 893 F.3d at 1036
(Hamilton, J., concurring) (the supply of time and talent from generous lawyers is not infinite).
23. On its own initiative, the court schedules confidential mediations in most types of fully-
counseled civil appeals. Counsel in such appeals also may request that a mediation be scheduled.
Fed. R. App. P. 33; Cir. R. 33; see also this Handbook, “B. Mediations” at Chapter XIX, infra at
141-42.
9
WHY IS MARK’S CASE A MAJOR CONTROVERSY?

24. When Mark Bochra reported Kenneth Marcus infiltrating the Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights and implemented the IHRA definition without congress intent or even
notifying senior DOE leadership at that time; Mark reached out to senior DOJ officials Mr.
Jessee Panuccio and Beth Williams on September 24, 2018 via e-mail.
25. The next day, September 25, 2018 deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein amended the
Justice Department Manual by stating the following:
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.9
The used language turns Mark Bochra’s report into a domestic source beyond the scope of the
policy for investigation; however it was done after the facts. The fact here is a Jewish deputy
attorney general did indeed cover for Kenneth Marcus using his authority and powers; to which
later when Attorney General William Barr was appointed the new Attorney General, Mark
reached out to him directly via e-mail and later via his Assistant Attorney General for Civil Right
Division Mr. Eric Dreiband.
26. The later outcome was the resignation of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein upon
the information and belief.10
27. However, Rod Rosenstein has a history of targeting other citizens and now he is a
defendant in a lawsuit Attkisson v. Bridges (1:20-cv-00068).
One of those Attkisson is now accusing of directing the surveillance was little known at
the time but was regular headline fodder in the past couple of years: Rod Rosenstein. He
was the U.S. Attorney in Baltimore for 12 years and went on to serve as deputy attorney
general under President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019. The suit claims that
Attkisson, as well as her husband and daughter, were targeted by an interagency task
force which was based in Baltimore and overseen by Rosenstein. A newly-filed suit
asserts Rosenstein “ordered” four government employees “to conduct home computer
surveillance on the Attkissons and other U.S. citizens.” Rosenstein, who resigned from
government service last year and just started as a law partner at the Atlanta-based firm
King & Spalding, did not immediately reply to a message seeking comment. A Justice
Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Also named as defendants in the suit are
members of the mutli-agency group that investigated an online dark-web marketplace
9
See press release Department of Justice Announces the Rollout of an Updated United States Attorneys’ Manual |
OPA | Department of Justice
10
See Twitter took note of Rod Rosenstein's expressionless stare (desmoinesregister.com)
10
known as the Silk Road. Among them is a Secret Service agent who specialized in
computer forensics, Shaun Bridges. He’s currently serving eight years in prison for
stealing Bitcoins during his government work. 11
27. Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Bochra is simply against titans and he never asked for any of
this; God placed him in these trials for the blessing that came out of it later was the Abraham
Accord. However, Mark could not find any rescue among the powerful, let alone from Jews who
targeted him left and right and destiny cannot deny; Mark didn’t choose Michael Roy Guttentag
to be his neighbor in law school; Mark didn’t choose his path to cross path with Kenneth
Marcus; Mark didn’t choose Judge Robert Gettleman to initially preside over his case; Mark
didn’t choose a Jewish condo association (entirely) and to also be his new neighbor.
28. Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Bochra never asked for any of this; he never asked for these
trials; never asked to be targeted at home, in court, and at work; Mark’s way of life turned upside
down in the year 2022 and yet Mark never lost faith in Jesus Christ in the midst of all these trials;
because of these trials and before them came the Abraham Accord; because of these trials Mark
was able to reach out to both the legislative and executive branches and because of these trials
many changes came to America; student loan forgiveness is one of the direct work with
Secretary Miguel Cardona; protecting teachers under title ix is one of the direct work with
Secretary Catherine Lhamon. Hence through trials came blessings.
11
See Court docketing Attkisson v. Bridges, 1:20-cv-00068 – CourtListener.com
11
World Jesus Christ
The email that was sent to senior DOJ official regarding Kenneth Marcus
29. Mr. Jesse Panuccio was the former third-ranking
ranking official at the U.S. Department of
Justice and in charge of religious liberty task force to which Mark reached out to him directly via e-mail.
e
In fact, the religious freedom memo was even used by the justic
justicee department when targeting
Iran’s malicious attacks against Christian and Christian converts. 12 This was the direct work of
12
See memo
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101033507/https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1253351/download and
12
World Jesus Christ
the Plaintiff with the Executive branch through many of his letters and direct e-mails
e that in
order to defeat “evil” and change the world, not just for the middle-east,
east, one must promote
religious freedom which was also adopted by the Trump’s administration through an executive
order “President Freedom 13
President Trump’s Executive Order on Advancing International Religious Freedom.”
The follow up email

il with DOJ senior officials on September 24, 2018
see the news Iran is angry at Muslims who converted to Christianity in mass https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran
intelligence-ministry-summons-iranian
iranian-who-showed-interest-in-christianity-/29921102.html
13
See https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-advancing-international
international-
religious-freedom/
13
PRAYERS
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, the Plaintiff-Appellant prays that this honorable court
protects Mark the Coptic and grant limited legal representation for the purpose of mediation to
seek resolving this case; the resolution is really reforming the restrictive file listing because the
7th Circuit judicial Council will not assign a special committee to investigate 8 federal judges of
the executive committee; the alternative is seeking a resolution that brings a blessing to all those
affected by continuous use and abuse of administrative orders; both the 7 th Circuit Court of
Appeal and the 7th Circuit Judicial Council have Jurisdiction over the Executive Committee; may
be this trial came so the 7th Circuit can reform the use and practice of administrative orders
because we do not live anymore in 1990s but 2022 wherein, the speed of information travels in a
split second on Google search, it can affect one’s character and careers and if judges care about
their names not being enclosed on the envelope of the judicial misconduct complaints then they
should also care about the individuals they place on the “restrictive filer list” because many of
these cases were actually unjustified and showed disparate impact discrimination; this journey
alone showed the selective targeting when Mark the Coptic tried to speak about Jesus Christ.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Plaintiff, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that I have mailed the foregoing via regular certified mail on
September 19, 2022. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Chicago, IL 60660
14
EXHIBIT D
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660

chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov

October 5, 2022
In Re:
A Final Supplement to Petition for review of a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against the
Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois: Case No. 07-22-90041 through 90048
Mark Bochra vs. the Executive Committee Appeal Case No. 22-1815 [Seeking Mediation]
of the 7th Circuit,
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.
These words reflected by what was said by Mr. Jim Richmond the manager of the 7 th Circuit
Court of Appeal. I won‟t deny that he was a nice person to me in the very beginning and we
often spoke on the phone for close to an hour and he had wide ears but he also told me “Judges
won‟t change Mark, he has seen far too many judicial misconduct complaints.” But lately he
became more and more frustrated and his tone over the phone became more hostile or rather
more protective of the executive committee yet he works for the 7th Circuit.
Page 1 of 9
In one phone call when I filed my petition for review with the Judicial Council these were some
of the direct statements he made based on my recollection.
1. 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).1 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.”
2. We also spoke about President Biden student loan forgiveness which was my work with
the Biden‟s administrative, he was raging saying in part “they need to go get a God dam
job, that is what they need to do, I work very hard, why can‟t I have the same student
loan forgiveness?” Although this is his 1st amended speech right but Mr. Richmond
doesn‟t make less than 75k a year, others are not privilege like him to work for the 7th
Circuit.
I do understand that Mr. Jim Richmond enjoys a lot of power within the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeal among all the staff, one case showed that he was the reason he got a lawyer on the 7th
Circuit Restricted List when I did a quick Google search of his name.2
1
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf
2
See http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-
1436/99511/20190513174213943_PETITIONS%20Jones.pdf
Page 2 of 9
Some of the past conversations I had with Mr. Richmond were as follow:
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.
o If you feel uncomfortable speaking to me, don‟t call me. We can send the U.S. Marshal a
second time to your house, no just kidding, I won‟t do that.
Me and Mr. Richmond spoke for many days and for many hours until the last phone call on
September 23, 2022 where he called me from his private cell phone and it lasted for nearly 55
min. It was relative to my 2nd supplement that was mailed and delivered September 23, 2022
UPS 1Z15AR550311901416. Mr. Richmond was raging over the phone and in part said many
things. jim_richmond@ca7.uscourts.gov and his phone number is 312-435-5383 and his cell
630-215-9837
The last phone call he said many statements that made me fear retaliation in addition to what he
said vaguely in the past but the last phone call he went all out:
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?
o I told him in part, the 11th Circuit allows for supplement and his reply was “we are not the
4th circuit, 11th circuit, we are the 7th circuit” I replied “it needs some reform” and he
replied “Oh hell no, we don‟t need any reforms” I answered the 11th Circuit wrote a
memorandum of findings, I don‟t have a memorandum of finding “God dammit it, you
want every judge to write a finding when they rule?” I answered no, they all come
together and write one. He said “no they vote on the petition for review and that is it, it is
either granted or denied or leave a comment, the system works that way, we are not
changing our system.”
o Mr. Richmond replied angrily “Judge Sykes is 10 times smarter than you” I replied
“where is this coming from? I never said anything” he replied you keep saying she
doesn‟t understand, she doesn‟t understand.
Page 3 of 9
I became scared of the last conversation I had with Mr. Richmond that I kept thinking about
many of the words he said. Many times, he would be typing while I am speaking and I would
hear him typing and I tell him “did you write everything I said?” he replied “yes Mark I am
transcribing everything you tell me” joking sarcastically. Many times he sounded serious, other
times, he sounded angry, and other times he was calm. What do I do with all of this?
I was placed in severe mental anguish because my Home was affected, my Work was affected,
and my case in the Federal Court was affected, let alone my education free from discrimination
and retaliation. I also filed a motion for extension of time to file my appeal and part of the
mention were how all 3 sides were affected Home, Court, and Work and Judge Sara Ellis granted
the relief by stating “Good Cause Shown” and the Justice Department didn‟t object.
Attached herein as Exhibit “A”, please find a copy of my filing which is also related to the
Executive Committee.
They keep saying it is a “rule” not to disclose Judges‟ names which the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeal when they send me a receipt acknowledging my filed judicial misconduct complaint or
the petition for review they never mention the judges name i.e., the executive committee judges
Page 4 of 9
but here in the 11th Circuit, Democrats filed a judicial misconduct Complaint against the judge
handling former President Trump‟s case.3 Hence which is a rule and which is a media PR?
Then you see here, filing by the Onion to the Supreme Court No. 22-293.4 They said in part
“Onion‟s moto is central to this brief for two important reasons, First, it‟s latin. And the Onion
knows that the Federal Judiciary is staffed entirely by total latin dorks: They quote Catullus in
the original latin in chambers. They sweetly whisper “star decisis” into their spouses‟ ears. They
mutter “cui bono” undeter their breath while picking up after their neighbors‟ dogs. So the Onion
knew that, unless it pointed to a suitably latin rallying cry, its brief would be operating far
outside the Court‟s vernacular.5
And then you have here Federal Judges who are cancling Yale Law Students for practicing
cancle culture.
o Trump-appointed judge boycotts Yale for law clerks over 'cancel culture.6
3
See https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1575907256826499072
4
See https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1577005406593122305
5
See filed Amicus Curiae brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-
293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-
%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
6
See Trump-appointed judge boycotts Yale for law clerks over 'cancel culture' | Reuters
Page 5 of 9
o US Judge Won‟t Hire Yale Law Clerks Citing „Cancel Culture‟ (1)7
o Why this conservative federal appeals judge will no longer hire clerks from Yale Law
School.8
And many other Federal Judges jumped in to support Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals at New Orleans.
o Citing Concern for Free Speech, 12 Federal Judges Say They Won‟t Take Clerks from
Yale Law School.9
How is all of this related to my Judicial Misconduct Complaint? Well in short answer, the world
is changing and nothing stays the same; now you see an uprising in Iran because of their strict
sharia laws which has nothing to do with God; God doesn‟t change, it is people, my 1st and 3rd
letters to both the Executive and Legislative Branches explained this journey but the Executive
Committee wanted to downgrade me, demean who I am, make me someone that can‟t be heard
or listened to.
I dislike people who abuse their power; however, it was the Lord, Jesus Christ who made Judge
Diane Sykes to write in her findings “I don‟t understand this Complaint” how it happened? I
prayed and before I mailed my Judicial Misconduct Complaint, I attached the picture of Jesus
Christ resurrection and told him lead this trial. It was meant as a gift for Mr. Jim Richmond
because he was kind to me in the beginning but someone else took it, he never received it.
7
See US Judge Won’t Hire Yale Law Clerks Citing ‘Cancel Culture’ (1) (bloomberglaw.com)
8
See Why this conservative federal appeals judge will no longer hire clerks from Yale Law School (abajournal.com)
9
See https://freebeacon.com/campus/citing-concern-for-free-speech-12-federal-judges-say-they-wont-take-
clerks-from-yale-law-school/
Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9
I fear this entire court retaliating against me but they could claim “they have nothing to do with
it” when everything started because of the name “Jesus Christ” yet more courts are coming out
ruling in favor of Jesus Christ.
o Chaplain's prayer before court isn't coercive, doesn't violate establishment clause, 5th
Circuit rules. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans ruled Sept. 29 that
the prayers instituted by Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack were constitutional because
they weren‟t coercive.10
It troubles me that many people leave their nations to find rescue in the United States knowing it
is a Christian nation, yet many have tried to turn it into an Atheist nation while bulling the weak
and the poor.
By Judge Diane Wood own response to former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner who said “they
treat pro se litigants like trash” she responded with the following:
10
See Chaplain's prayer before court isn't coercive, doesn't violate establishment clause, 5th Circuit rules
(abajournal.com)
Page 8 of 9
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.11
Judge Diane Wood own statement is that it is the court staff who take care of the pro se litigants
cases and not the judges themselves, justifying what Judge Posner said all along. That is her
response to ABA Journal.
Mr. Jim Richmond said “Mark Judges won‟t change” but the entire World is changing before
these Judges‟ eyes; from Iran to Russia, to North Korea. Humanity changes across the century;
God doesn‟t change but humans do. I seek protection from the 7th Circuit Judicial Council
against any future retaliation whether covert, directly or indirectly by the Executive Committee
or anyone working in conjunction with them, the alternative is mediation and a resolution calling
for a reform and peace.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra

Enclosure(s)
11
See 7th Circuit's chief judge disagrees with newly retired Posner on pro se criticisms (abajournal.com)
Page 9 of 9

Petition For Review With Judicial Conference Committee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 With Judicial Conference Committee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Jeffrey R. Ragsdale

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney The Honorable Chuck Grassley

October 20, 2022

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A 7TH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL DENYING TO

Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability,

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:

There was also a complaint filed with Office of Professional Responsibility.3

/s/ Mark Bochra

October 18, 2022

Nos. 07 22 90041 through 90048

IN RE COMPLAINTS AGAINST EIGHT JUDGES

August 16, 2022

Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes

Nos. 07‐22‐90041 through ‐90048

IN RE COMPLAINTS AGAINST EIGHT JUDGES

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Prophesies Concerning Egypt

VIA ELECTRONIC AND CERTIFIED MAIL

Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney The Honorable Chuck Grassley

August 21, 2022

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

FINDINGS BY CHIEF JUDGE DIANE SYKES

SHORT SUMMARY OF THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee argued the following:

/s/ Mark Bochra

Via Electronic Mails

THE WHITE HOUSE

The Honorable Ronald A. Klain 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

DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENIOR LEADERSHIP

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland The Honorable Eric W. Treene

The Honorable Matthew Klapper The Honorable Lisa O. Monaco

The Honorable Kristen Clarke The Honorable Matt Olsen

The Honorable Doha G. Mekki The Honorable Kenneth A. Polite, Jr

The Honorable John Carlin The Honorable Kate Heinzelman

The Honorable Brian Fletcher The Honorable Michael Granston

The Honorable Kevin Andrew Chambers The Honorable Emily Loeb

The Honorable Matthew Axelrod The Honorable Brian Netter

The Honorable Brian H. Fletcher The Honorable Varu Chilakamarri

The Honorable Helaine Greenfeld The Honorable Kevin Jones

The Honorable Anthony Coley The Honorable Richard A. Powers

The Honorable Joseph Gaeta The Honorable Anita M. Singh

The Honorable Matthew Colangelo The Honorable Nicholas McQuaid

U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER

The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Mitch McConnell

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Lindsey Graham