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

‖ Jesus Christ

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. Nos. 22-2903 and 23-1388

Mark Bochra, individually and on

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03887

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Hon. Judge: Sara L. Ellis

et al., Hon. Mag Judge: Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Date Filed: January 2, 2024

Defendants-Appellees

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MARK’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER

DOCUMENT 9 FOR APPOINTING OUTSIDE CIRCUIT JUDGES TO HEAR AND
RULE ON THIS CASE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294 AND/OR MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION ON MERIT VS NON-MERIT RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS
UNDER THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980. SEE NEWMAN
V. MOORE (1:23-CV-01334) AND CARYN STRICKLAND VS US NO. 21- 1346 (4TH
CIR. 2022) FOR INJUNCTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEFS.

Plaintiff-Appellant, Mark Bochra, Pro-Se, hereby respectfully files this motion seeking
two reliefs (1) to reconsider order document 9 entered by Hon. Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes
requesting a reconsideration of order document 9 denying appointment of outside circuit judges
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294; and (2) in alternative seeking a clarification on how would the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals differentiate between merit vs. non-merit related allegations under the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (―Act‖), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, see also appeal No.
20-1815 Documents Nos. 39 & 56-57, En Banc 58-591 and in support states the following.

1
Appeal 20-1815 was dismissed based on “oversize brief” but this was procedural and could be subject to many
modifications and corrections, i.e., mediation and appointment of counsel. Hon. Judge Frank Easterbrook denied
further reliefs in ECF 61 saying “the court will take no action on the motion to the extent it seeks other relief, in
light of the June 5, 2023, order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc” The appeal was not dismissed
as “frivolous” because it came with many merits and ongoing investigation like OCR but was dismissed as oversize
brief which is procedural. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago 16-658, Supreme Court
reversed ruling in a 9-0 vote based on procedural rather than jurisdiction.

1
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

INTRODUCTION
If the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wishes for Ms Sarah Terman to file a response to this motion,
they may ask her about what is the Government‘s position but she was the one in her response
brief, first she tried to eliminate the entire appeal 23-1388 by rewriting the jurisdictional
statement which is the evidence and later claiming in part ―don‘t see, don‘t look‖ while toward
the end of her response brief she wrote a one paragraph saying ―it is perceived discrimination‖
and she could only defend the official capacity not the individual capacity. See Caryn Strickland
v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022), the case headed to trial against 4th Circuit Judges in both
individual and official capacities.

As of today, I am writing this motion and not knowing what does my heart seeks, rather I
want God‘s will in resolving this journey. What I don‘t want to see is being retaliated against, as
I have been retaliated against many times in my life and the law which says ―no retaliation once
someone reports discrimination was never taken into consideration when the powerful holds the
power‖ they often wanted to look good while doing evil. That is why recently I reached out to
the deputy Circuit Executive Mr. Alex Castaneda 312-435-5518 or
Alex_Castaneda@ca7.uscourts.gov and we spoke on the phone 12/28/2023 and he asked after
listening to my concerns, what do I seek and I told him I seek for the 7th Circuit Judicial Council

2
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

to review administrative orders because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came up with that
precedent;
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).

However, in appeal 20-1815 Document 39, the 7th Circuit said there are no judges for 7th Circuit
Judicial Council but there were under the judicial misconduct proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for guidance is GRANTED only to the extent that the
court informs the appellant that there is no standalone Judicial Council independent of the
judges that comprise it, and that information about judicial conduct and disciplinary
proceedings is available on the court‘s public website.

Mr. Alex said ―what else‖ I replied not to be retaliated against. He responded ―all judges are
professional; there will be no retaliation, so you don‘t have to worry about the second one.‖

3
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

In Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022), the entire 4th Circuit Judges recused
from her appeal case, she received a fair hearing on her appeal, the case was reversed on appeal
and headed to trial. In her appeal, it mentions that ―all members of the 4th Circuit recused from
this case‖

Now the question that is often asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to
their rulings but rather whether well-informed observer might question the Judges‘ impartiality
and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. See whether a reasonable, well-informed observer
could question the Judge's impartiality. See, e.g., Hatcher, 150 F.3d at 637.
Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code provides: ―Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of
the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Supreme Court has
explained that ― ‗[t]he goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of
partiality.‘ ‖ Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct.
2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (quoting Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 179
(5th Cir.1983)). Accordingly, we have required recusal ―whenever there is ‗a
reasonable basis' for a finding of an ‗appearance of partiality under the facts and
circumstances' of the case.‖ Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985)
(quoting SCA Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 116 (7th Cir.1977)). Recusal is
required when a ―reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve
the case on a basis other than the merits.‖ In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385 (7th
Cir.1990); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d at 1229.

In this appeal impartiality became an imminent question, first we have a judicial misconduct
proceedings wherein, Mark was not only threatened by the words of Jim Richmond with the
intention of fixing Mark‘s appeal but also most of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges who
presided over Mark‘s judicial misconduct complaint as members of the 7th Circuit Judicial
Council, they all came and said they ―don‘t understand‖ what 7 members of the Executive
Committee came and said ―they understand.‖ Mark has placed both orders next to each others
and asked who understand and who doesn‘t and in this proceeding the Jurists were not Jurists
anymore but investigators and the role changed from a judge to an investigator who became a
witness to a complaint procedure.

4
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037.

Judge Kozinski suggests that the Council's goal is to avoid ―hurting the feelings of the
judge‖ who is the subject of the complaint. Dissent at 13831. Not so. Our goal in these

5
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

proceedings is to maintain the integrity of the judiciary, not to cater to hurt feelings.
Compared to many of the decisions we are called upon to make, decisions on misconduct
complaints do not make any special claim on a judge's intellectual integrity or personal
courage. Any judge who feels that his or her impartiality might be affected because of a
personal relationship to the judge about whom a complaint is made must recuse.
Otherwise, it is our duty to consider the complaints objectively, without bias for or
against the judge or the complainant. This is not an onerous duty, and we gladly accept
it.2

And then after the judicial misconduct proceeding concluded, Mark filed a petition for review
with the Judicial Conference Committee in D.C. given their recent precedent which dictated that
a Chief Circuit Judge can‘t dismiss a complaint when disputed facts are present but must appoint
a special committee to investigate disputed facts. 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.3
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
2
See https://casetext.com/case/in-re-complaint-of-judicial-misconduct?resultsNav=false
3
See entire order c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov)

6
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

that is reasonably in dispute.‖); 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B) (dismissal is appropriate ―when

a limited inquiry . . . demonstrates that the allegations in the complaint lack any factual
foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence.‖); Rule 11(b) (―In
conducting [a limited] inquiry, the chief judge must not determine any reasonably
disputed issue. Any such determination must be left to a special committee appointed
under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the committee‘s report.‖). The
Commentary to Rule 11 notes that ―if potential witnesses who are reasonably accessible
have not been questioned, then the matter remains reasonably in dispute.‖ Id.

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.
I. JUDICIAL MISOCNDUCT PROCEEDINGS COMMINGLED WITH APPEALS
PROCEEDINGS
Mark didn‘t create this precedent but the 7th Circuit did, showing that the only way to reach the
7th Circuit Judicial Council for administrative orders was through the judicial misconduct
proceedings because when he asked how to reach them in appeal 1815 Document 39, the 7 th

7
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Circuit Court of Appeals said there are no judges for 7th Circuit Judicial Council but there were
under the judicial misconduct proceedings.
The Executive Committee can issue two types of orders: judicial and administrative. See
In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 904 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484
(7th Cir. 1995). The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from the Executive
Committee‗s judicial actions; administrative actions, on the other hand, are reviewed by
this Circuit‗s Judicial Council. See Chapman, 328 F.3d at 904. See In re Long, 475 F.3d
880, 880–81 (7th Cir. 2007).

When Mark filed his first ever brief pro se, it was 124 pages but the judges who were all
involved in Mark‘s judicial misconduct proceedings came and ruled by dismissing the appeal as
―oversize brief‖ and came on an en banc petition and all judges affirmed the same, never
dismissing the appeal as frivolous became it came with merits and ongoing OCR investigation
but rather as ―oversize brief‖ which was procedural not jurisdictional.
So Mark tried the judicial misconduct proceedings and saw no relief or protection from
discrimination with retaliation. Then the Lord, God allowed for the words of Jim Richmond to be
put to the test by bringing the executive committee appeal first and Mark‘s appeal was dismissed
by the same Circuit Judges who were initially investigators in Mark‘s judicial misconduct
proceedings. Then the merits of these proceedings return in consolidated appeal 23-1388 and
now the question before us is ―how do we heal‖ rather than ―how do we commit to justice.‖
II. HEALING IS THE ROUTE
Certainly recusal could be one route because a well-informed observer might question the
Judges‘ impartiality and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. One could say ―Mark first used
a judicial misconduct proceeding and his complaint was dismissed without appointing a special
committee to investigate disputed facts‖ then once his appeal was ongoing, the same judges who
were involved in his judicial misconduct proceeding, came in appeal and dismissed it as well and
the reason was ―oversize brief‖ a procedural issue which could be subject to a cure and remedy
rather than a jurisdictional time bar; see Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago
16-658 the Supreme Court reversed 7th Circuit, ruling in a 9-0 vote based on procedural rather
than jurisdiction time bar of an appeal that was dismissed by the 7th Circuit. The Supreme Court
held that the Court of Appeals erred in treating as jurisdictional Rule 4(a)(5)(C)‘s limitation on
extensions of time to file a notice of appeal. Pp. 5–10.

8
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Mark didn‘t file a second judicial misconduct complaint and petitioned for appointment
of outside circuit under rule 26 to investigate disputed facts which the procedural was explained
to Mark when he reached out to the 5th Circuit back in December of 2022.
I was initially between filing this judicial misconduct complaint with the 11th Circuit
which investigated the (2nd Circuit)4 or the 10th Circuit which investigated ex magistrate
judge Carmen Garza and her demeanor to retaliate against Court Staff (others fear of
being retaliated against)5 or the 5th Circuit; and after calling all 3 of the Circuit Court of
Appeals and praying, I decided the best Circuit for handling this Judicial Misconduct
Complaint is the 5th Circuit; however they e-mailed me back on December 5, 2022 stating
in part that Chief United States Circuit Judges Priscilla Richmand can only take
complaints against judges of the Firth Judicial Circuit (i.e., Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas). A further follow up phone call that same day, the 5th Circuit staff explained to me
that only if the complaint is transferred pursuant to rule 26 of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 (―Act‖) and the process was explained which is up to the Chief of
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals or Chief of the Supreme Court Honorable John Roberts.

The 5th Circuit e-mailed a letter to Mark and later was very kind explaining and seeking answers
to how to use rule 26. The second drafted complaint was related to the words of Jim Richmond
and the Executive Committee. Rather, then seeing this entire journey more complicated, Mark
said to himself, lets return to the Executive Committee and try to change hearts. Several motions
were filed with the Executive Committee in 1:21-CV-06223 ECF Nos. 45, 46-47, 48-49, and
finally 51. And later two more filing were filed ECF 52-53. The cure to discrimination with
retaliation was left uncured but a remedy can be found in this appeal.
However, Mark didn‘t file a second judicial misconduct complaint; nor appealed
Executive Committee Order 51 which they also quietly dropped order 9 which showed proof of
discrimination with retaliation but the issue resurfaced recently when a clerk under the name
Greg would docket Mark‘s filings under the acronym ―GCY‖ started to tell his supervisors that
the Executive Committee doesn‘t want to hear religious materials, so he started to redact Mark‘s
docket text which included the name Jesus Christ6 (Greg was the only clerk who has done this
and also back in February 15, 2023 out of the blue Greg yelled at Mark to which was reported to
supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker via e-mail); nor did Mark file a lawsuit in both official and
individual capacities against members of the executive committee seeking injunctive and

4
See https://www.uscourts.gov/file/44741/download
5
See https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/ex-magistrate-judges-16-year-career-marked-by-manipulation-
unpredictable-and-hypercritical-outbursts-judicial-council/
6
Mark reported this matter to both Supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker and Mr. Travis Grammer via e-mail and phone.
Mr. Grammer explained to Mark last week that the order has to be stricken in order for it not to be enforced.

9
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

prospective reliefs. Mark simply wanted to healing, Satan would say ―options are many‖ but
Satan attempts is for humans to continue fighting because his name means ―the one who
opposes‖ peace.

If one reads Mark‘s Executive Committee Brief, he cited the following official and
individual capacities and just like in Caryn Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022) who

10
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

used the ADR Plan as the basis for her lawsuit for equitable reliefs, Mark used the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (―Act‖), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 for equitable reliefs.
[In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), the Supreme Court held that while judicial
immunity prevents § 1983 lawsuits against judges for monetary damages it does not
protect judges from lawsuits for injunctive relief nor from the award of attorney‘s fees
under § 1988 for bringing a successful § 1983 action.

Few weeks ago, one nice supervisor Mr. Travis Grammar at the district level asked Mark ―what
do you seek, what are you looking for?‖ Mark responded ―he wants to be removed from the list
because it damages his character for employment and any future career if anyone Google
searches his name but also the list needs reform because it showed pattern and practice of
targeting litigants, especially pro se litigants.‖ The solution was easy but it was very difficult
with those in power to fulfill. The answer is kindness and love heals many hearts in pain.

11
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

III. MERIT VS NON-MERIT RELATED ALLEGATIONS

How can a Court decides the difference between merit-related vs. non-merit related to a
ruling in a colloquial sense under Rule 11(c)(1)(D) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of
1980 (―Act‖), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability
Proceedings.7
Conversely, an allegation that a judge conspired with a prosecutor to make a particular
ruling is not merits-related, even though it ―relates‖ to a ruling in a colloquial sense. Such
an allegation attacks the propriety of conspiring with the prosecutor and goes beyond a
challenge to the correctness — ―the merits‖ — of the ruling itself. An allegation that a
judge ruled against the complainant because the complainant is a member of a particular
racial or ethnic group, or because the judge dislikes the complainant personally, is also
not merits-related. Such an allegation attacks the propriety of arriving at rulings with an
illicit or improper motive. Similarly, an allegation that a judge used an inappropriate term
to refer to a class of people is not merits-related even if the judge used it on the bench or
in an opinion; the correctness of the judge‘s rulings is not at stake. An allegation that a
judge treated litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a demonstrably
egregious and hostile manner is also not merits-related.8

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

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

When Jurists turned into investigators the role changes, now the investigators becomes witnesses
to testimonies and a procedure; whether these testimonies were truthful, that is up for many
disputes. For example, if one takes a look at the Department of Justice, Office for Inspector
General9, there are many investigated cases like ―retaliation, misuse of government position, lack
of candor, tampering with evidence or witness intimidation, stalking, conspiring, failure to
report, cover up, and many more.‖

7
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
8
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
9
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports

12
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Few examples of what OIG DOJ investigated as ―investigators‖ some leads to indictments while
other complaints lead to simple reports when the subject of the complaint resigns.
o Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Supervisor Indicted for Covering Up the Assault
of a Restrained Inmate.10
o Two Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Officers Plead Guilty for Their Roles in
Assault of Restrained Inmate and Subsequent Cover-Up.11
o Investigative Summary: Finding of Misconduct by a then-Assistant United States
Attorney for Attempted Misuse of Position.12
o Investigative Summary: Findings of Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct by a then
Senior FBI Official Related to an Earlier OIG Investigation in which the Senior Official
was the Subject.13
o Deputy U.S. Marshal Indicted and Arrested for Conspiracy, Cyber Stalking and Perjury.14

As inspector Michael Horowitz of the Justice Department stated to congress.15

―To my mind, transparency goes with accountability,‖ he said. ―Where you have
transparency … transparency is the best disinfectant. If the public knows, if the lawyers
in the department know that their misconduct is going to be public, I think that helps
reform behavior, and it deters other folks.‖

While Attorney General Merrick Garland said the following.

―The rule of law means that the law treats each of us alike,‖ he said. ―There is not one
rule for friends, another for foes; one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless; one
rule for the rich, another for the poor; or different rules, depending upon one‘s race or
ethnicity or country of origin.‖16

And then after Ms. Rachel Rossi read many of Mark‘s emails, she and justice department
officials came with a ―dear colleague letter‖ to all state and federal courts saying the following:
The letter reminds court systems and other federal financial assistance recipients of their
ongoing obligations not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex and disability; to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited
English proficiency; and to ensure that appropriate recordkeeping can help identify and

10
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-supervisor-indicted-covering-assault-
restrained-inmate
11
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-supervisor-indicted-covering-assault-
restrained-inmate
12
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-finding-misconduct-then-assistant-united-states-
attorney-attempted
13
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-findings-retaliation-and-unprofessional-conduct-then-
senior-fbi
14
See https://oig.justice.gov/news/press-release/deputy-us-marshal-indicted-and-arrested-conspiracy-cyber-
stalking-and-perjury
15
See https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-horowitz-doj-inspector-general/2023/03/23/id/1113593/
16
See https://news.yahoo.com/garland-calls-on-americans-to-overcome-intense-polarization-in-emotional-ellis-
island-speech-191127421.html

13
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

avoid potential violations of federal nondiscrimination laws. The department will also
follow up on this letter by building a best practices guide, highlighting innovative work
by states and court leaders in this area.

―Justice in the United States should not depend on one‘s income or background,‖ said
Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. ―The Justice Department‘s updated guidance
addresses practices that disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of
color, can trap individuals and their families in patterns of poverty and punishment and
may violate the civil rights of adults and youth alike. Many jurisdictions have innovated
to reduce reliance on fines and fees, and the Justice Department is building on that
momentum to advance equal justice and public safety for all.‖17

And then Ms. Rachel Rossi herself said.18

We believe that justice belongs to everyone. Yet, when communities do not equally
access the promises and protections of our legal systems, it undermines trust in our
institutions, diminishes the rule of law and weakens the freedoms which underpin
democracy.

When Federal Judges wanted a pay raise as promised, they lawsuit the government, then the
attorney general decided not to appeal the ruling, and then federal judges received a raise under
the class action lawsuit.
Seven federal judges filed a class action lawsuit Nov. 30 in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims seeking back pay that Article III judges who are serving or served any time from
2006 to the present are owed for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) they did not receive
in six of the past 17 years. The lawsuit, Sarah Evans Barker, et al. v. United States,
follows the Oct. 5 decision by the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Beer v. United States. Both cases arose out of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which
established a procedure for automatic annual COLAs for judges and other senior
government officials based on the employee cost index to take effect whenever a COLA
was conferred on federal workers paid according to the General Schedule.

Federal judges file class action salary lawsuit.19 No one told them ―they are barred from
lawsuits‖ or that ―their lawsuit should be reviewed before it was filed‖ just as the Executive
Committee did with Mark in the midst of his Department of Education litigation, they took his
ECF account away and wanted to review any and all future lawsuits he files citing ―Courtroom
Deputy Ms. Rhonda Johnson‖ as their alleged reason; but we all saw the timeline that this
administrative action came after Mark reported discrimination and cited the code of conduct
17
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-
and-fees-youth-and
18
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/director-rachel-rossi-office-access-justice-delivers-remarks-oecd-
global-policy
19
See Federal judges file class action salary lawsuit (americanbar.org)

14
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

canons for the judges but back then, no one cared. They could have said ―appeal‖ but they took
further retaliatory action.

Under Rule 4(a)(4), a judge‗s efforts to retaliate against any person for reporting or
disclosing misconduct, or otherwise participating in the complaint process constitute
cognizable misconduct. The Rule makes the prohibition against retaliation explicit in the
interest of promoting public confidence in the complaint process.

The Supreme Court has consistently treated retaliation against civil rights complainants
as a form of intentional discrimination. The Court has held that ―retaliation offends the
Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right‖ and ―is thus
akin to an unconstitutional condition demanded for the receipt of a government-provided
benefit.‖ Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Chandamuri v. Georgetown Univ., 274 F. Supp. 2d
71, 81 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing Court‘s approach to retaliation in Crawford-El).

The question here is how will the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, as a Court not judges and their
colleagues is able to heal this journey? The future was told to me by Jim Richmond that
retaliation will take place by fixing my appeal but what can the Court do about it?

15
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

IV. WHY MARK LOVES HON JUDGE FRANK EASTERBROOK.

I called him the maverick Hon. Easterbrook because he appeared in my executive
committee appeal and I started to look up his videos and it taught me a lot, and beside he does
have a face that shows he is ―gentile‖ and kind.
That is why I want to say that ―I do love Judge Easterbrook‖ his online videos and
interviews taught me many things like when he said ―if you want to become a good writing, keep
20
reading.‖ He also taught me that the best way to receive a reversal on appeal is to look at
procedural errors rather than focusing on the substance of the case i.e., this was not followed or
that was not followed. He also taught me the difference between a rule, a standard, or neutral,
and in fact I am using it in my upcoming reply brief. Overall, he is a very good judge, I do love
him.

I want the court to understand my pain because during the course of this litigation, my home was
targeted and stalked by Jerome Sliva; my place of work was the next target at Chicago Public
School; and my own case as well, and then I was the subject to many emotional abuse because of
what was happening but the Lord, God has been working in the midst of pain and trial. As many
know both appeals this one and the one related to the Executive Committee 20-1815 were
ongoing and during the appeal procedure, a judicial misconduct complaint was filed and on the
day the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals received my Judicial Misconduct Complaint, I was retaliated
against at Chicago Public School turned from a complainant into a respondent. In fact, the
evidence showed, CPS officials were stalking my federal court civil right case and timing their
retaliation plan with Mark‘s hearing date on DOJ motion to dismiss. All this and more is being
handled by Office for Civil Rights because the Department of Education has jurisdiction over
recipients receiving federal financial assistance. See the timeline of the 1st and 2nd attempt.

20
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h1H7C8me8Y

16
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Then one could see the 2nd attempt and the after chain of events.

The Judicial Misconduct complaint was delivered on June 10, 2022 at 10:26 a.m. and Mr. B was
character lynched with OIG CPS complaint, ejected from CPS network system that same day on
June 10, 2022 at 1:46 pm and many shouted within their hearts ―lynch him now! Now or never.‖

17
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Udeme Itiat created a June 21 meeting. CPS ejected Mr. B on June 10.

Udeme Itiat even aligned the Google Meeting day for June 21, 2022; they were all stalking me

18
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

All of these chains of events were ongoing while Mark was litigating his case Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). The judicial misconduct proceeding didn‘t protect
Mark from discrimination or retaliation nor provided any healing.
Under Rule 4(a)(4), a judge‘s efforts to retaliate against any person for reporting or
disclosing misconduct, or otherwise participating in the complaint process constitute
cognizable misconduct. The Rule makes the prohibition against retaliation explicit in the
interest of promoting public confidence in the complaint process

Hon. Chief Judge Diane Sykes appeared to have conducted a limited inquiry but never wrote it in
her memorandum but Judge Sara Ellis who was not the subject of the complaint, on her own
pushed the hearing date from 6/21/2022 to 9/27/2022 right after a complaint was filed; June 10.

19
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

The final conclusion and voted on by 17 federal judges of the 7th Circuit Judicial Council is that
they all said ―they don‘t understand‖ what the Executive Committee ―understood‖ and no one
judges anyone on something they don‘t understand. That is all in this consolidated appeal 23-
1388 or see Mark‘s recent filing with the Executive Committee Exhibits A-C.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On September 6, 2023, Defendants-Appellees via Ms. Sarah Terman requested a 30 days
extension of time to file the Appellees‘ brief; ECF 31. Ms. Sarah Terman claimed that she is the
only one working on the case and that she is busy with other cases and need an additional 30
days to prepare her brief. Ms Sarah Terman did not confer with Mark if he object or has any
response, as usual; her stated phrase with both the District Court ECF 55 Lines 2 & 4 and the
Appeals Court ECF 31 line 6 is that ―speaking to him is futile‖. See Exhibits A & B copies of Ms
Terman‘s motions
2. On September 7, 2023, the Court granted Appellees‘ motion for 30 days extension of
time; ECF 32.
3. Mark later never filed any objection to the 30 days extension of time and allowed for Ms.
Sarah Terman to have her requested time without an objection.
4. On October 16, 2023 on the due date, Ms. Sarah Terman filed a 24 pages brief with also
the signature of the Chief of the Civil Right Division Mr. Thomas P. Walsh. Mark knew that Ms
Sarah Terman filed an appearance with the District Court and received the support of 2 more
lawyers, her supervisor Mr. Patrick Johnson and another lawyer, essentially 3 lawyers against a
pro se. That wasn‘t fair 3 lawyers against 1 pro se litigant.

5. Mark wanted to make sure Ms. Sarah Terman didn‘t receive support now on appeal by
Mr. Thomas Walsh, so Mark emailed him; he also called Mr. Walsh and spoke to him on

20
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

October 17, 2023. Mr. Walsh was a very nice person but his short answer after listening to me
was ―you have to work with the lawyer assigned to this case‖ and he added ―I haven‘t
reviewed this case or familiar with it.‖ Mark later on thanked Mr. Walsh via email after the
phone call. Mr. Thomas Walsh contact information is as follows:
Mr. Thomas P. Walsh
Chief, Civil Division
United States Attorney‘s Office Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604
Tel.: 312-353-5312
Email: thomas.walsh2@usdoj.gov

6. Mark pending this appeal in the past filed a petition with the Supreme Court for an
injunction against the IHRA definition but after Justice Neil Gorsuch referred the petition
23A210 to the court for a vote, the petition was denied. See ECF 130 in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) a copy of the petition.

7. This entire case rests on standing based on two ongoing cases currently being litigated
with the Supreme Court based on reversing the ―Chevron Doctrine‖ Loper Bright Enterprises v.
Raimondo No. 22-451. An additional Supreme Court case was also added Relentless, Inc. v.
Department of Commerce 22-1219. There is also ―the major-questions doctrine‖ In West
Virginia v. EPA, No. 20–1530.21 All these cases challenge the Federal Agencies power over
every American.

21
See 20-1530 West Virginia v. EPA (06/30/2022) (supremecourt.gov)

21
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

8. Kenneth Marcus is now demanding that all 8 Federal Agencies adopt the IHRA definition
and use it as a force of law calling it ―unfinished business‖.
The Brandeis Center‘s Marcus welcomed the civil rights expansion but noted that none of
the eight agencies committed to using the IHRA definition: ―There‘s still unfinished
business in terms of the administration‘s approach to IHRA and making it applicable
across the board.‖ Marcus also added that the U.S. government must fully recognize
Zionism as an inalienable element of the Jewish people.22

9. Human cannot be ruled by a definition yet Kenneth Marcus continues with his objective
to force IHRA on every American, a definition which also says ―Jews didn‘t kill Jesus Christ‖
that is a viewpoint discrimination, see Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC, No. 21-7108
(D.C. Cir. 2023) in terms of selective enforcement of certain laws against one group compare to
another.
10. Judge James Ho of the 5th Circuit decried what he called ―viewpoint discrimination‖
against religious conservatives on college campuses. ―Expressing religious viewpoints gets you
vilified. But claiming a right to eliminate a religious group gets you the benefit of the doubt,‖ the
judge said, in an apparent reference to the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. ―Voicing
traditional values makes people feel unsafe. But supporting terrorism against innocent civilians
doesn‘t.‖ ―Speech is violence—unless it‘s speech that cultural elites like,‖ Ho said.23 Judge Ho
also added.
Too many judges, he said, are motivated by personal achievement, social climbing, and
cowering to public dissent, as opposed to public service. ―If your whole life‘s purpose is
to wear black robes, then maybe you shouldn‘t,‖ he said, implying ―gold star‖ judges
should resign. ―No one forced you to become a judge. You agreed to become a judge.
Some people even lobby and campaign for it. And you can quit anytime you want.‖ ―If
you do the job faithfully, you should expect to be either hated or ignored,‖ Ho added. ―I‘d
say that it‘s the God-given right of every red-blooded American to yell at refs,‖ he said in
his speech, referencing Chief Justice John Roberts's comparison of judges to umpires.
―I‘d say the exact same thing about criticizing judges.‖ Ho told judges to ―expect,‖ ―get
used to,‖ and ―get comfortable‖ with public criticism, noting that sharp dissent his
historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson, he noted, once referred to the judiciary as a
―subtle corps of sappers [and] miners constantly working underground to undermine the
foundations of our confederated fabric,‖ while Theodore Roosevelt said of former Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes that one ―could carve out of a banana a judge with more
backbone than that.‖24

22
See https://www.jns.org/wire/civil-rights-act-clarified-to-include-jews-but-more-action-is-needed/
23
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fifth-circuits-ho-calls-on-judges-to-embrace-harsh-criticism
24
See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-james-ho-challenges-judges-accept-public-criticism

22
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

11. Several motions were filed with the Executive Committee in 1:21-CV-06223 ECF Nos.
45, 46-47, 48-49, and finally 51. The result of the filings caused the Executive Committee to
forsake their individual capacity by using for the first time official capacity and referring to the
executive committee as the ―court‖ to which now proved that the Court indeed did Target Mark
the Coptic compare to Ms. Terman‘s response that the Court did not target Mark. See Caryn
Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022), a case heading to trial against the 4th Circuit
Judges in their individual and official capacity. See also Newman v. Moore (1:23-cv-01334) a
case of federal judge in lawsuit with other federal judges and the federal circuit court.
12. Ms. Sarah Terman only defended the District Court in its official capacity and never in its
individual capacity, and it tried to claim ―the district court didn‘t discriminate against Mark.‖

13. But a closer look at the facts, the district court targeted Mark left and right during the
pendency of this litigation and Mark pointed out to the direct discrimination based on his Coptic
Identity. Two Chief Judges, one said ―I don‘t understand‖ and the other said ―I understand.‖

23
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

14. The result was the Executive Committee recently quietly dropped Order #9 because it
showed direct discrimination with retaliation afterward but something else they did, they forsake

24
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

individual capacity and tried to claim the ―Executive Committee‖ now is a ―Court‖ to which
places the Court in official capacity of targeting Mark. Mark took cases like Executive
Committee of the Uni v. Andrew Shalaby, No. 20-2689 (7th Cir. 2022) and extended it beyond its
realm ECF Nos. 120-121 and God completed by working with Mark through recent cases like
Strickland‘s and Newman‘s.

15. In NEWMAN v. MOORE (1:23-cv-01334). The Justice Department in their brief argued
that one district judge can‘t overrule 11 circuit judges, essentially equating an investigative
agency within the court with the court itself which APA waives, the plaintiff in that case actually
read many of Mark‘s writing including his brief and they learned from it and later used the same
argument also in their response.

25
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

16. Here was God‘s work in NEWMAN v. MOORE (1:23-cv-01334). In this case, that now
headed for a decision and potentially a long appeal as well, the Justice Department submitted a
67 pages support to their motion to dismiss, the bulk of their argument is that Judge Newman
cannot seek original jurisdiction but appellant review and that 11 Federal Judges cannot trump 1
Judge in the District Court overseeing this case. Basically they are equating the Judicial Council
as a Court and an investigatory body as court. While their argument was flawed but they made
the same argument Mark made, Mark said he has an order from 17 Federal Judges saying they all
don‘t understand. And the Justice Department said the same exact thing on page 17 in ECF No.
25 in NEWMAN v. MOORE.25 Now see Judge Newman response in ECF No. 30.26

25
See DOJ Response
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.255210/gov.uscourts.dcd.255210.25.0.pdf
26
See Judge Newman response
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.255210/gov.uscourts.dcd.255210.30.0_2.pdf

26
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

17. The repeated targeting of Mark the Coptic are often understood as a signal to act, to
discriminate and retaliate and indeed it was — just as King Henry II‘s remark, ‗Will no one rid
me of this meddlesome priest?‘ referring to Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket.
18. You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is
then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of
the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a
basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine
before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven [Mathew 5:13-
16].
CONCLUSION
On January 4, 2023, the Department of Education Office for Civil rights has added
protections of ―Christians‖ under shared ancestry.27 This was the result of this ongoing case
Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-cv-03887) because DOJ claimed to
the Court that OCR protects Christians too.
OCR Complaint No. 05-22-1497 which was originally filed July 13, 2022 (it was around
210 pages in total) and handled by Mr. Jeffery Turnbull by concluding it on January 6, 2023 (on
Coptic Christian Christmas Eve)28 referring some of the allegation to EEOC while section 504
was appealed and sent to OCR New York. The appeal was handled by a completely different

27
See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocr-factsheet-shared-ancestry-202301.pdf
28
Mr. Jeffery Tunrbull’s letter referred allegation 3-5 to EEOC but missed many issues from the original complaint.

27
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

office under the old manual; the director of OCR New York to show somewhat that the process
is impartial. But also section 504 is being revisited again in the 4th OCR Complaint that is
handled currently by Ms Melissa Howard.

Because many issues from the original OCR Complaint were missed including pattern
and practice discrimination, Mr. Jeffery Turnbull; OCR Chicago Team Leader stated to Mark

28
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Bochra ―you have the right to appeal the decision and you have the right to file a new OCR
Complaint telling us what we missed or did not investigate or need to investigate.‖
Two subsequent OCR Complaints were filed, one on January 6, 2023 (OCR Complaint
No. 05-23-1148) and another was on January 9, 2023 (OCR Complaint No. 05-23-1149); both
complaints were later amended and they are being handled by OCR Chicago Team Leader, Ms
Melissa Howard.
Because of the ongoing violations to Mark‘s rights and how the OCR manual keeps
changing without going through regulatory channels and how the manual is applied differently
and selectively on Mark compare to others, Mark‘s final OCR Complaint, or the 4th OCR
Complaint he added FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Special Agent in Charge of FBI
Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler to the Complaint. What Secretary Catherine Lhamon criticized
Kenneth Marcus for, when he mass dismissed section 504 complaints, and brought all the
complaints back after litigation was raised, she herself did the same when the ―appeal process‖
was removed from the OCR Manual without going through the regulatory channels. Secretary
Lhamon at that time said ―this is a cover your rear litigation response‖ but during Mark‘s
employment discrimination with OCR, she did the same exact thing, removing the appeal.

If OCR handed the appeal to a different office, although administratively it is the same
leadership but they want to say that their decision was impartial and neutral, then how can the 7 th
Circuit Court of appeal do the same with this appeal? I don‘t have all the answers nor do I know
what God sees for the future, but what I do know are the words of Jim Richmond speaking about
fixing my appeal and future retaliation, he said ―we‖ and said ―all judges‖ will get angry.
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 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?

29
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

Those with power never cared about retaliation; they have the resources and the money. CPS
senior leadership never cared about any accountability or oversight.

30
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

I want to speak a little about the Coptic identity and how Jesus Christ is part of that identity, the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals aren‘t just dealing with another ―Christian‖ or a Christian from the
West. The Coptic identity and its history is long, so when a Judge or Judges comes in a public
order and say ―speak again about Jesus Christ or you will see what will happen‖ framing it under
religious or political materials, that attacked the core of the Coptic identity and often look at the
powerful and how that power is used; for good or evil. Then the truth will be revealed.
In order to understand history, I will take you back to the 1st Century.
In the 1st century, came the atheists ruling over their Temples and because they were
losing people and people stopped visiting them and paying them money, and people
started going to churches instead, they became angry and started to contemplate evil by
telling the Roman Emperor that the Roman Gods are angry at him and that he is losing
his empire because the Christians are worshipping the crucified i.e., Jesus Christ, so an
edict was released to stop Christianity and the greatest persecution happened in the 1st to
3rd century and that was revelation as well, one of the horseman, the red one. From there
you ended up with the Coptic history and the prophecy of Isaiah 19, at the start of the
prophecy it says:

The harsh prophecy of Egypt; Behold the Lord is riding on a light cloud and He shall
come to Egypt, and the idols of Egypt shall quake from before Him and the heart of the
Egyptians shall melt in their midst.

How was the Lord, God able to transform Pharonic people to Coptic? How was God able to have
the heart of Egyptians melt in their midst? Through aggressive persecution and live miracles
before the eyes of multitudes that drove many Roman emperors insane while transforming many.
The persecution of the Christians began in the time of Nero and continued sporadically for
nearly three centuries. It ended officially with Emperor Constantine‘s Milan Decree in AD 313.
The ten Roman emperors known for their brutal persecution of the Coptic Church are:
1. Nero (37-68) - Domitian (81-96)
2. Trajan (98-117)
3. Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
4. Septimius Severus (191-211)
5. Maximius the Thracian (235-238)
6. Decius (249-251)
7. Valelrian (253-260)
8. Aurelian (270-275)
9. Diocletian (284-305)

Diocletian was so exceptionally bloody in his persecution of Christians that his time was dubbed
the Great Persecution. On 23 February, AD 303, Diocletian issued a decree ordering the

31
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

demolition of churches, the burning of the scriptures, and the expulsion of all Christians from
public office. In March, he ordered Christian clergymen to be imprisoned and tortured unless
they renounced their faith. Diocletian came in person to Egypt to supervise the killing of
Christians. He is said to have sworn to kill Christians until their blood reached his horse’s knee –
and he kept his word.
To commemorate the years of persecution, the Coptic Church introduced a new calendar
beginning with the year Diocletian took office. The Anno Martyrum, or Year of the Martyrs,
which is the first year of the Coptic Calendar, matches the year 284 in the Gregorian Calendar. In
the Synaxarium, or the Lives of the Saints, a major work in the Coptic Church, all days of
festivities are noted according to the Anno Martyrum, or AM. The Coptic Church, whose
festivities revolve around the martyrdom of the saints, believes that the day of a saint‘s death is
the day of his or her birth in heaven. This is why popular tradition refers to a saint‘s day as a
moulid (or birthday).
Early church historians, writers, and fathers testified to the numerous Copt martyrs.
Tertullian, 3rd century North African lawyer wrote ―if the martyrs of the whole world
were put on one arm of the balance and the martyrs of Egypt on the other, the balance
will tilt in favor of the Copts.‖

o Saint George from a prince to a martyr.29

o Saint Demiana from a princess to a martyr.30
o Saint Mohrael, from a child to a martyr.31
o Saint Abanoub, from a child to a martyr.32
o Saint Philobateer Mercurious, from a commander of the Roman‘s army to a martyr. 33

29
See bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George , Movie https://youtu.be/836zeu1nND0 see
https://youtu.be/rzwRZShVaK8
30
See bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiana , Movie https://youtu.be/7DJRI27xAiA
31
See bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohrael , Movie https://youtu.be/od4kYTLbm9Q
32
See Movie https://youtu.be/QPdStY2-7ig

32
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

o Saint Mina the Wonder Worker, from a wealthy family to a martyr.34

Despite periods of martyrdom and persecution under the Roman Empire and the number of
believers continued to grow and the lives of the martyrs became the Coptic Church‘s seed toward
salvation.35 See today‘s Coptic Children.36

Coptic Saints throughout the centuries.37

PRAYERS
For the forgoing reasons, Mark prays the Chief Circuit Judge or the Court to reconsider
order 9 by appointing outside circuit judges under 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294 just like in Caryn
Strickland v. US, No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. 2022) or to decide at a later date what to do in order not
to bring into question the Judges‘ impartiality and to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Alternatively, if the Court decides to review its precedent when it comes to judicial vs.

33
See bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mercurius , Movie https://youtu.be/yqG-CaKxM54
34
See bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Menas , Movie https://youtu.be/Er66Y02ff4M
35
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_saints , see Tertullian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
36
See https://youtu.be/PR1Y_U5LSY0?t=28
37
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_saints

33
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

administrative orders, I‘ve seen it many times wherein, for example the 5th circuit reconvene to
establish a new rule by all of the Court‘s judges to correct past precedent.38
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).

Mark further seeks clarification on how can a Court decides the difference between merit-related
vs. non-merit related to a ruling in a colloquial sense under Rule 11(c)(1)(D) of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (―Act‖), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-
Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.39
Conversely, an allegation that a judge conspired with a prosecutor to make a particular
ruling is not merits-related, even though it ―relates‖ to a ruling in a colloquial sense. Such
an allegation attacks the propriety of conspiring with the prosecutor and goes beyond a
challenge to the correctness — ―the merits‖ — of the ruling itself. An allegation that a
judge ruled against the complainant because the complainant is a member of a particular
racial or ethnic group, or because the judge dislikes the complainant personally, is also
not merits-related. Such an allegation attacks the propriety of arriving at rulings with an
illicit or improper motive. Similarly, an allegation that a judge used an inappropriate term
to refer to a class of people is not merits-related even if the judge used it on the bench or
in an opinion; the correctness of the judge‘s rulings is not at stake. An allegation that a
judge treated litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a demonstrably
egregious and hostile manner is also not merits-related.40

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

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

38
This precedent didn’t give details for how to appeal administrative orders being handled by the Circuit’s Judicial
Council and the only way to reach them was through judicial misconduct proceedings which turns jurists into
th th
investigators, see appeal 20-1815, the 7 Circuit Court of Appeals said there are no judges for 7 Circuit Judicial
Council, Document 39.
39
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
40
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)

34
 ―I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.‖ Jesus Christ

The purpose of this appeal is healing, not to leave someone in pain, that wouldn‘t be restorative
justice; how can a Court heal and at the same time resolve ongoing disputes.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Plaintiff, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 2, 2024, the aforesaid document was filed
electronically via regular mail with the Clerk of Court for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
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

5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B

Chicago, IL 60660

35