Judicial Misconduct Complaint [Rule 26] 7th Circuit

AO310 (Rev.
03116)
Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCOIIDUCT OR DISABILITY
To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement
of facts described in
item 4 (below). The Rules FoR JuDICIAL-CoNoucr AND JuDrcrAL-DrsABtr-ITy pRocEEDrNcs,
adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on r,yhat to include
in a complaint (RulL 6), where
to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The Rules are available
in federal court clerks,'offices,
on individual federal courts'websites, and on www.uscourts.gov.
Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must
be legible. For the number
ofcopies to file, consult the local rules or clerk's office of the courtln which your complaintls
required to be filed.
Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked 'cOMpteINT OF
*COMPLAINT MISC6NDUCT,, or
OF DISABILITY" and submit it to the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the
name of any
judge on the envelope.
I. Name of Complainant: Mark Bochra

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

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

are true and conect to the
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint
best of my knowledge.
Signature: /s/MarkBochra Date: 03D812024
Page2 af 2
“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ
Table of Contents
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................................................... 8
II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 15
A. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JIM RICHMOND AND THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES ...................................... 16
B. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PARTTERN AND PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION: THE WORDS OF JUDGE
RICHARD POSNER AND JUDGE DIANE WOOD ........................................................................................ 17
C. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JUDGE JOHN Z LEE & OUTSTANDING DISCRIMINATORY ORDER WITH
RETALIATION ........................................................................................................................................... 19
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 24
Page 1 of 30
Mark Bochra
5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL
The Honorable John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
jroberts@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Christopher G. Conway The Honorable Diane Sykes

Clerk of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Chamber Phone: (414) 727-6988
chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov
Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

Circuit Executive Deputy Circuit Executive
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780
Sarah_Schrup@ca7.uscourts.gov Alexander_Castaneda@ca7.uscourts.gov
CC
The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

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

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

Via Chief of Staff Mr. Matthew Klapper Acting Associate Attorney General
Matthew.b.Klapper@usdoj.gov Benjamin.Mizer@usdoj.gov
Page 2 of 30
The Honorable Mr. Corey Amundson The Honorable Mr. Jeffery Ragsdale
Chief of the Justice Department General Counsel of the Justice Department
Public Integrity Section Office of Professional Responsibility
corey.amundson@usdoj.gov Jeffrey.Ragsdale@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Ms. Rachel Rossi The Honorable Ms. Kristen Clarke
Director of the Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of the Justice
Office for Access to Justice Department, Civil Division
Rachel.Rossi@usdoj.gov kristen.clarke@usdoj.gov
AccesstoJustice@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

Inspector General of the Justice Department FBI Deputy Director Mr. Paul Abbate
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov FBI Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler
cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
March 28, 2024
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
Re: The name Jesus Christ has angered many Judges: the Parable of the Unjust Judge.
Re: Jim Richmond of the 7th Circuit threatened Mark the Coptic during a judicial misconduct
proceeding related to his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-CV-03887)
being fixed pertaining to the Israeli Lobby Kenneth Marcus & the IHRA definition. The
7th Circuit’s fulfilled and completed the words of Jim Richmond and left a trail of
mistakes in a public order by redacting evidence and Senator Dick Durbin’s letter and
writing a fiction not from the case. Discrimination with Retaliation against a Coptic.
Re: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241.
Re: Former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s own words “they treat pro se like trash” &
“they destroy appeals with merits”. A whistleblower against his own colleagues. The
Judicial Conference Committee’s letter is disclosed herein responding at that time to
Chief Judge Diane Wood advising her “confidential internal communications” is their
choice to be kept confidential.
Dear Mr. Christopher Conway,
I want to thank you for processing this judicial misconduct complaint to which it explains a
complex journey of discrimination with retaliation which kept on multiplying on multiple fronts
Page 3 of 30
but now it is not about members of the Executive Committee of Northern District of Illinois1 but
by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in direct violation of rule 4(a)(4).
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 idea of a system of self-policing have allowed Judges to care about being Jurist but
neglecting being managers and investigators yet congress delegated all these duties to the
Judicial Branch and when a Judge turns from a Jurist to an Investigator, the duties change; either
write the truth while providing healing and rescue or cover up a crime and resume with more
retaliation using the Court’s official capacity which is also acting under “color of law”.
The Subjects of this Complaint are: Hon Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit Judge
John Z Lee (Former Member of the Executive Committee of Northern District of IL), 7th Circuit
Judges2, Jim Richmond an employee of the 7th Circuit (Former Docket Supervisor), and Ms.
Rhonda Johnson Courtroom Deputy of Judge Sara Ellis.3
Section § 351(d)(1) states that only “a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or
magistrate judge” are subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) .
Based on the current interpretation of that statute, retired and elevated judges fall outside of its
purview. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) stated “if you have concerns
about the behavior of a federal court employee other than a judge, you may report those concerns
to the clerk of the court where that individual is employed.”4
1
I told the executive committee in many of my filings in 1:21-cv-06223 that I won’t file another judicial misconduct
complaint against them, also most of the old members were replaced with new members in the year 2023.
2
The order issued in Mark Bochra v. Department of Education, No. 22-2903 (7th Cir. 2024)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/22-2903/22-2903-2024-02-27.html said “By the Court”
so Mark doesn’t know whether 3 panel judges came and conspired to fix Mark’s case fulfilling Jim Richmond’s
threatening words then hidden their names behind the “Court” official capacity while using their individual
th
capacity or this order was prepared by a 7 Circuit staff attorney and rubber stamped by a Judge.
Mr. Frank Insalaco told Mark “you were supposed to get 3 panel judges, the Judges know what happened.” Mr.
Frank has always been nice to Mark and always told him “have faith in the process” “have faith in the system”
While the Deputy Circuit Executive Mr. Alex Castaneda told Mark “All judges are professional, there won’t be any
retaliation”
3
She hated the name Jesus Christ and character lynched Mark with lies, this was the start of the targeting only
when Mark was alone. She in many phone calls claims she doesn’t know anything or add “she doesn’t remember”
often answers for cover up but in the last phone call she showed her real heart that she hates the name Jesus
Christ; this was the motive that started the chain of targeting a Coptic over an email about Jesus Christ yet Mark’s
case before Judge Sara Ellis was also about Jesus Christ related to the IHRA definition.
4
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-
disability-complaint#faq-Who-can-I-complain-about?
Page 4 of 30
I am filing this Judicial Misconduct Complaint and seeking under Rule 26 for the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals to handle the preliminary review of the complaint and any and all procedures
pertaining to this complaint and when an honest investigation reveals disputed facts that needs a
special committee to investigate it, I am seeking under Rule 26 of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”) for the 5th Circuit to conduct the complete investigation.
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another judicial council

selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case
of a serious complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original
judicial council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken
public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result
of the complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a
complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals. The
power to affect a transfer is lodged in the Chief Justice to avoid disputes in a judicial
council over where to transfer a sensitive matter and to ensure that the transferee council
accepts the matter.
In the past, Ms. Melissa Shanklin an administrative assistant of the 5th Circuit advised Mark that
if he seeks the 5th Circuit to investigate his Complaint, he can use Rule 26 at any given point in
the complaint process by including it in writing or within his filed complaint. Chief of the
Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts makes the determination where to send the complaint for
all procedural handling.
This Judicial Misconduct Complaint contain many disputed facts subject to a special committee
to investigate under 28 U.S.C. § 352(a) (“The chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of
fact about any matter that is reasonably in dispute.”).
In February 2024, the Judicial Conference Committee released a 200 pages document under the
title “Digest of Authorities on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”.5 Most Circuit Chief
Judges should be well aware of it and receive the adequate training in conducting investigative
work because congress delegated to a Judge (3 jobs): a Jurist, a Manager, and an Investigator.
Attached herein “Exhibit A”, please see a copy of Mark’s letter to the Chair of the Judicial
Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery Sutton. The letter explains most of this journey
and the issues surrounding the 7th Circuit mistreatment of pro se litigants “destroying appeals
with merits” was reported by a whistleblower former judge Richard Posner. This would be called
pattern and practice and in direct violation of Canon 3.
I retired from my court last September because of my distress at the summary fashion in
which the court disposed of pro se appeals—rejecting them even when they had merit.6
5
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/digest_of_authorities_judicial_conduct_and_disability.pdf
6
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225 and see
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_most_judges_regard_pro_se_litigants_as_kind_of_trash_nor_
worth_the_t
Page 5 of 30
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially & Diligently
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform
those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive,
prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and
should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should
maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge
should require similar conduct by those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers
to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
This is a complaint about ongoing unlawful judicial national origin and religion discrimination
with retaliation and raises concerns of pattern and practice of treating pro se litigants different
from parties with lawyers and the statement of Former Chief Judge Diane Wood substantiate this
when she wrote to ABA Journal.7
“First, while [Judge Posner] is certainly entitled to his own views about such matters as
our Staff Attorney’s Office and the accommodations we make for pro se litigants, […].
“In fact, the judges and our staff attorneys take great care with pro se filings, and the
unanimous view of the eleven judges on the 7th Circuit (including actives and seniors) is
that our staff attorneys do excellent work, comparable to the work done by our chambers
law clerks. We are lucky to attract people of such high caliber for these two-year
positions.” Said Judge Diane Wood.
7
See
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuits_chief_judge_responds_to_posner_on_pro_se_criticisms
Page 6 of 30
Here former Chief Judge Diane Wood reported that “staff attorneys take care of pro se litigants
filings” while “chamber clerks take care of the cases which involve lawyers.” This would be in
direct violation of several canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”);
Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and especially Canon 3 “A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office
Fairly, Impartially and Diligently” Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2), Canon 3(A)(3) if staff
attorney replaces Judges, then why do pro se litigants seek Judges to rule on their case, as one
will see in Mark’s appeal, he received what apparently was a staff attorney issuing a 3 page order
with false facts of the case, fixing his case, and signing it under the Court’s official capacity “by
the Court.” Mr. Frank Insalaco a supervisor at the 7th Circuit told Mark “you should have
received a 3 panel judges, the judges know what happened.”
To substantiate this further, see the response from the Judicial Conference Committee to Former
Chief Judge Diane Wood which rather at that time addressing the reported allegations by former
Judge Richard Posner, they told Judge Diane Wood at that time “internal communications” are
confidential but it is up to the Judges to disclose them or not. See Exhibit “B”.
The Judicial Conference Committee didn’t address the merits of Judge Richard Posner
allegations which are “they treat pro se litigants like trash” and they “destroy appeals with
merits.” This would also violate the dear Colleague letter issued by the Justice Department to all
federal financial assistance recipients.8
The letter reminds court systems and other federal financial assistance recipients of their
ongoing obligations not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex and disability; to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited
English proficiency; and to ensure that appropriate recordkeeping can help identify and
avoid potential violations of federal nondiscrimination laws. The department will also
follow up on this letter by building a best practices guide, highlighting innovative work
by states and court leaders in this area.
This is a complaint of an ongoing unlawful Judicial national origin and religion discrimination
with retaliation that violated the Rule of Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings
4(a), Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 1, Canon 2(A), Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2), and Canon
3(A)(3) and retaliation for reporting discrimination Under Rule 4(a)(4).
I respectfully ask that the appointed outside Circuit carefully consider the contents of this
complaint and, upon conclusion of their review, take appropriate corrective action to ensure that
justice is upheld healing a society in pain which is a the rule of the justice system “restorative
justice”.
Some employees of the 7th Circuit told Mark “it is about winning or losing” they never
mentioned the word Justice or healing a society in pain which is actually what the justice system
should be about. However, there is nothing more clearly than the threatening words of Jim
Richmond when he called Mark from his private cell phone yelling over the phone with what his
heart craved and he said “we” and “Judges” using both his official and individual capacity.
8
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-and-
fees-youth-and
Page 7 of 30
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 10, 2022, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals received a copy of my Judicial Misconduct
Complaint, an 88 pages judicial misconduct complaint which lays out selective targeting of a
Coptic by members of the executive committee of northern district of Illinois and occurring
during Mark’s ongoing litigation in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887),
this was a direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights. Complaint # 07-22-
90048 through 07-22-90041. Mark’s investigative work showed the prime suspect was Gary
Feinerman who resigned immediately within 2 days after Mark shared in ECF 103 of his case
Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) that there is an ongoing OCR
complaint filed against Chicago Public School and a petition with the Judicial Conference
Committee. Gary Feinerman tendered his resignation to President Biden on December 5, 2022
and it was announced by Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.9
Former known members of the Executive Committee: Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Gary
Feinerman, Judge John Z Lee (currently elevated to the 7th Circuit), Former Magistrate Chief
Judge Sheila Finnegan (stepped down and was replaced with Chief Magistrate Judge Young B
Kim on January 3, 2023)10 and the Clerk of the District Court Thomas Bruton. Mark knew the
identity of Gary Feinerman even though he was part of Mark’s complaint, but he also recused
from voting on the petition for review with the 7th Circuit Judicial Council along with Judge John
Z Lee. Those who recuse from voting were the subjects of the complaint.
The Executive Committee shall be composed of the chief judge, the next district court judge
eligible to be chief judge, four regular active judges of the Court, the chief magistrate judge, and
the clerk of the Court.
The bulk of the first complaint was how Mark’s home was the first target, later his place of work
at Chicago Public School, and later him and his case. There is no need to retell everything again
and Mark did promise the new members of the Executive Committee in many of his filings in
1:21-cv-06223 that he won’t file a new judicial misconduct complaint against them; Mark
wanted healing and also he saw the beauty within Chief judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, what can I say
“I actually like her”, I won’t say I liked the evil that took place but I like Chief Judge Pallmeyer.
Remember, she is the one who asked Gary Feinerman to resign, not Chief Judge Diane Sykes.
But many former members of the executive committee do know the crimes of Gary Feinerman
because that man is evil, blinded by power and status and at the right time the lord, God removed
him from power so he does not harm anymore person but he left while leaving the effects of sins
with the Court.
The prime suspect linked to Chicago Public School targeting has and always been Gary
Feinerman who resigned and is linked to the Israeli lobby and Mark’s case in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) is about Kenneth Marcus and the Israeli lobby and the
use of the IHRA definition and in that definition it says “Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” a
government endorsed view point discrimination which Mark’s lawsuit tried to seek an injunction
against the definition.
9
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/ChiefJudgeonJudgeFeinerman.pdf
10
See https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_news/Presiding%20MJ%20Kim01032023FINAL.pdf
Page 8 of 30
vs
How Chief Judge Diane Sykes can say she doesn’t understand what is clear on the docket?
Page 9 of 30
After 2 month, Chief Judge Diane Sykes dismissed the Complaint saying in part “she doesn’t
understand it”11 and I filed a petition for review with the 7th Circuit Judicial Council which all
judges denied the petition saying also “they don’t understand it” and failed to appoint a special
committee to investigate disputed facts; the same case was also pending in appeal 22-1815 and
Chief Judge Diane Sykes refused to appoint outside Circuit Judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 291,
294 to handle my appeal. Because everything that took place has been administrative in nature
waving judicial immunities.12 The 7th Circuit ruled with the following in past cases; hence one
can proceed with a judicial misconduct complaint and an appeal as well relative to the same
subject matters and the judges are the same in both proceedings:
The Executive Committee can issue two types of orders: judicial and administrative. See
In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 904 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484
(7th Cir. 1995). The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from the Executive
Committee‘s judicial actions; administrative actions, on the other hand, are reviewed by
this Circuit‘s Judicial Council. See Chapman, 328 F.3d at 904. See In re Long, 475 F.3d
880, 880–81 (7th Cir. 2007).
With my case, the 7th Circuit knew very well they had to close my Judicial Misconduct
Complaint before proceeding to handle my appeals but how can the judges who denied my
petition to appoint a special committee to investigate disputed facts be the same judges who are
also handling my appeal against the Executive Committee 22-1815 and Department of Education
22-2903?
Both appeals Chief Judge Diane Sykes denied appointing outside Circuit Judges to handle the
appeals. This entire tale started because of this case Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of
Education et al (1:21-CV-03887).13 The same Chief Judge Hon. Diane Sykes who denied
appointing a special committee to investigate disputed facts claiming “she doesn’t understand” is
the same Chief Judge who denied to appoint outside circuit judges for both my appeals and with
statement(s) by Jim Richmond the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal docket manager, it proved future
retaliation; time is what matters.
o File your appeal, when are you filing it? Oh you will see what action we will take, and
then you can go to your favorite Supreme Court justice and see how they will rule for
your case. Said Jim Richmond.
o Don’t send a 3rd supplement, that will enrage all the judges; you really want to be put on
our restricted list; you take it as a badge of honor, do you? Are you trying to delay the
process, tell me? Said Jim Richmond.
11
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2022/07-22-
90048_through_90041_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
12
Due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment violations, as well as claims pursuant to
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and 1986 - Action for
neglect to prevent; Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the rehabilitation act; and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980
(“Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings
13
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60107808/bochra-v-us-department-of-education/
Page 10 of 30
o Do you think you got everything figured out? What makes you think the Judicial
Conference has jurisdiction over us? That is Robert's committee” i replied in part “there
is a recent 2022 case ruling” Later i emailed him a copy of the case ruling c.c.d._no._22-
01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov).14 During several follow up conversations because he knew it
was the Democrats who initiated the Judicial Misconduct Complaint which triggered the
Judicial Conference Committee to rule on the case, he added in part “they need to shut up
over at DC, I am a democrat myself but you have **** (I don’t remember the
inappropriate language he used) in DC.” Said Jim Richmond.
See Exhibit “C” related to Jim Richmond’s words and threat using both his official and
individual capacity. Referring to “we” and “Judges”. Such threatening words of future retaliation
would be considered “intimidating a witness”, “obstruction of justice”, “and “conspiracy against
rights 18 U.S. Code § 241” and much more.
Jim Richmond’s cell phone calling Mark after he knew Mark filed a second supplement.
I often say to find the truth:
“Look at who has power and how that power was used, for good or evil.” Then the truth
will be revealed.
What happened next was the appeal related to the Executive Committee was fixed by the same
judges involved in the judicial misconduct proceedings because members of the 7th Circuit
Judicial Council are the same members of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal. They returned in
appeal 22-1815 and dismissed a paid appeal claiming “oversize brief” and the en banc panel
affirmed. So now we have the entire 7th Circuit Judges aware of Mark’s case related to the
Executive Committee and the Department of Education.
One can read the brief in 22-1815 ECF Nos. 56 and 57 or in ECF 120 and 121 in Mark Bochra
vs. U.S. Department of Education et al (1:21-CV-03887).15 The 7th Circuit has tried so hard to
14
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/c.c.d._no._22-01_0.pdf
15
See Copy of the Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-
Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 see copy of the appendix
https://www.scribd.com/document/717645429/Appendix-Related-to-Executive-Committee-in-22-1815-121-cv-
06223
Page 11 of 30
limit Mark’s filing by denying him ECF access and having him mail all his filings which
incurred substantial fees and expenses, so while Mark’s source of income was targeted at
Chicago Public School, Mark did not find good hearts within the 7th Circuit.
After Mark’s appeal related to the Executive Committee was fixed, Mark spoke many times to
Mr. Frank Insalaco who has always been nice to Mark and always gave hope to Mark by saying
“this case is different than this” “have faith in the process, have faith in the system.”
So Mark focused on his appeal brief in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-CV-03887)16 No. 22-2903 and 23-1388, ECF 29 Brief and ECF 42 Reply Brief. All of the
arguments raised in the appeal were ignored because Mark used the same legal arguments used
by many judges from the 7th Circuit. They were not able to engage with Mark’s raised arguments
and the facts of the case. So they decided to fix his case. They issued a 3 page order written “by
the Court” fulfilling the threat of Jim Richmond that Mark’s appeal will be fixed. The Order
ignored the consolidated appeal 23-1388 while never engaged in Mark’s raised arguments in
appeal 22-2903 but also had to redact evidence from the case, including the name Kenneth
Marcus and Senator Dick Durbin’s name17, the order also included false facts not from the case
but from the imagination of who wrote the order. The 7th Circuit Court order claimed in the very
first line “Mark lawsuit the Department of Education because it refused to investigate his
complaint of discrimination”. Yet Mark’s case was in resolution agreement negotiation for 2
years, was being investigated, and the next step was enforcement action. Yet the Court claim no
need for oral argument because the record is clear but which record was it clear when they lie on
the record using the Court Official Capacity to achieve personal Individual Capacity which is
conspiring to fix Mark’s case according to Jim Richmond’s words. Even before Mark filed his
reply brief, he sought for appointment of outside circuit judges in ECF 40.18 To which Chief
Judge Diane Sykes denied it in both official and individual capacity in ECF 41.19
If the Court frames it that way i.e., “Mark lawsuit the Department of Education because it
refused to investigate his complaint of discrimination.” then they don’t need to mention Senator
Durbin’s letter or Kenneth Marcus and Mark’s Journey with Kenneth Marcus and the Israeli
lobby.
It is one thing to engage with raised arguments and issue a just and fair ruling, it is another to
actually alter facts not from the case and issue lies in a public order under the official capacity of
the 7th Circuit Court. The question is who wrote this order? A staff attorney or 3 Panel judges?
Since the order said by the “Court” that is why the subjects of this judicial misconduct complaint
are all members of the 7th Circuit because Mark simply doesn’t know the truth at this point.
16
See Appeal Brief ECF 29 https://www.scribd.com/document/712045074/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-
Education-1-21-cv-03887-The-Chevron-Doctrine see Appeal Reply Brief ECF 42
https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-
Brief
17
See letter https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-
Department-of-Education
18
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717280569/Motion-to-Reconsider-Outside-Circuit-Judges-in-Bochra-v-
U-S-Department-of-Education
19
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717282409/Chief-Judge-Diane-Sykes-Order-in-Bochra-v-U-S-
Page 12 of 30
The name Senator Dick Durbin had to be removed from the case along with all the facts.
Who wrote these lies not from the case? Even the Department of Education would disagree
Page 13 of 30
The order continues with the lies claiming Mark clashed with his peers when the law school
journey is about Michael Roy Guttetntag who assaulted, battered, and threatened to kill Mark;
even OCR findings stated the same. Both the Department of Education and the Justice
Department would disagree with the order issued by the 7th Circuit because these are false facts
not from the case.
vs
Mark spoke many times with Mr. Frank Insalaco to which he told Mark “you were suppose to
get 3 panel judges, the judges know what happens.” While Deputy Circuit Executive Mr. Alex
Castaneda assured Mark in a phone call in the past that “all Judges are professional, there won’t
be any retaliation.” The date of the phone call was December 28, 2023 and later Mark followed
via email with him and others, even the justice department officials were on the emails.
Mark knew time and time again that his second appeal will be fixed based on the threat of Jim
Richmond but when one reports a crime, the system didn’t need to double down on it. While
Page 14 of 30
Mark has the option to file a motion for reconsideration if that is denied, he can file a petition en
banc, if that fails, he can petition the Supreme Court, Mark is not challenging the merits of the
decision but rather the non-merit conspiracy to fix Mark’s case by employees of the 7th Circuit.
II. ARGUMENT
First Mark does not challenge the merit of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal egregious false ruling
with false facts, he will leave that to the proper appeal channels but rather the “conspiracy” to fix
Mark’s appeal based on the threatening words of Jim Richmond’s and Mark asking repeatedly
from Chief Judge Diane Sykes to appoint outside circuit judges and she refused. Here you see
repeated efforts to a non-merit related issues to target Mark and his case. This would also raise
direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
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.20
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.21
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
20
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
21
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
Page 15 of 30
may be properly deferred by the chief judge until the appellate proceedings are concluded
to avoid inconsistent decisions.
Moreover Mark recited the same rule recited by Justice Department lawyers when they seek
recusal of a judge from a certain case and the 7th Circuit granted it, Mark used the same in his
filings when seeking outside circuit judges but Chief judge Diane Sykes ignored it.
The question that is often asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to their rulings
but rather whether well-informed observer might question the Judges’ impartiality and to avoid
any appearance of impropriety. See whether a reasonable, well-informed observer could question
the Judge's impartiality. See, e.g., Hatcher, 150 F.3d at 637.
Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of
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.
A. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JIM RICHMOND AND THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES
The allegations pertaining to the 7th Circuit Judges and the threat made by Jim Richmond in the
past showed that Mark would be discriminated and retaliated against in the future and that his
case would be fixed and indeed it was. This would be in direct violation of several canons of the
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”); Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and especially
Canon 3 “A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently”
Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2), Canon 3(A)(3). Along with the retaliation provision, retaliation
for reporting discrimination Under Rule 4(a)(4).
Page 16 of 30
inappropriate language he used) in DC.” Said Jim Richmond.
B. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PARTTERN AND PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION:

THE WORDS OF JUDGE RICHARD POSNER AND JUDGE DIANE WOOD
The allegations pertaining to the 7th Circuit Judges pattern and practice of mistreating pro se
litigants like trash and destroying appeals with merits by 7th Circuit staff attorneys have been
recited by a whistleblower from within the system i.e., former Judge Richard Posner, and the
Judicial Conference Committee letter substantiate the ongoing dispute rather than addressing the
dispute at hand.
This Judicial Misconduct Complaint raises this ongoing dispute in direct violation of several
canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (“Act”); Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and
especially Canon 3 “A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and
Diligently” Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2), Canon 3(A)(3)
1. Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time’.23
2. The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly.24
3. Posner’s new book is bananas, but you might want it anyway.25
4. Letter from the Judicial Conference Committee to the 7th Circuit.26
In the book of “Helping the Helpless” Judge Richard Posner, a whistleblower against his own
colleagues reported that the 7th circuit would destroy good appeals with merit.
These allegations by itself would violate Judge’s canon 3.28
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should
perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is
harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following
standards:
22
23
See Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' (abajournal.com)
24
See The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly - Above the Law
25
See https://web.archive.org/web/20180817030918/ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-
you-might-want-it-anyway/
26
See Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf (google.com)
27
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225
28
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Page 17 of 30
As Mark experienced in his own appeal related to the Department of Education, his appeal was
destroyed by presuming a staff attorney at the 7th Circuit who wrote an order with false facts and
had the judges rubber stamp it under the Court official capacity.
When Judges issue a written order, they write 134 pages when it involves lawyers and the media
as the case in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., No. 21-2475 (7th Cir. 2023).29
Reversed due to the Supreme Court recent ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023.30 And
every judge wanted to appear so eloquent in writing related to facts and the laws.
But when it came to Mark the Coptic, a pro se with a strong faith but he written a well good brief
and reply brief which God helped him with it, that even the Defendants couldn’t rebuttal other
than say “don’t see don’t look”. Then the outcome was 3 pages issued anonymously by the
“Court” with false facts in a public court document and they would call it justice. This is called
destroying an appeal with merits.
29
See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21-2475/21-2475-2023-04-07.html
30
Page 18 of 30
C. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JUDGE JOHN Z LEE & OUTSTANDING

DISCRIMINATORY ORDER WITH RETALIATION
While Mark promised the new members of the Executive Committee that he won’t file any new
judicial misconduct complaint. Mark seeks cure and remedy to ongoing discrimination with
retaliation. The subject of this complaint is one of the former members of the Executive
Committee Judge John Z Lee and for many reasons.
First Mark was targeted and was threatened “not to speak about Jesus Christ or else” retaliation
will take place and it took place in the most egregious form. The prime suspect is Gary
Feinerman who encouraged others to do evil. Gary Feinerman resigned but we all know those
who see a crime and cover it, becomes an accomplice in a crime.
The order pertaining to the threat not to speak about Jesus Christ framing it under “political or
religious” materials still stands and never was rescinded. However, in Complaint 07-24-90020,
07-24-90019, 07-24-90018, 07-24-90011, 07-24-90010, 07-24-90009 filed by America First
Legal Foundation and the Judicial Watch, all 3 Judges including Chief Judge who were subject
of the complaints rescinded their discriminatory order in order to resolve the complaint. See
Chief circuit Judge Diane Sykes Memorandum Order.31
In this case, first Mark was character lynched because of an email related to Jesus Christ sent to
Ms. Rhonda Johnson who hated the name Jesus Christ and she could only target Mark when he
was alone, in fact when he was emailing her and Ms. Sarah Terman was on the emails, she could
31
See https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2024/07-24-90020-90019_90011-
90009_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
Page 19 of 30
not retaliate against him. This is one of the many facts. One can ask Ms. Rhonda Johnson of all
the emails Mark sent her before he was targeted by the Executive Committee.
The issue became evident is that the more Mark spoke about Jesus Christ, the more he was
threatened “speak again about Jesus Christ and see what will happen” that was the meaning of
the Order issued on February 11, 2022, after that Mark was retaliated further. Neither the
discriminatory order was rescinded nor the retaliations that took place i.e., Mark losing his ECF
account interfering with his ongoing litigation was also addressed.
The truth and the timeline are on the docket history. How many times does a litigant need to say
“stop discrimination only to be retaliated against?” This was done in an administrative capacity.
Page 20 of 30
How did Mark know Judge John Z Lee hates Christians and the name Jesus Christ just like Gary
Feinerman, his own answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
7th Circuit Judge John Z Lee, a former member of the executive committee, how did I know? All
3 judges who recused from voting on my petition for review before the 7th Circuit Judicial
Council were Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Gary Feinerman who resigned32, and Judge John
Z Lee, at that time he was in process of being nominated to the 7th Circuit through lobbying.33
Judge John Z Lee also hated the name Jesus Christ and not only was he a former member of the
Executive Committee but through his rulings he showed that he likes to “limit church goers” vs.
“a movie theater” where he doesn’t place any limits and he was asked that question during his
confirmation hearing, Senator Mike Lee tried to understand his heart more than his reasoning.34
But not only that, he lobbies for his judicial chair, which is something 5th Circuit Judge James Ho
condemned about some Judges who lobby for a lifetime chair. 5th Circuit Hon Judge Ho said the
following:
Too many judges, he said, are motivated by personal achievement, social climbing, and
cowering to public dissent, as opposed to public service. “If your whole life’s purpose is
to wear black robes, then maybe you shouldn’t,” he said, implying “gold star” judges
should resign. “No one forced you to become a judge. You agreed to become a judge.
Some people even lobby and campaign for it. And you can quit anytime you want.” “If
you do the job faithfully, you should expect to be either hated or ignored,” Ho added. The
judge, a 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump, said after his address that
public criticism and making potentially unpopular decisions is part of the job when
32
33
See 07-22-90048_through_90041_Order_pfr.pdf (uscourts.gov)
34
See https://youtu.be/DbMl2fYmuVo?si=ec3hzoqJ9ub5VPyh see also justice Neil Gorsuch which came way too
late but still came to be said and noticed https://fortune.com/2023/05/19/supreme-court-justice-gorsuch-covid-
lockdowns-civil-liberties/ see https://greatestreset.movie/
Page 21 of 30
faithfully interpreting the Constitution. “I’d say that it’s the God-given right of every red-
blooded American to yell at refs,” he said in his speech, referencing Chief Justice John
Roberts's comparison of judges to umpires. “I’d say the exact same thing about criticizing
judges.” Ho told judges to “expect,” “get used to,” and “get comfortable” with public
criticism, noting that sharp dissent his historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson, he noted,
once referred to the judiciary as a "subtle corps of sappers [and] miners constantly
working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric,” while
Theodore Roosevelt said of former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that one “could carve
out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that.”35
If one looks at Judge John Z. Lee, one would see he paid campaign contribution to both Barack
Obama and Senator Durbin campaigns, so in return, favor was his nomination to the district
bench and later to the 7th Circuit. To quote:
Lee has two political contributions to his name, one to President Obama and one to
Durbin, both in the 2008 cycle.36
The heart of the judge relays within his character, meaning if a judge hates the name Jesus Christ
and his teachings, that becomes part of that Judge’s character.
Judge John Z Lee while he was a former member of the Executive Committee, elevated to the 7 th
Circuit, I don’t think he would want to cover for Gary Feinerman’s crimes when he knows them.
Here is a story: 3 teenagers partied while knowing they have an exam the next day, they partied
and didn't study and when the exam time came, they told their teacher “teacher we had a flat tire
while visiting a family member who was sick and we ended up pushing the car all the way home
and we didn't have time to prepare for the exam.” So the teacher gave the students 3 days to
35
See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-james-ho-challenges-judges-accept-public-criticism
36
See https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-
lookup/results?name=John+Lee&cycle=&state=IL&zip=&employ=Freeborn&jurisdiction=&cand=&type=
Page 22 of 30
study and to take the exam and on the day of the exam, each student was sitting in a separate
room with two questions on the exam.
The first question: Did you study well for the exam?
The second question: Which tire of the car was it flat?
The same scenario to find out the crimes of Gary Feinerman connecting him to Chicago Public
School targeting that started on April 1, 2022 and repeated on June 10, 2022. While Mark has
new evidence, he shared this evidence with OCR and Justice Department Officials. But he can’t
share them in this complaint.
Rule 11(c)(2): “A complaint must not be dismissed solely because it repeats allegations of a
previously dismissed complaint if it also contains material information not previously
considered.”
Put few of the former executive committee members in separate rooms and ask same and
different questions, if all their answers were consistent, then no one is lying but if you find
different answers then you know some are covering for another which would turn another to be
an accomplice knowing the crimes of Gary Feinerman. The subject of this complaint is Judge
John Z Lee, former member of the Executive Committee.
I have forgiven the remaining members of the Executive Committee; the one who asked for Gary
Feinerman to resign was Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer not Chief Judge Diane Sykes.
Mark is aware that Chief Judge Diane Sykes did interview Judge Sara Ellis because on her own
she pushed the hearing date to 3 month in advance after Mark filed his Judicial Misconduct
Complaint on June 10, 2022. See ECF 74 in Mark Bochra vs. U.S. Department of Education et al
(1:21-CV-03887) dated June 13, 2022.
These allegations are in direct violations of several canons of the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980 (“Act”); Canon 1, Canon 2(A), and especially Canon 3 “A Judge Should Perform
the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently” Canon 3(A)(1), Canon 3(A)(2),
Canon 3(A)(3). Along with the retaliation provision, retaliation for reporting discrimination
Under Rule 4(a)(4).
How to resolve this complaint: is to cure the discrimination with retaliation by addressing it; the
same way it happened in this Complaint 07-24-90020, 07-24-90019, 07-24-90018, 07-24-90011,
07-24-90010, 07-24-90009 filed by America First Legal Foundation and the Judicial Watch.
Page 23 of 30
CONCLUSION
Public confidence is all the more imperiled because the judges’ discrimination does not end in
their courtrooms. Their stamp of approval incentivizes second- and third-order discrimination. If
targeting a Coptic based on his Coptic identity is permitted, then everyone will see that
discrimination with retaliation is the norm of the Judicial Branch and enlisting fear of retaliation
is what the public often reports about.
Retaliation for those who wield power is the norm.37
28 U.S.C. § 352(b) allows a chief circuit judge to dismiss a complaint in some limited
circumstances. None of those circumstances exist here. This complaint should, thus, not be
dismissed. Instead, the misconduct should be remedied through the misconduct process Congress
prescribed.
This complaint does not challenge any judge’s ruling in a case. It does not mount a collateral
attack on the substance of any case. Nor does it challenge “without more” the correctness. See
Standard 2 for Assessing Compliance with the Act, Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice 145 (2006).
To be sure, the judges’ misconduct is not immunized by their memorializing the discriminatory
policies under court seal in standing orders. Rule 4(b)(1)—the rule excluding from the definition
of judicial misconduct merits-related rulings—does not excuse the misconduct in this case. That
is because this complaint focuses on the propriety of the judges’ telegraphing an illicit motive.
This Complaint contains several allegations pertaining to different parties but they were all
connected.
Rule 4(b)(1) does not compel dismissal of this complaint for a second reason. Even if you
determine that the complaint somehow challenges a procedural ruling— rather than the policies
compelling decisions that in turn constitute procedural rulings— this complaint should still go
forward under Rule 4(b)(1) because it does not challenge procedural rulings “without more.” Id.
37
See https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/10/22/shocking-to-me-investigative-reporter-lise-olsen-
talks-new-book-about-judicial-misconduct/
Page 24 of 30
Moreover, the complained-of misconduct is unlikely to be corrected outside of the misconduct

process. Retrospective review of the sort that might arise in ordinary litigation cannot fix the
problem. This complaint also supplies enough evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has
occurred by supplying records and evidence to the discrimination and retaliation that took place.
Investigation should determine whether the discriminatory practice telegraphed by the judges has
occurred and whether it is ongoing. Complainant avers, however, that such a finding is
unnecessary. That is because the mere existence of the policies is misconduct enough.
That misconduct should be remedied through termination of the discriminatory policies, pattern
and practice, published acknowledgment that such policies constitute judicial misconduct, and
provide a healing to show that the Court is open to all and that public confidence in the justice
system is an important aspect of the Judicial Branch.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
Page 25 of 30
EXHIBIT LIST
A Mark’s letter to the Chair of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee Hon Jeffery
Sutton.
B Judicial Conference Committee responding to Former Chief Judge Diane Wood related
to issue of pattern and practice discrimination against pro se litigants reported by
Former Judge Richard Posner. The allegations were never address to this very day i.e.,
7th Circuit staff attorneys destroying appeals with merits and treating pro se litigants
like trash.
C Complaint Pertaining to the threats made by Jim Richmond during a judicial
misconduct proceeding regarding fixing Mark’s appeal in Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) with future retaliation.
Page 26 of 30
CC
Via Electronic Mails
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

Chief of Staff for the President Deputy Chief of Staff for the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW bruce.n.reed@who.eop.gov
Washington, DC 20500
Jeffrey.D.Zients@who.eop.gov
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

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

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

White House Press Secretary
Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States Hon. Scott S. Harris
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543 SHarris@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
cthomas@supremecourt.gov kjackson@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
salito@supremecourt.gov ssotomayor@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
ekagan@supremecourt.gov ngorsuch@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
bkavanaugh@supremecourt.gov abarrett@supremecourt.gov
Page 27 of 30
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Joseph Biden potus@who.eop.gov // joe@joebiden.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr robert@teamkennedy.com
Donald J. Trump trump@donaldjtrump.com
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT
Chief Judge Diane Sykes chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov

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

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

Ms. Rhonda Johnson rhonda_johnson@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Clerk Thomas Bruton Thomas_Bruton@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Operation Supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker lorenzo_walker@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Assistant Operation Supervisor Mr. Travis Grammer travis_grammer@ilnd.uscourts.gov
HR. Director Ms. Michelle Hennings michelle_hennings@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF
Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce lyle_cayce@ca5.uscourts.gov

Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin melissa_shanklin@ca5.uscourts.gov
Page 28 of 30
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER
Mr. Michael Henry

Michael_Henry@ao.uscourts.gov
AO_OJI@ao.uscourts.gov
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

Inspector General of DOJ Director of the U.S. Marshals
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ronald.davis@usdoj.gov
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov
The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
ladon.reynolds@usdoj.gov
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief of Staff – Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff – Mark Wait
Page 29 of 30
The Honorable Ted Cruz The Honorable Josh Hawley

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

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

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

HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House
THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
President Ms. Maya Wiley wiley@civilrights.org

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

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

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

Executive Director Mr. Gene Hamilton gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
Page 30 of 30
EXHIBIT A
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 28, 2024
The Honorable John Roberts The Honorable Jeffery Sutton

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

Clerk of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Chamber Phone: (414) 727-6988
chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov
Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

Circuit Executive Deputy Circuit Executive
219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2780
Sarah_Schrup@ca7.uscourts.gov Alexander_Castaneda@ca7.uscourts.gov
The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

info@judiciary-dem.senate.gov whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 2157 Rayburn House Office Building
oversight.republicans@mail.house.gov oversight.democrats@mail.house.gov

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

Via Chief of Staff Mr. Matthew Klapper Acting Associate Attorney General
Matthew.b.Klapper@usdoj.gov Benjamin.Mizer@usdoj.gov
Page 1 of 50
The Honorable Mr. Corey Amundson The Honorable Mr. Jeffery Ragsdale
Chief of the Justice Department General Counsel of the Justice Department
Public Integrity Section Office of Professional Responsibility
corey.amundson@usdoj.gov Jeffrey.Ragsdale@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Ms. Rachel Rossi The Honorable Ms. Kristen Clarke
Director of the Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of the Justice
Office for Access to Justice Department, Civil Division
Rachel.Rossi@usdoj.gov kristen.clarke@usdoj.gov
AccesstoJustice@usdoj.gov
The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

Inspector General of the Justice Department FBI Deputy Director Mr. Paul Abbate
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov FBI Chicago Mr. Robert Wheeler
cawray@fbi.gov
pabbate@fbi.gov
rwwheeler@fbi.gov
Re: Jim Richmond of the 7th Circuit threatened Mark the Coptic during a judicial misconduct
proceeding related to his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-CV-03887)
being fixed pertaining to the Israeli Lobby Kenneth Marcus & the IHRA definition. The
7th Circuit’s fulfilled and completed the words of Jim Richmond and left a trail of
mistakes in a public order by redacting evidence and Senator Dick Durbin’s letter and
writing a fiction not from the case. Discrimination with Retaliation against a Coptic.
Re: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S. Code § 241.
Re: Former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s own words “they treat pro se like trash” &
“they destroy appeals with merits”. A whistleblower against his own colleagues. The
Judicial Conference Committee’s letter is disclosed herein responding at that time to
Chief Judge Diane Wood advising her “confidential internal communications” is their
choice to be kept confidential.
Re: The Judicial Conference Committee has a duty to reform and tell judges to change their
evil ways or this would not be a Court (7th Circuit) anymore which heals a society in
pain.
Dear Chair Honorable Jeffery Sutton,
My name is Mark Bochra, I am a Coptic.1 The founder of the Abraham Accord which brought
peace between Arabs and Israel through Jesus Christ, only when I took everyone back to the
origin; Genesis 16 “Children of Abraham” Ishmael and Isaac, the sons of Hagar and Sarah.
1
See Christian Coptic of Egypt http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/ see former president Donald Trump
“Global Coptic day” https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-global-
coptic-day-2020/ see also “who are the Coptic” https://twitter.com/philosproject/status/1267508827030802432
Page 2 of 50
I want to thank you for taking the time and reading this lengthy letter as the Chair of the Judicial
Conference Executive Committee and then discussing it with members of the Judicial
Conference Committee because it is the Judicial Conference Committee that has jurisdiction over
Circuit Courts’ and District Courts’ judges.
When a judge sins, the only venue is the system of “self policing” which across the years proved
according to many public reporting futile to bring any form of concrete reforms.2 However, that
doesn’t mean it is an obsolete process because just as there are evil judges, there are also good
judges or the parable of the unjust judge would not be told by Jesus Christ to the world and it is
the role of the good judges to tell evil judges to change their ways or leave the bench by passing
the baton to a new leaf.
Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told attendees of a conference in Chicago
focused on threats to the independence of the courts that it was “unimaginable that we
have a segment of our federal judiciary that's not subject to an ethics code.” “We've had
some judges who've been engaged in atrocious behavior, sexual assault, sexual
intimidation and other misconduct,” he said. “And many times we haven't been proactive
in punishing them and sanctioning them for what they've done.”3
Judge James Ho of the 5th Circuit decried what he called “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.4 Judge Ho also added.
Too many judges, he said, are motivated by personal achievement, social climbing, and
cowering to public dissent, as opposed to 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
and see https://twitter.com/BonnieCrombie/status/1399836386975535105 and see

https://twitter.com/BishBassilious/status/1399002658313175040
2
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pervasive-judicial-misconduct-raises-question-whos-charge-
here-2021-10-06/
3
See Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code | Reuters
4
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fifth-circuits-ho-calls-on-judges-to-embrace-harsh-criticism
Page 3 of 50
Oliver Wendell Holmes that one “could carve out of a banana a judge with more
backbone than that.”5
The role of a judge in a system of self-policing doesn’t only counts as a Jurist but also a manager
and an investigator and when the role changes to a manager and an investigator, it comes down
to either writing the truth or committing a cover up by tempering with the truth and the evidence.
Not only that, but what happens if the subjects of a judicial misconduct complaint were also
defendants in an appeal and both the judicial misconduct complaint and the appeal were fixed by
the same judges; now has the system rendered justice or even healed a society in pain or actually
corrupted the court’s official capacity by using their individual capacity.
The difference between merit-related vs. non-merit related to a ruling in a colloquial sense under
Rule 11(c)(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.6
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.7
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.
This is the story of today’s letter and in part how many judges of the 7th Circuit used the official
capacity of the Court while hiding their individual capacity motives; in that sense, they have
dishonored the court which they are employees of, destroyed public confidence in the federal
5
See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-james-ho-challenges-judges-accept-public-criticism
6
See all canons https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c
7
See page 12 in Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Guide, Vol. 2E, Ch. 3) (uscourts.gov)
Page 4 of 50
judicial branch which Chief Justice John Roberts always decries when he recites the
independence of the judicial branch claiming it is the bedrock of public confidence in the system
when the public confidence is at an all time low.8
I came across your name when I read the news reporting on “judge shopping” and your name
was recited as the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee Executive Committee. Certainly
Democrats were partially pleased while Republicans were not but overall people say judge
shopping were not addressed because it is always left to the discretion of the Circuit Courts to
adopt such policy; human love these terms: discretion, immunity, and so on.
o US federal judiciary adopts policy to curtail 'judge shopping'.9

o Law Professors Say Judicial Conference’s Guidance on Case Assignment Practices is
‘Toothless’.10
Before writing to you, I did a quick Google search of who is Judge Jeffery Sutton asking myself
“would he listen to Mark or would he ignore him?” “Would he say we have some serious
concerns raised in this letter or would he turn a blind eye to his colleagues’ sins and say “just
another one of those days”” So I went and looked at your Wikipedia biography page. 11 Then my
eyes were pleased with what I saw, then I went to search some of your lectures and speeches,
then my eyes were more pleased when you said “we need a culture where the majority looks for
the rights of the minorities” and you added “the culture should not be about looking for this
interest or that interest.”12 So now I found that I am speaking to a human first before being a
Judge and a Chair of the Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee.
Before I dive into the concerns of this letter, I want to tell you a simple story, how life was
formed, how humans sinned when they were tempted to having the knowledge of God of
knowing good and evil, and how the Lord, God brought a plan of salvation to the World through
Jesus Christ. So please bear with me and have wide ears for listening, and good eyes that sees,
and then decide afterward to speak the truth when you see evil even if it comes from “within” the
system that often speaks about justice while committing injustice.
The story of Adam and Eve is a story of what happens when humans sinned, in the beginning
God gave human everything, and immortality as well to live forever in the Garden of Eden by
eating from the tree of light. However, when the Serpent deceived Eve through introducing just
an idea “to eat from the forbidden fruit” then at that moment human were given the knowledge to
know good vs. evil by their own terms but in exchange they were casted out of Eden.
Now the Lord God said, “Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of
knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the
8
Now there is a website dedicated at reviewing all federal judges www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
9
See https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-federal-judiciary-adopts-policy-to-curtail-judge-shopping/ar-
BB1jMeeC?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0c843046a7ef49c19207323a8f57eedb&ei=11
10
See https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/03/19/law-professors-say-judicial-conferences-guidance-case-assignment-
practices-toothless/id=174436/
11
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sutton
12
See your lecture https://www.c-span.org/video/?455446-1/judge-jeffrey-sutton-city-club-cleveland
Page 5 of 50
Tree of Life and eat and live forever.” And the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of
Eden, to till the soil, whence he had been taken. And He drove the man out, and He
stationed from the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the revolving
sword, to guard the way to the Tree of Life [Genesis 3:22-24].
I. THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE: THE PARABLE OF GOD’S WORK
Now, the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host [Genesis 2].13 Now the Lord
God took the man, and He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it. And the
Lord God commanded man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. But of the
Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof,
you shall surely die.”
The Lord, God was so generous, that he created a partner for Adam, opposite of him ― And the
Lord God said, “It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him.”
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his
sides, and He closed the flesh in its place. And the Lord God built the side that He had taken
from man into a woman, and He brought her to man [Genesis 2:21-23].14 And they were both
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Why Lord? Because they knew no sin yet.15
The devil was not happy with what he saw, so he approached Eve to deceive her.16 Now the
serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said
13
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Genesis+2&version=NKJV&showVN=1
14
See https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Genesis+2%3A21-23&version=NKJV&showVN=1
15
See the scene https://youtu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=50
16
See the scene https://youtu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=100 . How could God be holy yet kind if he does not judge
mankind for their sins. So God created a path for salvation.
Page 6 of 50
to the woman, “Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?” And the
woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it,
lest you die.' “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that
in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and
evil.” The Journey of mankind defining good vs. evil started when humans defied God’s
command. 17
The Lord, God did not leave Adam and Eve but rather he judged them yet he gave them hope
because God loved mankind. It was never God’s desire to separate from those he created, yet,
how could God be Holy and the source of perfect justice if he did not judge mankind for their
sin. For God promised Eve salvation when he said ― and I shall place hatred between you and
between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and
you will bite his heel [Genesis 3:15].
Eve waited on God’s promise to her that through her seed she will be saved.
And now you see the Chaos dragon on Earth.18 All he has to do i.e., the “devil” is introduce ideas
to humans and watches humans fall into sins because his real purpose is to gain as many souls as
he could by expending his kingdom.19
17
See scenes https://youtu.be/B_FpV0CZjxY?t=116, https://youtu.be/o2sjOBiBXSc
18
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt08B4rm0qo
19
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w5749jLr5E&t=45s
Page 7 of 50
II. THE PARABLE BETWEEN THE STORY OF JONAH AND JESUS CHRIST
Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, until the Lord, God heard the voice
of Jonah’s prayers and fasting, and ordered the whale to eject Jonah from the whale’s belly and
onto the shore.
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, “Arise, go to
Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before
Me.” But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to
Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to
go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.
But the Lord sent out a great wind on the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea,
so that the ship was about to be broken up. Then the mariners were afraid; and every man
cried out to his god, and threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea, to lighten the
load. But Jonah had gone down into the lowest parts of the ship, had lain down, and was
fast asleep. So the captain came to him, and said to him, “What do you mean, sleeper?
Arise, call on your God; perhaps your God will consider us, so that we may not perish.”
And they said to one another, “Come, let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause
this trouble has come upon us.” So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah. Then they said
to him, “Please tell us! For whose cause is this trouble upon us? What is your
occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people
are you?” So he said to them, “I am a Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven,
who made the sea and the dry land.” Then the men were exceedingly afraid, and said to
him, “Why have you done this?” For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the
Lord, because he had told them.
Then they said to him, “What shall we do to you that the sea may be calm for us?”-- for the sea
was growing more tempestuous. And he said to them, “Pick me up and throw me into the sea;
then the sea will become calm for you. For I know that this great tempest is because of me.” So
they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. Then the
men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice to the Lord and took vows. Now the
Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Until, the Lord, God heard his
voice, Jonah did not eat for 3 days and 3 night and on the 3rd day he was freed from the belly of
the Whale and only then, he went to Nineveh, and the people of Nineveh heard God’s voice and
repented at the preaching of Jonah, the people of Nineveh are now Christians following Jesus
Christ, they are the Assyrians and in Isaiah 19:25 it says “Blessed is Assyrian, the work of my
hand” Just as in Isaiah 19:25 there is “Blessed is Egypt my people” and there is one last verse
left “Blessed is Israel my Inheritance.20
The parable between the story of Jonah and the story of Jesus Christ came to the Jewish people
when one day the Pharisees and teachers of religious laws responded to Jesus’s lesson by making
a simple request:
20
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15950/jewish/Chapter-19.htm#v25
Page 8 of 50
“Teacher we want you to show us a miraculous sign to prove your authority.”
They thought that for someone who said he was the son of God such a thing would be an easy
task. Jesus who had shown his authority and power over and over again by performing miracles
meant to help people not just give evidence to doubters rejected their request saying “only an evil
unfaithful generation would demand a miraculous sign. The only sign I will give you is the sign
of the Prophet Jonah.” The make sure everyone understood what he meant, he reminded them of
a part of Jonah’s epic story saying for as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days
and three nights, so will the son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three
nights.21
The parable of the story is that we all know that the Devil when he was outcaste from heaven
Lucifer, he was sent to the heart of the earth for that is why the Lord, Jesus Christ said “Satan is
the ruler of this world but I am not from this world.”22
In Eden, the garden of God you were; every precious stone was [set in] your covering;
ruby, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and crystal and
gold; the work of your drums and your orifices is in you; on the day of your creation they
were established. You were a cherub of great measure, that covers, and I gave that to you;
you were on the mount of the sanctuary of God: you walked among stones of fire
[Ezekiel 28:13-14].23
21
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHi9OSPfXGc see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7AiufhXms&t=273s
22
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWcOkuM3Rg see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w5749jLr5E&t=45s
23
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16126#v13
Page 9 of 50
Lucifer, Heylel was his real name, despite all the

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

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

PEOPLE FROM THE GENTILES IN AMERICA
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan spoke against “cancel culture” on both sides, left and right
by eloquently stating:
This nation can’t work unless people can talk with each other, try to understand each
other and learn with each other to work together across various disagreements for the
greater good.28
Cancel culture would conflate with any democratic nation, let alone in America, meaning
whoever holds the power, and whoever screams the louder, gets to cancel the other side, the
result is leading to a bankrupt society in terms of morals and values, the same was true in Plessy
27
See http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=Matthew+7&version=NKJV&btn=View&showVN=1
28
See Justice Elena Kagan and cancel culture - The Observer (ndsmcobserver.com)
Page 12 of 50
v. Ferguson (1896) which ruled “separated by equal” meaning for black students to be in black
schools and for white students to be in white schools, leading to injustice.
Many people and organization have written letters objecting to the IHRA definition for different
reasons, such as ACLU recent letter to the Department of Education.29
And more and more letters were written but only one person took the case to the Federal Court
because he knew the Israeli lobby and Kenneth Marcus, and that was Mark the Coptic in the
popular case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).30
But what happened next was how because of this case, Mark’s home became the first target, then
his place of work at Chicago Public School became the second target, then he himself was a
target.31 It didn’t stop there, a threat was told directly by a 7th Circuit Supervisor named Jim
Richmond related to how Mark’s appeal would be fixed and it happened during a judicial
misconduct ongoing proceedings, and the 7th Circuit fulfilled Jim Richmond’s threat by doubling
down on it when they fixed Mark’s appeal while leaving a trail of mistake in a public order.32
29
See https://www.aclu.org/documents/reject-definitions-of-anti-semitism-that-encompass-protected-speech
30
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60107808/bochra-v-us-department-of-education/
31
See Executive Committee Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-
Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
32 th
See 7 Circuit Order by the Court https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-1388/23-1388-
2024-02-27.html writing a fiction not from the case, even going in length not only redacting Kenneth Marcus
name, but Senator Durbin’s letter to the Department of Education, in order to change facts and fix the appeal, and
this is all in an official court public order. See https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-
Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education The 3 panel judges used the court official capacity
while they were acting in individual capacity based on personal motives unless this order was written by a staff
attorney and rubber stamped by the judges.
Page 13 of 50
inappropriate language he used) in DC.”
See Exhibit “A” related to Jim Richmond’s words and threat using both his official and
individual capacity. Referring to “we” and “Judges”. Such threatening words of future retaliation
would be considered “intimidating a witness”, “obstruction of justice”, “and “conspiracy against
rights 18 U.S. Code § 241” and much more.
Jim Richmond’s cell phone calling Mark after he knew Mark filed a second supplement.
I often say to find the truth:
“Look at who has power and how that power was used, for good or evil.” Then the truth
will be revealed.
C. JUDGE SHOPPING
When Democrats raised the issue of judge shopping, came the judicial conference committee and
tried to come up with a policy which limits judge’s shopping, in reality and in today’s world, so
long as judges are appointed by political parties, they answer the masters who brought them to
power. This was not how the founding fathers envisioned America.
The founding fathers envisioned that America should be raised on the teachings of Jesus Christ,
3 branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), all co-equal in power, all fact check each
other’s when another sins; see National Archives publishing the Doctrines of Jesus Compared
with Others, 21 April 1803 letter by Thomas Jefferson.34
33
34
See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-0002
Page 14 of 50
However, the reality now days is that judges gets lobbied with gifts and luxury trips, and they
often rule for the side that aligns with their views and political affiliations, whether they claim
they are Originalist, or Conservative, or Liberal and the word “justice” and “healing a society is
pain” is lost from their dictionary.
When Democrats raised the issue of Judge shopping and this came after my letters describing
how the Executive Committee did the judge shopping for my case. My case was assigned to a
Jewish Judge Robert Gettleman, not Judge Sara Ellis. When I started to ask the “why” I was
targeted but more discussion on that later on in this letter. The focus is now the Judge Shopping.
When the judicial Conference Committee came and listened to Democrats’ plea, the Republicans
became angry; now you see both leadership sending letters, each fighting with judges who they
Page 15 of 50
politically appoint to the bench. One side said “great job” and another side replied “stay away
from legislative matters; this is not your duty Judicial Conference Committee”.35
vs
The public said the new policy is “toothless”36 we often hear the words such as “public
confidence in the judicial branch” and “public trust” which are all terms created by humans but
did their work proved these spoken words?
35
See Democratic leadership announcement https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/after-
nearly-a-year-of-sounding-the-alarm-and-following-the-judicial-conference-heeding-his-call-majority-leader-
schumer-sends-new-letter-calling-for-immediate-adoption-of-new-policy-to-limit-dangerous-practice-of-judge-
shopping See Republican Leadership announcement https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-gop-
colleagues-to-judicial-conference-leave-legislating-to-congress/
36
See https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/03/19/law-professors-say-judicial-conferences-guidance-case-assignment-
practices-toothless/id=174436/
Page 16 of 50
D. BROWN VS BOARD OF EDUCATION (SEPARATED BUT EQUAL)
Humans, humans create rules and laws to rule over others; humans will create rules to enslave
others or come up with segregation by claiming “separate but equal”. “Separate but equal” refers
to the infamously racist decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that
allowed the use of segregation laws by states and local governments. The phrase “separate but
equal” comes from part of the Court’s decision that argued separate rail cars for whites and
African Americans were equal at least as required by the Equal Protection Clause. This was the
parable of the unjust judge for there were judges who saw “separate but equal” is in fact equality.
When judges ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) declaring “separate but equal” the vast majority
of the public pressure came from humans who were white and the Judges answered to power and
their wisdom was removed at that time and the issue was not the color but how Satan decided to
separate humans based on color, so he introduced the idea of the powerful to overrule the weak
because we all remember before segregation took place, there was the slave trade from Africa. 37
Following this decision, a monumental amount of segregation laws were enacted by state and
local governments throughout the country, sparking decades of crude legal and social treatment
for African Americans. The horrid aftermath of “separate but equal” from Ferguson was halted
by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where the Court said that separate
schools for African American students were “inherently unequal.”
37
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-culpable-were-dutch-jews-in-the-slave-trade/
Page 17 of 50
E. BOCHRA VS THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (JEWS AND GENTILES)
The same idea that was rejected by the Supreme Court “separate but equal” is now repeating in a
new form called the IHRA definition, promoted by the Israeli lobby in America which claim
Jews will have their own definition and the Gentiles will not be part of that definition. But not
only that, it adds something special by saying “Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” and already some
Jews in the far right circle Daily Wire claims saying “Christ is a King” is anti-Semitic.38
That same concept was repeated in (Genesis 16)39 between Sarah and Hagar “your son will not
have inheritance with my son” and so the children of Abraham were separated, Ishmael and Isaac
and the result was the birth of Islam in the 7th Century at the hands of a Christian Syriac Monk
named Bahira, the true father of Muhammad.40 See Exhibit “B” the true story of how God
blessed and judged at the same time, for humans to see the sin of fighting over status.
The question of this journey is while Mark tried to save the Jewish people from what Satan has
done to them because they do not hold the holy spirit, and while trying to help, every evil judge
Mark met in his journey from the Northern District of Illinois or the 7th Circuit went after Mark
and that is why this letter was written; Mark never had a normal litigation in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); his home was the first target, his place of work was
the second target, and he himself was the target by those who perverted justice for the sake of
what they desired and they rejected the truth and replaced it with lies.
The story is as follows:
What happens when a Coptic emails the entire Court’s Judges Courtroom Deputies
telling them he is looking for an angel not a judge when he files his lawsuit and hope to
find justice in the case related to the IHRA definition and the Israeli lobby; nothing at that
time happened to Mark the Coptic because Mark was speaking in the light before
everyone’s eyes with no fear; the Christian Judges, the Jewish judges, and the Atheist
judges all were aware of Mark. But then many demons were setting their eyes on Mark’s
lawsuit. What happened after Mark filed his lawsuit then came the Executive Committee
and granted a senior Jewish Judge recusal from the case i.e., Judge Robert Gettleman
who wasn’t able to render justice in this case but this was God’s choice for Mark and
then the Executive Committee replaced the senior Jewish judge with a junior Judge i.e.,
Judge Sara Ellis, at this point the Executive Committee did the judge shopping for Mark.
What happens when Mark tried to seek several reliefs trying to test the heart of Judge
Ellis but he could see she is on a mission to get destroy his case one way or another. Then
what happened after the courtroom deputy of Judge Ellis, she is Jewish and her name is
Rhonda Johnson, character lynched Mark with the Executive Committee because she
hated to hear the name Jesus Christ and Mark’s email was about Jesus Christ and his case
was also about Jesus Christ. Then what happened after Mark tried to vacate the Executive
Committee unjust administrative order, they later threatened him in a public order never
to speak about Jesus Christ again or else “they would retaliate” framing it under religious
38
See https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771798882260766825
39
See https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8211
40
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira
Page 18 of 50
or political materials. Then what happened after Mark continued to speak about Jesus
Christ, 2 month later Mark was targeted by the Executive Committee and at the same
time at Chicago Public School his place of work. Then what happened after Mark filed a
judicial misconduct complaint with the 7th Circuit, that same day in later hours Mark was
targeted at Chicago Public School in the most heinous way and all of this happened while
Mark was litigating his civil right case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-
03887) in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.41 Then what
happened when during the Judicial Misconduct proceedings a docket supervisor working
for the 7th Circuit under the name Jim Richmond threatened Mark about his case getting
fixed by referring to “we” and “Judges”. Then what happened when a Chief Circuit Judge
of the 7th Circuit destroys Mark’s judicial misconduct complaint saying she doesn’t
understand and later 16 more federal judges approved of the same, the judges of the 7th
Circuit Judicial Council. Then what happened when Mark had a case against the
Executive Committee in a form of appeal and the same judges involved in the judicial
misconduct proceedings came and fixed Mark’s appeal related to the executive
committee, they were not able to handle the truth so they ruled “oversized brief” and took
Mark’s paid appeal fee and destroyed his appeal with no sort of healing or mediation.42
What happened when Mark shared a copy of his judicial misconduct complaint in his
case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887) then came the Chief
District Judge and shut down the entire court, both the District and 7th Circuit and then
Mark’s judicial misconduct complaint was sealed ECF 78. What happened when Mark
asked the Court to unseal ECF 78, then came Judge Sara Ellis in ECF 102 saying “the
court can’t unseal something it didn’t seal.” Then what happened when Mark shared that
there is an ongoing case with OCR related to Chicago Public School and a petition with
the Judicial Conference Committee in ECF 103 Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education
(1:21-cv-03887) docketed November 30, 2022 and within 2 days Gary Feinerman a
former member of the Executive Committee tendered his immediate resignation to the
President on December 5, 2022.43 Gary Feinerman was the head planner who is linked to
Chicago Public School’s targeting. What happened after Mark saw all of this and saw
how many federal judges involved in such scandal decided to forgive everyone and move
to focusing on his case appeal brief related Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education
(1:21-cv-03887). What happened when the 7th Circuit fulfilled Jim Richmond’s threat
and they fixed Mark’s appeal even after Mark sought for appointment for outside circuit
judges and it was denied by the chief circuit judge who was the investigator in Mark’s
judicial misconduct complaint? What happened when the 7th Circuit using the Court’s
official capacity issued a public order while showing they tempered with the case facts
and wrote a fiction of facts not from the case, even went in length to redact Kenneth
Marcus name and Senator Dick Durbin’s letters to Secretary Besty Devos related to
Mark’s case.
41
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
42
A 124 page brief is procedural not jurisdiction subject to correction
https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-in-22-
1815-121-Cv-06223
43
Page 19 of 50
Mr. Frank Insalaco a good supervisor of the 7th Circuit, always told Mark “have faith in the
system, have faith in the process” but the judges of the 7th Circuit by their own hands, they fixed
Mark’s appeal to which Mr. Frank told Mark “the judges know what happened” whatever that
means.
Should Mark continue to trust the 7th Circuit process after he saw all of this? And the words of
the Deputy Circuit Executive Alex Castaneda who told Mark over the phone 312-435-5518 “all
the judges are professional; you shouldn’t worry about any retaliation.”
The final words of a good employee of the 7th Circuit were that “Mark they are more powerful
than I, my opinion doesn’t matter.” Mark replied “if they are powerful and evil, then we should
bring someone more powerful who would tell them to change their evil ways, which is the
Judicial Conference Committee.”
If the system of self policing turns the justice system into a jungle because a Judge is not just a
Jurist but a manager and an investigator and when the role changes to an investigator, things
changes like an investigator can’t temper with witnesses or the evidence, or can’t cover up the
crime of another, the role changes from a Jurist to an investigator.
Not every Jurist is a good manager.44
In February 2024, the Judicial Conference Committee released a 200 pages document under the
title “Digest of Authorities on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”.45 But how to turn these
200 pages released by the Judicial Conference Committee into a great oversight like how office
of inspector general at the justice department has oversight over federal employees.
Cover-up: Under Color of Law.
o Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Supervisor Indicted for Covering Up the Assault
of a Restrained Inmate.46
o Two Former Eastern Kentucky Correctional Officers Plead Guilty for Their Roles in
Assault of Restrained Inmate and Subsequent Cover-Up.47
44
See https://abovethelaw.com/2023/08/not-every-good-jurist-is-a-good-manager/
45
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/digest_of_authorities_judicial_conduct_and_disability.pdf
46
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-supervisor-indicted-covering-assault-
restrained-inmate
47
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-eastern-kentucky-correctional-officers-plead-guilty-their-roles-
assault
Page 20 of 50
Retaliation: The retaliation happened afterward.
o Findings of Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct by a then Senior FBI Official

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

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

Improper Purpose, Divulging Law Enforcement Sensitive Information to Unauthorized
Individuals, Providing Misleading Testimony, Providing False Information to the OIG,
Mishandling Classified Information, and Misusing Government Devices and his
Position.51
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Special Agent for Receiving Gifts from a Former FBI
Confidential Human Source, Using the Source after Deactivation, Protecting the Source
and the Source’s Illegal Business, Misusing FBI Assets for Personal Gain, Lack of
Candor, and Computer Security Policy Violations.52
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Official for Accepting Gifts From Members of the
Media and for Lack of Candor.53
o Findings of Misconduct by a Senior DOJ Official for Ethical Misconduct, Sexual Harass
ment, Sexual Assault, and Lack of Candor to the OIG.54
o Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Supervisory Special Agent for Making False
Representations, Working for an FBI Contractor, Accepting Gifts from an FBI Applicant,
Assisting the FBI Applicant in the Employment Selection Process, and Misusing a
Government Vehicle and Cell Phone.55
o Findings of Misconduct by a U.S. Marshal and Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for Harassing
and Making Retaliatory Statements About a Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal,
Retaliating Against Another Deputy U.S. Marshal for Filing a Grievance, and Lack of
Candor.56
48
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-findings-retaliation-and-unprofessional-conduct-then-
senior-fbi
49
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-finding-misconduct-then-assistant-united-states-
attorney-attempted
50
See https://oig.justice.gov/investigations/criminal_and_civil_cases and see
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/type/investigation
51
See https://web.archive.org/web/20190802015430/https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/f180430.pdf
52
53
54
55
56
See https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/f190219.pdf
Page 21 of 50
o Deputy U.S. Marshal Convicted of Conspiracy, Cyber stalking, Perjury, and

Obstruction.57
o FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During “Crossfire
Hurricane” Investigation.58
o Former Acting Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pleads
Guilty to Scheme to Defraud the U.S. Government.59
As inspector Michael Horowitz of the Justice Department stated to congress.60

“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.”
Operation Greylord.61
Retaliation for those who wield power is the norm.62
The issue of this unjust journey is that many took pleasure in people’s pain with the power given
to them from God; that is called a “sin”. They became the parable of the unjust judge.
57
See https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/3-24-2023.pdf
58
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-
crossfire-hurricane
59
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-acting-inspector-general-us-department-homeland-security-pleads-
guilty-scheme-defraud
60
See https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-horowitz-doj-inspector-general/2023/03/23/id/1113593/
61
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEky5sb_sJY
62
See https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/10/22/shocking-to-me-investigative-reporter-lise-olsen-
talks-new-book-about-judicial-misconduct/
Page 22 of 50
IV. CHIEF 7th CIRCUIT JUDGE DIANE SYKES: PROMISED HER COURT WOULD
BE FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION
When a pro se filed a serious judicial misconduct complaint and Mark is like no other, when he
files something, he makes sure he has enough evidence to establish what he is saying. But then
came the Chief Circuit Judge and said “she doesn’t understand the 88 pages judicial misconduct
complaint” as if the same judge don’t read briefs and issue long memorandums in different cases.
When some of Trump’s cabinet Stephen Miller founder of America First Legal filed a judicial
misconduct complaint, Judge Diane Sykes wasn’t able to say she doesn’t understand like how
she wrote in Mark’s complaint, rather she conducted a limited inquiry and to satisfy everyone,
the judges who were subject of the complaints rescinded their orders. Yet in Mark’s situation all
the orders that were built on discrimination with retaliation were never rescinded.63
Yes Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes promised her court would be free from discrimination.64
63
See order https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judicial-conduct/judicial-conduct_2024/07-24-90020-90019_90011-
90009_Memorandum_and_Order.pdf
64
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-judge-promises-no-bias-in-her-circuit-amid-gop-concerns
see https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-pledges-discrimination-free-courts-after-diversity-
policy-complaints-2024-02-27/
Page 23 of 50
vs
How Chief Judge Diane Sykes can say she doesn’t understand what is clear on the docket?
Page 24 of 50
The question here turns toward does the status of the person filing the complaint, makes the chief
judge care more about the complaint? Because this was how both the Judicial Watch and
America First Legal received public victory.65 They were able to force 3 federal judges, one of
them is a chief district judge to rescind an order and we all know the pride of the judge never to
say “I sinned” because as jesus Christ said “no one is righteous”. Go and sin no more, was the
video in the email that raged many judges of the executive committee.
And then came others and recited Justice Clarence Thomas video when he said “everyone should
be treated equally regardless of their race or idenity.”66
65
See https://aflegal.org/huge-victory-u-s-district-court-judges-rescind-discriminatory-policies-following-afls-
judicial-complaint/ see https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-council-vindicates-judicial-
misconduct-complaint-against-discriminatory-judges/ see https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/illinois-
federal-judges-rescind-diversity-policies-after-conservatives-complain-2024-03-22/
66
See https://twitter.com/MarkPaoletta/status/1771574434823893175
Page 25 of 50
Adam Mortar claims liberal judges does not mean to discriminate.67

67
See https://twitter.com/AdamMortara/status/1771166822651338765
Page 26 of 50
V. THE SINS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT LEADERSHIP: THEY TREAT PRO SE LIKE
TRASH AND EVEN DESTROY GOOD APPEALS WITH MERITS
Despite data showing that most of the Courts’ filings are by pro se litigants, yet many Courts
mistreat them, they measure a human status by wealth, the lawyers in the case, the law firms’
reputations, and the power that is brought before the Courts by different means like lobbying.
Date shown by the Judicial Branch.68

Here are few examples:
1. Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time’.69
2. The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly.70
3. Posner’s new book is bananas, but you might want it anyway.71
4. Letter from the Judicial Conference Committee to the 7th Circuit.72
In the book of “Helping the Helpless” Judge Richard Posner, a whistleblower against his own
colleagues reported that the 7th circuit would destroy good appeals with merit.
These allegations by itself would violate Judge’s canon 3.74
standards:
Chief Justice John Roberts often used the words “public trust” and “public confidence” but who
watches the watchers? A latin for “who will guard the guards themselves?” Generally used to
68
See https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/02/11/just-facts-trends-pro-se-civil-litigation-2000-2019
69
See Posner: Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' (abajournal.com)
70
See The Seventh Circuit's War With Judge Posner Really Escalated Quickly - Above the Law
71
See https://web.archive.org/web/20180817030918/ca3blog.com/judges/posners-new-book-is-bananas-but-
you-might-want-it-anyway/
72
See Confidential_Court_Materials.pdf (google.com)
73
See https://www.amazon.com/Helping-Helpless-Justice-Company-Handbook/dp/1721263225
74
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Page 27 of 50
describe a situation in which a person or body having power to supervise or scrutinize the actions
of others, is not itself or themselves subject to supervision or scrutiny.
And many more reported Federal Judicial Misconducts, some are civil and others are criminal
and the words of Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton came to many:
Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told attendees of a conference in Chicago
focused on threats to the independence of the courts that it was “unimaginable that we
have a segment of our federal judiciary that's not subject to an ethics code.” “We've had
some judges who've been engaged in atrocious behavior, sexual assault, sexual
intimidation and other misconduct,” he said. “And many times we haven't been proactive
in punishing them and sanctioning them for what they've done.”75
1. Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who's in charge here?76

2. U.S. Justice Dept sued over records about complaints against federal judges.77
3. A Chief Federal Judge Arrested in FBI Sting Involving Guns, Drugs, Stripper.78
4. Court to investigate leaked survey alleging misconduct among judges.79
5. Ex-Magistrate Judge’s 16-Year Career Marked By Manipulation, ‘Unpredictable and
Hypercritical Outbursts’: Judicial Council.80
“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.
75
See Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code | Reuters
76
here-2021-10-06/
77
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-justice-dept-sued-over-records-about-complaints-against-
federal-judges-2022-10-06/ see ongoing case CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1:22-cv-03025) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65405045/citizens-for-
responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-v-us-department-of/
78
See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-arrested-in-fbi-sting-involving-guns-drugs-stripper/
79
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/dc-court-survey-leak-investigation/
80
See https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/ex-magistrate-judges-16-year-career-marked-by-manipulation-
unpredictable-and-hypercritical-outbursts-judicial-council/
Page 28 of 50
A. THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGE: GO AND SIN NO MORE
Mark the Coptic, although a pro se but he brought to the court a strong case in Bochra v. U.S.
Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887); the case of the IHRA definition but many humans,
sadly called judges, targeted Mark over this case. The prime suspect is Gary Feinerman who
resigned.81 Yet Mark had a kind heart to forgive their sins and try to focus on his case.
81
Page 29 of 50
What happened next is that Mark’s appeal with the 7th Circuit related to the Executive
Committee wasn’t the only appeal that was fixed, but also his appeal related to the Department
of Education.
After Mark’s Judicial Misconduct complaint was destroyed by the 7th Circuit judges when all of
them claimed they don’t understand. The same judges involved in the judicial misconduct
proceedings returned in the appeal 22-1815 and fixed the appeal as “oversize brief” which is
procedural not jurisdiction subject to correction. But the scandal surrounding how a Coptic was
targeted, from his home to his place of work at Chicago public school, would prove a much
higher level of evil has taken over the Court.82
So Mark forgave everything and started to focus on his case Bochra v. U.S. Department of
Education (1:21-cv-03887) while he knew the threatening words of Jim Richmond telling ho
how the Judges will fix his appeal.83 Jim Richmond used the words “we” and “all the judges will
get angry” during an actual judicial misconduct proceeding.
inappropriate language he used) in DC.”
There was a file petition for review with the Judicial Conference Committee.85
What happened next is despite Mark well written brief and reply brief using the 7th Circuit many
Judges’ own words and ruling in different cases, the Court’s official capacity was used to render
82
See Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-
Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
83
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717275139/Judicial-Misconduct-Reporting-Jim-Richmond-of-the-7th-
Circuit
84
85
See petition https://www.scribd.com/document/717277165/Petition-for-Review-with-Judicial-Conference-
Committee
Page 30 of 50
an order that was filled with false facts not from the case in order to destroy the appeal. 86 For
instance, the very first line of the order that claim no oral argument is needed because the record
is clear, came and later wrote false record by claiming “Mark lawsuit the Department of
Education because they refused the investigate his complaint for discrimination.”87
But that wasn’t my case facts, the department of education was investigating Mark’s complaint,
spent 2 years in resolution agreement with recipient, if the recipient failed to sign the agreement,
the next step was enforcement action i.e., hand the case to the Justice Department.
But writing these facts and getting into why Mark’s case was tempered with and destroyed
would reveal Kenneth Marcus, the Israeli lobby, and the journey of Mark related to Kenneth
Marcus and the IHRA definition. The 7th Circuit judges’ main goal was to fix Mark’s case, so
they had to alter the facts of the case record. They even went in length to erase Senator Dick
Durbin’s letter to the Department of Education.88
86
See brief https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-
Coptic-in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223 and reply brief https://www.scribd.com/document/717274464/Bochra-v-U-S-
Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-Reply-Brief
87
88
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712046044/Senator-Dick-Durbin-Letter-related-to-Bochra-v-U-S-
Page 31 of 50
Even though Mark asked for appointment of outside circuit judges citing the same case law
justice department lawyers cited in different cases when they seek recusal of judges.89
Now the question that is often asked is not whether judges will be bias when it comes to
their rulings but rather whether well-informed observer might question the 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.
But the Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, who was an investigator in Mark’s judicial misconduct
complaint, returned and said “denied”.90
B. OPERATION GREYLORD: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITY/STATE AND

FEDERAL JUDGES
The only cases where federal judges were charged with corruption, in the entire history of
America, were two popular cases United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1131 (7th Cir. 1974)
and United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 707 (11th Cir. 1982).91 After this, the system turned
to “please and get pleased” a form of quid pro quo wherein, the Judicial Branch would often
please the Executive Branch and vise versa.
So when sins like these appeared to the public eyes, nothing happened.
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest.92
89
See filed motion https://www.scribd.com/document/717280569/Motion-to-Reconsider-Outside-Circuit-Judges-
in-Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education
90
See https://www.scribd.com/document/717282409/Chief-Judge-Diane-Sykes-Order-in-Bochra-v-U-S-
91
See https://cite.case.law/f2d/493/1124/?full_case=true&format=html see
https://cite.case.law/f2d/681/706/?full_case=true&format=html
92
See https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-
financial-interest-11632834421
Page 32 of 50
When FBI Operation Greylord took place, it wanted to send a message to all the judges in the
city court not to fix cases but to render justice, you can show mercy but render justice meaning
healing a society in pain not for who pays more. 93
What was really unique about this case is that a 7th Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, gave a city judge
2 more years on top of 10 years in prison not showing mercy in order to tell him “what you did
was wrong, lying to a grand jury and committing a cover up is wrong” However, her own court,
the 7th Circuit does the same exact thing, even worse, they fix pro se litigant cases and the
whistleblower is Judge Richard Posner.
Judge Ilana Rovner appeared in Mark’s both appeals, the Executive Committee and the
Department of education.
93
See https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/operation-greylord see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEky5sb_sJY
Page 33 of 50
C. THE PARABLE OF JUDGE ILANA ROVNER: FEDERAL VS CITY JUDGES
IMPRISONED EX-JUDGE GETS 2 MORE YEARS FOR PERJURY.
A federal judge added 2 years prison time to the 10-year sentence that former Judge John
Reynolds is serving, explaining that she wanted to send a message to anyone thinking
about lying under oath.
U.S. District Court Judge Ilana Rovner said “if ever there were a situation something
must be understood by someone who contemplates not being truthful in similar
situations, this is the one.”
Reynolds, a former associate judge, pleaded guilty earlier this year to lying to the federal
grand jury investigating judicial corruption in Cook County Circuit Court. He already is
serving a 10-year prison sentence at a Texas prison for his conviction in the Operation
Greylord investigation.
Reynolds was convicted in 1986 of taking bribes while sitting in Traffic Court and
Misdemeanor Court. He pleaded guilty to lying when he testified before a grand jury that
he had no knowledge of Traffic Court judges receiving bribes.94
Was this the parable of the unjust judge? Jesus Christ would say “no one is righteous”. Yet the
same judge who judged a City Judge, her court, the 7th Circuit did the same exact thing against
the weak and even worst. Would she tell her colleagues that they sinned?95
Before Judge Rovner took senior status, she copied Chief District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer on
her letter. They are friends after all but Mark the Coptic is not a friend but let me share with you
one dream Mark had related to Judge Rovner.96
One night Mark had a weird dream, it was brief but weird, he was in a rich castle, and he
saw Judge Ilna Rovner coming down the stairs and while she was coming down the
stairs, there was Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer along with more judges and they told her
“what is he doing here?” Judge Rovner replied “I invited Mark” Then I woke up.
94
See https://www.chicagotribune.com/1988/06/28/imprisoned-ex-judge-gets-2-more-years-for-perjury/
95
See https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/rovner-first-woman-judge-7th-circuit-take-senior-status-2024-
01-12/
96
See https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrkjzyope/01122024rovner_letter.pdf
Page 34 of 50
If the Judicial Conference Committee paid attention to the news and the public, they would find
a different reality, judges don’t like employees to report them for misconduct, if employees fear
Judges, then what would pro se litigants do when they report the same?
1. Court to investigate leaked survey alleging misconduct among judges.97

2. Fear of Retaliation Silences Law Clerks—Employers Should Speak Up.98
3. American Bar Association 2023: See misconduct? Here’s what to do next.99
In a 319 pages, summary report against Judge Newman, in it they wrote how she wanted to use
law enforcement to retaliate against a clerk.100
97
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/dc-court-survey-leak-investigation/
98
See https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fear-of-retaliation-silences-law-clerks-employers-should-
speak-up
99
See https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2023/08/see-misconduct-what-to-do/
100
See report July 31, 2023 Report and Recommendation.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Page 35 of 50
The judicial assistant who received the late-night calls was given permission to work
outside Newman’s chambers. Newman’s reaction was to threaten to have the assistant
forcibly removed from the building and arrested, the report said. The judicial assistant
took on a new assignment, taking his computer with him as is the standard practice.
Newman was convinced the computer had been stolen, the report said.
Certainly the Judicial Misconduct Proceeding is not liked by many.
The public should not fear Judges retaliating against them; the role of any judge after all is to
heal a society in pain. Not to please the powerful and ignore the weak. If one wants to find the
truth and the heart of good judges “look at who has power and how that power was used when
cameras are off and no one is looking.”
VI. BOCHRA VS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: KENNETH MARCUS
Mark read the Federalist papers and it speaks in part about the “dangers from foreign force and
influence.”101 This is precisely the situation wherein some people wanted to change the
foundation of America “Doctrines of Jesus Compared with others, 21 April 1803”.102
First came Kenneth Marcus and used a definition IHRA without congress permission, he use it in
Zoa’s appeal case, personally granting it. No need to recite all the facts, one can read docket 54
in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887).103
Then when Mark reported Kenneth Marcus acting on behalf of Israel as a foreign agent to senior
DOJ officials, the nexat day after Mark’s emails came another Jewish man Rod Rosenstein and
changed the DOJ manual and he added the following under “disclosure of foreign influence
operations”
Foreign influence operations will be publicly identified as such only when the
Department can attribute those activities to a foreign government with high confidence.
Disinformation or other support or influence by unknown or domestic sources not acting
on behalf of a foreign government is beyond the scope of this policy.
101
See https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
102
See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-0002
103
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712044633/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-
The-Case-of-the-IHRA-definition
Page 36 of 50
Turning any domestic reporting moot and not taken into consideration but he did it after the
fact.104 Meaning Rod Rosenstein covered up for Kenneth Marcus’s crime after the fact, after
Mark’s reporting him to senior DOJ officials.
Kenneth Marcus and Rod Rosenstein both resigned from their official duties but they kept their
status and one covered for the other.105
But not only that, Rod Rosenstein was the acting attorney general who was tasked to responding
to the house republicans subpoenas requests. Look at the debate and within the debate he
appointed US Attorney John Lausch to handle the document production.106
Now look at God’s work, Mr. Lausch the US attorney for the Northern District of IL, knew Mark
from the past, reading his letters to President Trump, and when Biden won the presidency, Biden
fired all US Attorney but kept two US Attorneys, John Lausch was one of the two who stayed.107
104
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-rollout-updated-united-states-attorneys-
manual and see https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.730
105
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/kenneth-marcus-steps-down-from-us-education-department/ and see
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-to-resign-may-11 ,
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/videos/news/2019/04/18/he-being-held-hostage-twitter-erupts-over-
rosensteins-stare-barr-spoke/3512554002/
106
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBeDM3iQQME&t=131s
Page 37 of 50
Mr. Lausch was the US Attorney for the Northern District of IL, he knew about Kenneth Marcus
but no one can investigate Kenneth Marcus without an ok from DOJ HQ. Mr. Lausch knew also
of Mark’s case Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). When Mark’s home
was targeted by the Executive Committee and later his place of work, they too tried to turn Mark
from a Complainant into a Respondent. When Mark reached out to FBI director Wray via email,
that same day John C. Kocoras resigned September 14, 2022.108
A.THE DANGER OF THE IHRA DEFINITION IN AMERICA
First came the cancel culture and they tried to cancel Candace Owns, then a Jewish man calling
himself a rabbi started to tell Owens on live TV “passion of the Christ” is anti-Semitic.109 Then
another at the daily wire started to say, saying “Christ is a king” is anti-Semitic.110 Now you see
the start of the sort of speech being used as a sort of oppression by the Israeli lobby.
Pay close attentions to Mark’s lawsuit wherein, he noted Kenneth Marcus granted ZOA’s appeal
using the IHRA definition. ZOA is a registered foreign lobby for Israel. 111 Zoa’s founder Mort
Klein is a close friend to Kenneth Marcus and takes money from Qatar.112
107
See https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/2/9/22274472/us-attorney-chicago-john-lausch-durbin-
duckworth-biden-federal-prosecutor-northern-kinzinger-gop
108
See https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/first-assistant-united-states-attorney-john-c-kocoras-depart-us-
attorney-s-office
109
See https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1769919495869735126
110
See https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771798882260766825
111
See https://www.israellobby.org/zoa/DOJ-149-1603-ZOA/default.asp
112
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/qatar-used-pro-israel-businessman-to-pay-zionist-group-100000-report/
Page 38 of 50
While it was Israel that fed Hamas to destroy the Palestinians, this is coming straight from
former prime minister of Israel.113
Mark sought an injunction against the IHRA definition but came every evil judge and targeted
Mark for reasons they only can confess to it because of their hearts, even though Mark’s journey
was innocent and saving the Jewish people from what Satan is doing to them. Often people want
to see the result of IHRA, well the result of IHRA in America is destruction not healing.
The issue now is that the 7th Circuit joined in the evil and tried to fix Mark’s case according to
the threats of Jim Richmond, and that made them an accomplice in a matter that they should
render justice in it, after all this is their duty.
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently.114
standards.
Corrupting the process then tell you if you don’t like it go to the next step i.e., the Supreme
Court. Is destroying “justice” by creating their own version of laws yet the same judges who
corrupted the process would not accept the same treatment on themselves in a judicial
misconduct proceeding. Yet some staff at the 7th Circuit see the sins of the leadership but can’t
say much telling Mark “they are more powerful”.
113
See https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1772629541946597838 see
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-israel-mossad-chief-
doha-qatar-continue-hamas-gaza-money-transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000
114
See https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d
Page 39 of 50
As you see below, this is a law under the IHRA definition. Which the definition already says
“Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ”. Now they are claiming the movie “passion of Christ” is anti-
Semitic.
See also Shmuley, everyone told him to stop, even other Jews, he never stopped, he is a member
of the Israeli lobby. He calls himself a Rabbi.
https://twitter.com/RabbiShmuley/status/1771738639690608641
https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1771744778536784178
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1771747229755208165
https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1771521975489278358
B. EQUITY VS EQUALITY: PRESIDENT BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDER 14091
When equality is denied, equity is another approach to reach a fair resolution toward healing a
society in pain; it can also be called “restorative justice”. Although biblically “restorative justice”
has a very deep meaning.115
115
See https://youtu.be/A14THPoc4-4?si=DoZh39_qHmT0RVn-
Page 40 of 50
Equity means as follows, equality when it is related to minority groups are often denied for many
due to social structure, lack of money to afford a good education, or lack of connections to
secure a good paying job and the list goes on and on. In God’s eyes every human being is treated
equally before God because humans were created on “God’s Image” White, Black, Arabs, Jews,
Asians and so on. But we all know that minority in any nation are not treated equally, meaning
Christians of the East are often persecuted and not given the right to self determination because
they live in an area predominantly with many Arabs and the main religion is Islam; the kings of
these nations use Islam to rule multitudes and we’ve all seen the data released by “open doors”
including the state department yearly enclosed report on the middle-east.116
These are the areas were Christians are mostly persecuted with a concentration in the middle-
east.
The Biden administration came in an executive order 14091 and said minority groups will have
their chances in life through equity, meaning in education, in employment, in housing, and in the
justice system. The idea behind it is to reach equality by giving opportunity to many rather than
the few.
o Justice Department Releases Update to Equity Action Plan.117

o FACT SHEET: U.S. Department of Education Releases 2023 Update to Equity Action
Plan, Outlines New Commitments to Advance Equity.118
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today released its 2023 Update to its Equity
Action Plan, in coordination with the Biden-Harris Administration’s whole-of-government
116
See https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/
117
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-update-equity-action-plan
118
See https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-us-department-education-releases-2023-update-
equity-action-plan-outlines-new-commitments-advance-equity
Page 41 of 50
equity agenda. This Equity Action Plan is part of the Department’s efforts to implement the
President’s Executive Order on “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government,” which reaffirmed the
Administration’s commitment to deliver equity and build an America in which all can
participate, prosper, and reach their full potential.The Department believes that our nation’s
future is brighter when we provide every student and every community with equitable access
to an academically rigorous, well-rounded education in a safe and inclusive school. We are
answering President Biden’s call to prioritize equity across government by working
intentionally to ensure our policies, grants, and programs address longstanding disparities in
education still faced by underserved students, families, and communities.
The Justice Department announced today the release of its 2023 Equity Action Plan (Plan),
which is part of the Department’s broader efforts to implement President Biden’s Executive
Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
through the Federal Government. The update to the Justice Department’s Equity Action Plan
was finalized in December 2023 and will help guide the Department’s equity strategies in
Fiscal Year 2024. The Plan memorializes the Department’s commitment to aiding all people
– including historically marginalized and underserved communities – in accessing the
Department’s programs and resources, navigating complex legal and regulatory hurdles to
vindicate their rights, understanding the breadth of the Department’s work, and meaningfully
engaging with Justice Department decision-makers.
CONCLUSION
Often the simplest answer is the right answer, Jesus Christ came to this world teaching the
parable in simple form but humans complicate everything; as I often said “there are people who
find a solution to every problem, and there are people who find a problem to every solution.”
The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand but we listen to reply.
Many can read all the Judges reviews on the Robin Rooms, some are great while others are
terrible.119
Congress delegated the power of a judge to be a Jurist, a manager, and an investigator. Once a
Judge steps into the field of an investigator and commits a cover-up or tempers with the evidence
during a judicial misconduct proceeding to benefit another, the judge becomes an employee of
the court who commits a cover up just like any other federal employee.
It is a sin to target the weak then watches their reaction to the pain they inflicted upon them;
when judges do this with intent and malice, it corrupt the justice system. Something the
Department of Justice has warned about it.120
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,
119
See http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx
120
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-dear-colleague-letter-courts-regarding-fines-
and-fees-youth-and
Page 42 of 50
religion, sex and disability; to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited
English proficiency; and to ensure that appropriate recordkeeping can help identify and
avoid potential violations of federal nondiscrimination laws. The department will also
follow up on this letter by building a best practices guide, highlighting innovative work
by states and court leaders in this area.
“Justice in the United States should not depend on one’s income or background,” said
Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. “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.”
Here is one example out of many.121
You need an agreement of “2 or more to do a certain crime” whether civil deprivation or

criminal and you don’t need to prove “intent” only an agreement is needed, and you don’t need
to prove the agreement but look at the circumstantial evidence.122 Deprivation of Rights under
Color of Law.123 See also 18 U.S. Code § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.
The link to what happened to Mark at Chicago Public School is the resigned Judge Gary
Feinerman124; he resigned immediately after Mark shared that he has an ongoing OCR complaint
121
See https://oig.justice.gov/news/press-release/deputy-us-marshal-indicted-and-arrested-conspiracy-cyber-
stalking-and-perjury
122
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hC-LyNdkc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeMt5rfzg0
123
See https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
124
Page 43 of 50
against Chicago Public School in docket 103 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-
cv-03887).125
None of this was ever a coincidence. First attempt started April 1st 2022.
The cover up story
Then one could see the 2nd attempt and the after chain of events.
The Judicial Misconduct complaint was delivered on June 10, 2022 at 10:26 a.m. and Mr. B was
character lynched at CPS that same day on June 10, 2022 at 1:46 pm and many shouted within
their hearts “lynch him now! Now or never.”
125
See https://www.scribd.com/document/712044633/Bochra-v-U-S-Department-of-Education-1-21-cv-03887-
The-Case-of-the-IHRA-definition
Page 44 of 50
Mark had the timeline but he wanted the evidence.
Mark now has the evidence of what happened and handed it to OCR and senior DOJ officials. It
was the Lord, God who brought the evidence to Mark after 2 years. Just as he said it that God
will reveal the truth in the time he wants.
Back then Chief Judge Diane Sykes said “she doesn’t understand.” While everyone took pleasure
in Mark’s pain even when Mark asked for mediation and healing constantly, in both the judicial
misconduct proceeding, and the appeal related to the Executive Committee.126
It is a greater sin for Judges to take pleasure targeting the weak and then say “look, look how he
is reacting.” The story started with Ms. Rhonda Johnson who hated the name Jesus Christ.
o Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who’s in charge here?127
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Bochra
126
See https://www.scribd.com/document/716159090/Brief-Related-to-The-Executive-Committee-and-a-Coptic-
in-22-1815-121-Cv-06223
127
here-2021-10-06/
Page 45 of 50
EXHIBIT LIST
A Complaint Pertaining to the threats made by Jim Richmond during a judicial

misconduct proceeding regarding fixing Mark’s appeal in Bochra v. U.S. Department
of Education (1:21-cv-03887) with future retaliation.
B The story of Ishmael, the son of Hagar. How Islam was created by a Christian Syriac
Monk fulfilling Genesis 16.
C Copy of Mark’s recently filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint.
Page 46 of 50
CC
Via Electronic Mails
THE WHITE HOUSE
The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

Chief of Staff for the President Deputy Chief of Staff for the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW bruce.n.reed@who.eop.gov
Washington, DC 20500
Jeffrey.D.Zients@who.eop.gov
The Honorable Jen O'Malley Dillon The Honorable Michael C. Donilon

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

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

White House Press Secretary
Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States Hon. Scott S. Harris
1 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543 SHarris@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas The Honorable Justice Ketanji B. Jackson
cthomas@supremecourt.gov kjackson@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito The Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor
salito@supremecourt.gov ssotomayor@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Elan Kagan The Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
ekagan@supremecourt.gov ngorsuch@supremecourt.gov
The Honorable Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh The Honorable Justice Amy Barrett
bkavanaugh@supremecourt.gov abarrett@supremecourt.gov
Page 47 of 50
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Joseph Biden potus@who.eop.gov // joe@joebiden.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr robert@teamkennedy.com
Donald J. Trump trump@donaldjtrump.com
MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT
Chief Judge Diane Sykes chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov

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

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

Ms. Rhonda Johnson rhonda_johnson@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Clerk Thomas Bruton Thomas_Bruton@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Operation Supervisor Mr. Lorenzo Walker lorenzo_walker@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Assistant Operation Supervisor Mr. Travis Grammer travis_grammer@ilnd.uscourts.gov
HR. Director Ms. Michelle Hennings michelle_hennings@ilnd.uscourts.gov
5th CIRCUIT STAFF
Clerk Ms. Lyle W. Cayce lyle_cayce@ca5.uscourts.gov

Administrative Assistant Ms. Melissa Shanklin melissa_shanklin@ca5.uscourts.gov
Page 48 of 50
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER
Mr. Michael Henry

Michael_Henry@ao.uscourts.gov
AO_OJI@ao.uscourts.gov
DOJ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. MARSHALS
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz The Honorable Ronald L. Davis

Inspector General of DOJ Director of the U.S. Marshals
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ronald.davis@usdoj.gov
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov
The Honorable LaDon A. Reynolds

Director of U.S. Marshals of the
Northern District of Illinois
ladon.reynolds@usdoj.gov
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief of Staff – Drew Brandewie Chief of Staff – Mark Wait
Page 49 of 50
The Honorable Ted Cruz The Honorable Josh Hawley

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

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

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

HOUSE SPEAKER
The Honorable Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House
THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
President Ms. Maya Wiley wiley@civilrights.org

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

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

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

Executive Director Mr. Gene Hamilton gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
Page 50 of 50
EXHIBIT B
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
October 11, 2017
STATEMENT ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT MATERIALS
All members of the legal profession are familiar with the responsibility to keep
certain matters confidential. Model Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association’s Rules of
Professional Conduct, which have been adopted in each of the three states of the Seventh
Circuit, governs the duty to maintain confidences of a current client; Rule 1.18 addresses
prospective clients; and Rule 1.9(c)(2) covers prior representations. See Model Rules of
Prof’l Conduct (Am. Bar Ass’n 2016); ILCS S. Ct. Rules of Prof. Conduct (2017); 34 Ind.
Admin. Code (West 2017); Wis. Stat. Ann. SCR 20 (West 2017). Although the courts in the
Seventh Circuit are committed to providing an explanation, in the form of an opinion or
order, for all of their decisions, that does not mean that all materials within the court are
open to the public. To the contrary, just as the Executive Branch enjoys a deliberative-
process privilege, the Judiciary requires comparable rules to assure confidentiality of the
internal deliberations among judges that occur before a decision is issued. These rules are
especially important for any multi-member panel, whether the en banc court of appeals,
a normal panel of three judges, or a statutory three-judge court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
Both judges and non-judicial employees of the Judiciary have this duty. For the
latter, it is reflected in Canon 3D of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, which
provides in relevant part as follows:
A judicial employee should never disclose any confidential information

received in the course of official duties except as required in the
performance of such duties, nor should a judicial employee employ such
information for personal gain. A former judicial employee should observe
the same restrictions on disclosure of confidential information that apply to
a current judicial employee, except as modified by the appointing authority.
1
Although the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is written in less direct terms, it
too prohibits the disclosure of internal, deliberative materials. Because of its greater
generality, however, Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the Seventh Circuit asked the Judicial
Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct to clarify the scope of a judge’s duty. The
Committee responded on August 7, 2017. It ended its response by noting that, “[a]s the
recipient of this letter, you may use it as you please.”
Had Chief Judge Wood wished to keep the letter confidential, she could have done
so. The Committee provides confidential ethics advice to judges and judicial employees
upon request, and does not make the response public but leaves it to the discretion of the
recipient to use the advice as he or she deems appropriate. This letter, however, is of
general importance and interest, not only to the members of the judiciary in the Seventh
Circuit but also to the public at large. It helps to explain what is, and what is not, public;
it sheds light on matters that might be relevant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability
norms; and it provides guidance to past, present, and future members of the Judicial
Branch. It is therefore being posted to the Seventh Circuit’s public website so that all
interested persons can benefit from the Committee’s advice.
Diane P. Wood
Chief Judge
2
COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT
OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

600 GRANBY STREET, ROOM 358
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510-1915
JUDGE REBECCA BEACH SMITH Tel (757) 222-7001

CHAIR Fax (757) 222-7021
REBECCA_SMITH_COCC@VAED.USCOURTS.GOV
JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK
JUDGE JAMES O. BROWNING
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
JUDGE RALPH R. ERICKSON
JUDGE THOMAS B. GRIFFITH
JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD
JUDGE ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN
JUDGE BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE
JUDGE TANYA M. WALTON PRATT
JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL ROBERT P. DEYLING
JUDGE RICHARD G. TARANTO COUNSEL
JUDGE WILLIAM T. THURMAN Tel (202) 502-1100
JUDGE MARC T. TREADWELL Fax (202) 502-1033
JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ROBERT_DEYLING@AO.USCOURTS.GOV
August 7, 2017
Honorable Diane P. Wood

Chief Judge
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2688
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: Docket No. 2563
Dear Chief Judge Wood:
Thank you for your inquiry. The Committee on Codes of Conduct (the
“Committee”) is pleased to respond. This response is advisory only and based solely
on the judgment of the Committee members. Many of the proscriptions in the Code
of Conduct for United States Judges (the “Code”) are cast in general terms, and the
Code is “to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of
judges in making judicial decisions.” Commentary to Canon 1.
I.
You have requested a formal opinion on a problem that has arisen in your
circuit, which problem concerns the responsibility of a judge to maintain the
confidentiality of internal court documents, including documents that relate to the
deliberative process. The types of documents you reference include bench
memoranda prepared for a panel of three appellate judges; draft opinions; oral or
written materials from post-argument case conferences; and materials that appear
only on the court’s internal docket, as opposed to its public docket (whether because
of sealing or other reasons to keep the information confidential).
More specifically, your inquiry states that an appellate judge in your circuit is
in the process of completing a book on the institution of the Staff Attorney’s Office
in the federal courts of appeal. The book is expected to be published in the fall of this
year, and you indicate that the authoring judge will be entitled to collect royalties.
Your understanding is that the book will pay special attention to the Staff Attorney’s
Office in your circuit, but that it will also contain information about many of the
other circuits’ offices. You include in your inquiry a description of the book in
question, which description was written by the authoring judge. You identify the
following excerpt from the description and note your concern, in particular, with the
italicized language:
The book contains very detailed critiques of a number of

bench memos and draft orders by our current staff
attorneys, who are in fact [a] mixed lot—some very good,
some handicapped by not being able to write clearly.
Neither peer review nor supervisory staff attorney review
is adequate, and your decision on filling the supervisory
staff attorney vacancies will be a critical one.
You state you have already informed the authoring judge that he is not at
liberty to release internal, confidential court materials, such as the bench memoranda
written to appellate panels by staff attorneys or the draft orders they prepared. In
response, the authoring judge questioned what rule, if any, addresses what
constitutes confidential court materials. Additionally, the authoring judge expressed
to you his belief that post-argument court discussions should be made public. You
note the authoring judge’s view in that regard is not shared by any other judges on
your circuit court. Thus, you state that your question is whether it is proper for one
judge on a multi-member court (whether the court of appeals, or a three-judge
district court, or a bankruptcy appellate panel, for example) to unilaterally publish
pre-decisional documents submitted to a panel of the court.
2
II.
As a general matter, the Committee cannot respond to inquiries that ask

questions about the conduct of other judges. It is typically the responsibility of each
individual judge to make his or her own ethical decisions under the Code. However,
in light of a chief judge’s inherent supervisory and administrative authority, the
Committee may respond to a chief judge’s ethical questions about the proper action
she may take regarding the processes and procedures pertaining to her circuit (or
district or division within) as a whole. See Private Opinion.
Notably, while the Committee is authorized to provide advice to judges and

judicial employees about their ethical responsibilities under applicable codes of
conduct, the Code contemplates that chief judges may impose more stringent
requirements on those individuals subject to their supervisory authority, as
recognized in Canons 1 and 3. See Private Opinion. Canon 1 states that “judge[s]
should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct,” in addition to personally
observing those same standards. (emphasis added). Canon 3 indicates that judges
with supervisory authority have a responsibility to ensure that judges subject to their
oversight perform their duties properly and observe appropriate standards of
conduct. See Private Opinion; Canon 3A(3), 3B(4). Accordingly, the Committee’s
advice as to the propriety of a particular course of action does not preclude a court or
a supervising judicial officer from imposing more specific or stringent requirements
on judges of the court. See Private Opinion.
Thus, the Committee’s response to your inquiry is intended to offer you

advice under the Code regarding your supervisory and administrative role as Chief
Judge in addressing the ethical implications of the conduct you describe in your
letter. Additionally, to provide context to the Committee’s advice to you, the
Committee opines generally on the ethical issues that arise from the anticipated
publication.
III.
As a threshold matter, the Committee concludes easily that the anticipated

public disclosure of the confidential, internal court communications, about which
you inquire, would violate the intent, letter, and spirit of the Code. The reasons for
this conclusion are set forth below.
3
The most obvious express prohibition against the disclosures you describe is
set forth in Canon 4D(5), which requires that “[a] judge should not disclose or use
nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to
the judge’s official duties.” 1 Here, the authoring judge’s intended use of the
information, as set forth in your inquiry, is clearly “disclos[ure] [and] use of
nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for a[] purpose unrelated to the
judge’s official duties.” Id. Thus, the Code expressly prohibits such use or
disclosure.
In addition to Canon 4D(5)’s clear prohibition, the anticipated conduct you

describe in your inquiry would implicate, at minimum, Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B,
and 4G. Each of these Canons will be addressed in turn.
Canon 1 mandates judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

Specifically, “judge[s] should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and
should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.” Id. The Commentary to Canon 1 states that
violations of the Code “diminish[] public confidence in the judiciary and injure[] our
system of government under the law.” 2
Relatedly, Canon 2A provides that “[a] judge should respect and comply with
the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Commentary to Canon 2A provides
that “[p]ublic confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
conduct by judges,” and accordingly, “judge[s] must avoid all impropriety and
appearance of impropriety” in both their professional and personal conduct.
Of particular import, “[a]ctual improprieties under this standard include violations
1
The Committee has effectively had no prior occasion to opine on conduct implicating
Canon 4D(5). Candidly, the lack of opinions is likely reflective of the truth that Canon 4D(5)’s
proscription is abundantly clear and, thus, no other judge has ever sought guidance from the
Committee as to whether such disclosure of nonpublic information is ethically acceptable.
2
Note that the type of “misconduct,” upon which a chief judge may identify a complaint
under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, “is conduct occurring
outside the performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the
administration of the business of the courts, including a substantial and widespread lowering of
public confidence in the courts among reasonable people.” Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2E,
Ch. 3 § 320, art. I(3)(h)(2).
4
of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.” Id. (emphasis
added). 3
Furthermore, the Committee has repeatedly observed that “[f]or a judge to

derive financial benefit, over and above the judicial salary, from the publication and
sale of a book about his or her own court . . . would constitute exploiting the judicial
position for financial gain,” Advisory Op. No. 87, in contravention of Canon 2B,
which bars a judge from lending the “prestige of the judicial office to advance the
private interests of the judge.” Even if the judge does not accept royalties for this
book, the Committee has advised that the publication and sale of a judge’s book
about the judge’s own court could permit others, such as a publisher, “to benefit
from the judge’s exploitation of his or her judicial position.” Advisory Op. No. 87;
see Private Opinions. As the Committee has stated, “it is inappropriate for a judge to
sell his expertise about the idiosyncrasies of practice before the judge’s own court.”
Private Opinion (citing Advisory Op. No. 87). While the proposed book will
apparently discuss Staff Attorney Offices in other circuits, the book will pay special
attention to the Staff Attorney’s Office within the authoring judge’s circuit, and the
Committee has instructed that a judicial author should “confirm that the content is
not presented in a way that exploits [his] judicial position (e.g., by suggesting that
the book represents a judicial perspective).” Private Opinion. Moreover, the
Committee has found that “[t]he duty of a judge to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary may be at risk when a judge voluntarily
injects him or herself into the limelight of public controversy or discussions of
sensitive matters, including confidential aspects of the judicial process.”
Advisory Op. No. 114.
With regard to the authoring judge’s possible inclusion of denigrating

comments about employees of your Staff Attorney’s Office, Canon 3A(3) states that
“[a] judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.”
(emphasis added). Relevant to your capacity as Chief Judge, Canon 3A(3) further
states that “[a] judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s
control.” 4 In addition, the authoring judge’s denigrating comments about members
of the Staff Attorney’s Office, if disseminated in any capacity, will undoubtedly
3
“Where court rules impose a confidentiality requirement, a judge should not issue a
public statement that would breach confidentiality.” Compendium § 1.2(e).
4
See infra note 6.
5
cause significant harm to morale, which in turn could impact the current and future
efficient functioning of that office and the court. Thus, addressing the inclusion of
these comments falls squarely within the Chief Judge’s supervisory role under
Canon 3B(4) of the Code, which states that “[a] judge with supervisory authority
over other judges should take reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their
duties timely and effectively.”
Next, to the extent the authoring judge either intends to disclose information
regarding matters pending or impending in your court, or advocates for disclosure of
post-argument discussions, Canon 3A(6) is implicated. Specifically, Canon 3A(6)
admonishes that “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a
matter pending or impending in any court,” which admonition continues through the
appellate process. Commentary to Canon 3A(6). Notably, “Canon 3A(6) does not
bar comment in final, completed cases, so long as judges refrain from revealing
deliberative processes and do not place in question their impartiality in similar
future cases.” Compendium § 3.9-1(d) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the authoring judge’s intended use of the information—which, at

the time of disclosure, was presumed to be confidential—may leave the judges in
your circuit hesitant to openly engage in future discussions. In that regard,
“reasonable measures to ensure that [judges are able to] perform their duties timely
and effectively” may be warranted. Canon 3B(4). Accordingly, the Committee
advises that, as the Chief Judge of your circuit, and particularly in light of the
concern expressed by other judges of the circuit, you consider imposing clearly
defined limitations on the type of information that the authoring judge is permitted
to disclose. By way of example, in an effort to “maintain and enforce high standards
of conduct,” Canon 1, you may choose to establish local rules to clearly define what
constitutes “confidential” material in your court, as well as limitations on the
disclosure of confidential or internal court materials and discussions. You might also
consider adopting a local rule, requiring judges to obtain the chief judge’s final
approval before submitting any extrajudicial writings for publication, analogous to
the rule requiring the chief judge’s approval for a judge to teach for compensation.
See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 10 § 1020.35(c); Compendium § 1.2(e).5
5
See supra note 3 and accompanying text.
6
Finally, while Canon 4 permits and even encourages judges to engage in
certain extrajudicial activities, it provides that “a judge should not participate in
extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere
with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s
impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth [in
Canon 4].” See also Canon 3 (“The duties of judicial office take precedence over all
other activities.”). Here, beyond Canon 4D(5)’s prohibition on the disclosure or use
of nonpublic information, addressed at the inception of this discussion, the described
conduct may also implicate Canon 4G, which states that “[a] judge should not to any
substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in
extrajudicial activities permitted by this Canon.” In conducting the thorough
research for his book, the authoring judge may well have imposed upon court staff
with inquiries regarding how their offices function, thereby potentially taking time
away from their work. This imposition and distraction can reasonably be construed
as an impermissible use of court resources and staff to engage in extrajudicial
activities. 6
IV.
In closing, the Committee reiterates that the anticipated public disclosure of

confidential, internal court communications violates the intent, letter, and spirit of
the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
The Committee treats all inquiries and responses as confidential and will
disclose information about them only in the narrow circumstances described in the
Committee’s confidentiality policy. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch.1
§ 130. As the recipient of this letter, you may use it as you please.
6
The Committee also notes that the disclosure of confidential information by court
employees is prohibited under Canon 3D of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, and,
under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, “[a] judge should not direct court personnel
to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct
would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge.” Canon 3B(2).
7
We hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions,
please call or write.
For the Committee,
Rebecca Beach Smith

Chair
8
EXHIBIT C
I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World. Jesus Christ
Mark Bochra
Chicago, IL 60660
VIA ELECTRONIC AND CERTIFIED 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
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
chris_conway@ca7.uscourts.gov info@judiciary-dem.senate.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
oversight.democrats@mail.house.gov whistleblower@judiciary-rep.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]
Dear Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability & the Judicial Council
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 w
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
e in the very beginning and we
often
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
Later i emailed him a copy of the case ruling c.c.d._no._22-

1
01_0.pdf (uscourts.gov). 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, h
inappropriate
2. We also spoke about President Biden student loan forgiveness which was my work with
job, that is what they need to do

loan forgiveness Although this is his 1st amended speech right but Mr. Richmond
than 75k a year, others are not privilege like him to work for the 7 th
Circuit.
I do understand that Mr. Jim Richmond enjoys a lot of power within the 7 th 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
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:
your case.
o
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:
rd
o supplement, that will enrage all the judges; you really want to be put on
process, tell me?
o I told him in part, the 11th

4th circuit, 11th circuit, we are the 7th I replied needs some ref and he
replied hell no, we need any I answered the 11th Circuit wrote a
memorandum of findings, I have a memorandum of finding dammit it, you
want every judge to write a finding when they I answered no, they all come
together and write one. He said 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
o Mr. Richmond replied angrily Sykes is 10 times smarter than I replied

is this coming from? I never said he replied you keep saying she
understand, she 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
transcribing every
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
Attached herein as , please find a copy of my filing which is also related to the
Executive Committee.
th
They keep saying it is a 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
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
knows that the Federal Judiciary is staffed entirely by total latin dorks: They quote Catullus in
the original latin in chambers. The
knew that, unless it pointed to a suitably latin rallying cry, its brief would be operating far
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
7
o
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
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
st
and 3rd
letters to both the Executive and Legislative Branches explained this journey but the Executive
or listened to.
I dislike people who abuse their power; however, it was the Lord, Jesus Christ who made Judge
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
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
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
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

treat pro se li
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.
fore
th
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

Judicial Misconduct Complaint [Rule 26] 7th Circuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Misconduct Complaint [Rule 26] 7th Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AO310 (Rev.

Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCOIIDUCT OR DISABILITY

I. Name of Complainant: Mark Bochra

EItu* f]ru*v", IN"i r,",

Judicial Council ofthe Seventh Circuit

5. Declrrration and signature:

Signature: /s/MarkBochra Date: 03D812024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & UPS MAIL

The Honorable John Roberts

The Honorable Christopher G. Conway The Honorable Diane Sykes

Ms. Sarah O. Schrup Mr. Alex Castaneda

The Honorable Richard Joseph Durbin The Honorable Lindsey Graham

The Honorable James Comer The Honorable Jamie Raskin

The Honorable Jim Jordan The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

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

The Honorable Michael Horowitz FBI Director Mr. Christopher Wray

March 28, 2024

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

Dear Mr. Christopher Conway,

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

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

I often say to find the truth:

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

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

A. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JIM RICHMOND AND THE 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGES

B. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PARTTERN AND PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION:

These allegations by itself would violate Judge’s canon 3.28

C. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO JUDGE JOHN Z LEE & OUTSTANDING

The second question: Which tire of the car was it flat?

Retaliation for those who wield power is the norm.37

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

/s/ Mark Bochra

THE WHITE HOUSE

The Honorable Jeffery Zients The Honorable Bruce Reed

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

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

The Honorable Karine Jean-Pierre

THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

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

MEMBERS OF THE 7TH CIRCUIT

Chief Judge Diane Sykes chambers_of_judge_sykes@ca7.uscourts.gov

7th CIRCUIT STAFF

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

Judge Sara Ellis Sara_Ellis@ilnd.uscourts.gov

5th CIRCUIT STAFF

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

JUDICIAL INTEGRITY OFFICER

Mr. Michael Henry

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

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable Amy Klobuchar

The Honorable Chris Coon The Honorable Richard Blumenthal

The Honorable Mazie Hirono The Honorable Cory Booker

The Honorable Alex Padilla The Honorable Jon Ossoff

The Honorable Peter Welch The Honorable Laphonza Butler

The Honorable John Cornyn The Honorable Mike Lee

The Honorable Ted Cruz The Honorable Josh Hawley

The Honorable Tom Cotton The Honorable John Kennedy

The Honorable Thom Tillis The Honorable Marsha Blackburn

HOUSE JUDIACRY COMMITTEE