Corruption of the U.S. Legal System and All Things Related

JUDGE MICHAEL FISH SHOULD RETURN THE AWARD HE RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICLY MOCKING A MENTALLY ILL PERSON

2026-10-25T15:43:18-04:00

Just recently on October 1, 2026, Porter County Indiana published an article on its website boasting the title “NAMI Indiana Selects Judge Michael Fish as recipient of Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award”. The article starts out with “Some great news about one of our own.” And goes on to state “Porter Superior Court Judge Michael Fish has been selected to receive the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award from NAMI Indiana. This award recognizes his leadership and dedication to improving how our courts support individuals living with serious mental illness.” and noted that Fish would receive the award on October 2, at the NAMI Indiana State Conference in Indianapolis. And then went on to boast “Please join Porter County Government in congratulating Judge Fish on this well-deserved recognition.” The article pointed to an official press release stating “Porter Superior Court Judge Michael Fish to Receive the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award from State Chapter of National Alliance on Mental Illness Indianapolis, IN — NAMI Indiana has selected Judge Michael Fish as the recipient of the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award. The Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award is presented to a judge, legislator, or law enforcement official who meets the needs of people living with mental illness in an exemplary way. Porter Superior Court Judge Michael Fish was chosen for this award because of his leadership in improving how Indiana’s courts respond to individuals living with serious mental illness.

But what the Porter County Indiana government officials failed to mention in the article while they were busy thumping their chests with their nonsense propaganda is that prior to receiving this award that Judge Michael A. Fish had publicly mocked a mentally ill person while wearing his black robe right in his courtroom. There is a YouTube video that unfortunately rains on the propaganda parade of the Porter County Indiana government officials showing Fish’s despicable conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2197280547865055. At the 0:02 and 4:45 marks in the video Fish told the mentally ill person “Sing a song, do whatever you want to do”, and then the mentally ill person sang a song just as Fish told him to do. Rather than ordering some obviously much needed mental help for the mentally ill person, Fish sentenced him to 25 days in jail for “contempt”. After the hearing was over, the so called award winning champion of the mentally ill, Judge Michael A. Fish, undertook some inappropriate banter with a lawyer overtly mocking the mentally ill person which can be seen toward the end of the vi deo beginning at the 15:50 mark. The purported champion of the mentally ill Michael A. Fish told the lawyer he could do “rap battle” by “spitting bars” just as the mentally ill person did —the champion of the mentally ill Michael A. Fish named the mentally ill person in doing his disgusting banter with the lawyer. Perhaps the Porter County Indiana government officials who were responsible for publishing the article about Michael A. Fish’s championing of the mentally ill should explain their statement that “Judge Michael Fish was chosen for this award because of his leadership in improving how Indiana’s courts respond to individuals living with serious mental illness” since Fish had previously in fact mocked a mentally ill person by telling him to sing a song during a court hearing, and then behind the mentally ill person’s back after he left the courtroom, Fish then went on with his disgusting behavior telling a lawyer by overtly naming the mentally ill person that he, the lawyer, could do “rap battle” by “spitting bars” just as the mentally ill person did. The Porter County Indiana government officials who were responsible for publishing the article about Michael A. Fish’s championing of the mentally ill wrote that the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award from NAMI Indiana “recognizes his leadership and dedication to improving how our courts support individuals living with serious mental illness.” but it is very hard to understand how publicly mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom “improves” how our courts support individuals living with serious mental illness? How does publicly mocking a mentally ill person demonstrate “leadership and dedication” to improving how our courts support individuals living with serious mental illness? The Porter County Indiana government officials who were responsible for publishing the article about Michael A. Fish’s championing of the mentally ill further wrote in their article that the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award is presented to a judge, legislator, or law enforcement official “who meets the needs of people living with mental illness in an exemplary way. How does publicly mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom demonstrate that Judge Michael Fish is in any way “meeting the needs” of people living with mental illness in an “exemplary” way? It would seem that Fish’s conduct of publicly mocking the mentally ill person in his courtroom would have had the opposite effect of “meeting the needs” of people living with mental illness in an “exemplary” way. Such unsavory conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person is not “exemplary” conduct by any stretch of the imagination —such unsavory conduct is shameful and immoral conduct, and certainly not worthy of an award. It is quite obvious that the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award from NAMI Indiana made a big mistake in giving their award to Judge Michael A. Fish who showed his true colors when he publicly mocked the mentally ill person in his courtroom, and it is quite obvious that the Porter Country Indiana government officials who heaped such public praise about Fish’s championing of mentally ill people have no clue about what Fish is really all about and are more interested in gaslighting the public by heaping praise about a judge who clearly is unfit to be a judge. What a joke!

Unsavory judges are nothing new to Porter County as just recently another Porter County Superior Court judge, Christopher Buckley, has been caught in a very embarrassing situation which has led to disciplinary charges for being engaged in criminal conduct by operating a vehicle while intoxicated and attempted to use his position as a judge to get preferential treatment from police, according to news media reporting. https://www.wishtv.com/news/crime/porter-superior-court-judge-facing-disciplinary-charges-for-owi-arrest/; https://hoodline.com/2026/08/porter-county-judge-s-body-cam-shows-him-warning-officer-you-just-ruined-my-career/. The Chicago Tribune has reported that Buckley allegedly kept “a case of Irish Pub Pack beer” under a coat rack where he hung his robe and arrived at work “reeking” of alcohol in early May, according to the judicial misconduct charges filed against him. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/10/16/porter-superior-court-judge-buckley-misconduct/; https://www.in.gov/courts/files/news-2026-1016-jqc-charges-buckley.pdf. And yet the Porter County Indiana government officials are very silent about this —there have been no articles published by the Porter County Indiana government officials about this sleazy conduct by one of its judges, but yet they chose to hoodwink the public by publishing an article about another one of their unsavory judges attempting to make him look like a champion of the mentally ill, when the evidence shows that he, Judge Michael A. Fish, showed contempt for the plight of the mentally ill when he publicly mocked a mentally ill person in his courtroom —the proof is in the pudding, the YouTube video shows it! https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2197280547865055.

Contrary to the propaganda by the Porter Country Indiana government officials trying to snowball the public into believing that Judge Michael A. Fish is a champion of the mentally ill, I already knew just how much of a cockroach judge he really is because he made a big mistake by trying to impose his unsavory behaviors against me when he made the big mistake of threatening to have me thrown in jail for my exercise of my right to address my motions at a hearing that was set for the express purpose of addressing my motions. And when I did so, Fish got nervous and upset with me because I stood up to him and addressed his nefarious conduct, and he didn’t like it. This is what happens when government officials become drunk with power as Michael A. Fish certainly is drunk with power being a state court judge and also a JAG officer —it has all gotten to his head. The power got to his head, and letting all of that power go to his head was not only unfortunate, but a big mistake on his part. The reason the YouTube video was even discovered is because of how Fish reacted when I filed a motion for him to provide a copy of the courtroom video of the hearing when he threatened my liberty and smiled and smirked when I addressed his unsavory threats to take my freedom from me because I stood up to him when he threatened me and he tried to stop me from exercising my right to address my motions as it was clear to me that Fish was nefariously trying to protect the defendant and the defendant's insurance company and the insurance lawyers. Fish denied my request for the courtroom video stating that providing the video was “impossible” because “the recording, broadcasting, or indefinite preservation of courtroom video streams is strictly prohibited” and yet there are many courtroom videos of his disgraceful courtroom antics that have been published on the internet not only showing him mocking the mentally ill person, but several other videos showing Fish trying to look like the big man on the block acting like a pathetic macho man. His distasteful tactics caught up to him, had he not been so drunken with power in his mind to the point of threatening my liberty because I was simply trying to address my motions at the hearing, which I had every right to do, I wouldn’t have discovered the video of Fish mocking the mentally ill person. He is his own worst enemy by way of his overly inflated ego and his pathetic drunkenness with power. It is interesting that while Fish had previously denied four of my requests for him to recuse himself from the case, after I reported to the Inspector General’s Office of the Indiana National Guard his nefarious actions including his immoral threats against my freedom and his conduct of lying on an official court document and his conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person, that the following day after I published a blog about Fish’s nefarious activities including his conduct of mocking the mentally ill person in his courtroom, Fish then recused himself. https://www.brianvukadinovich.com/blog/index.php?controller=post&action=view&id_post=50. This is what cowardly bullies do, they like to abuse their positions of authority and the power that goes with it and impose their sickly power hungry egos against people, but when people stand up to them, they run and look for the first hole to jump into where they can hide —which is precisely what the miscreant judge Michael A. Fish did when I took him to task for his unsavory conducts.

The Indiana National Guard is well aware that Judge Michael A. Fish publicly mocked a mentally ill person in his courtroom and that such conduct, even while done in his civilian capacity, violated the “Army Civilian Corps Creed” and Fish’s unsavory conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person is subject to court-martial under Title 10 §933 Art. 133, so we will have to wait and see if the military actually believes in its own rules governing the civilian corps code of conduct and its disciplinary measures, or if it will proceed as the Porter County Indiana government officials did in looking the other way as to Fish’s unconscionable and immoral conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom.

Three things should happen here:

• In light of the video showing how Judge Michael A. Fish publicly mocked the mentally ill person in his courtroom he should return the Gloria Goeglein Public Policy Award given to him by NAMI Indiana.
• Judge Michael A. Fish should resign from the state judiciary due to his nefarious conducts.
• The Indiana National Guard should court-martial Judge Michael A. Fish pursuant to Title 10 §933 Art. 133 for publicly mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom for conduct unbecoming an officer for an immoral act done in his civilian capacity.

There is an old saying that goes “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” The propaganda article by the Porter County Indiana government officials attempting to fool the people into believing that Judge Michael A. Fish is a champion of the mentally ill when in fact he publicly mocked a mentally ill person in his courtroom did not fool “all” of the people —the YouTube video is the proof in the pudding!

How the Indiana National Guard Protects Nefarious Activities of its JAG Officers - The Fix is In!

2026-10-21T20:10:35-04:00

I am very disappointed to be discovering how the Indiana National Guard is going out of its way to protect the unsavory activities of one of its JAG officers who happens to be a state court judge in order to protect him from being court-martialed under military law. Michael A. Fish is a judge of the Porter Superior Court in Valparaiso, Indiana and also a Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the 38th Infantry Division of the Indiana Army National Guard. Being a JAG officer Fish is expected and required to conduct himself in an appropriate manner at all times —both in his military capacity while in uniform and also in his civilian capacity as a state court judge. According to military law, if he fails to conduct himself in an acceptable manner, even in his civilian capacity, of which misconduct amounts to “unbecoming conduct” in violation of “The Army Values”, such misconducts would subject JAG Officer Michael A. Fish to disciplinary action(s) including court-martial pursuant to Title 10 §933 Art. 133. Fish has certainly conducted himself in an unsavory manner by inappropriately threatening to have me thrown in jail for my exercise of my right to address my motions at a hearing in a civil case before him, and for his further misconduct of making false and fraudulent representations on an official court document by lying to protect the defendant and the insurance company in the case, and even further misconduct by the immoral act of publicly mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom, all of which aggregated misconducts involved dishonesty, fraud, and immorality which constitute ethical breaches or behavior that undermines public trust which is deemed “unbecoming” under the military standard, requiring that JAG Officer Michael A. Fish, Judge Advocate General of the 38th Infantry Division of the Indiana Army National Guard, be disciplined and court-martialed under Article 133. Needless to say, Fish’s misconducts as a judge by threatening my freedom and lying on an official court document, and publicly mocking a mentally ill person are raising serious questions about his honesty and integrity —actually lack thereof— of which misconducts raise serious questions as to his fitness to remain a member of the Indiana National Guard under its expressly stated “Army Values” which he is bound to follow at all times.

~ The Unsavory Conducts by JAG Officer Michael A. Fish Warranting Court-Martial ~

The case presided by Michael A. Fish is a civil case for personal injuries I suffered from slipping and falling on water that was on the floor of the produce section of a grocery store in Valparaiso, Indiana on February 19, 2023 which resulted in severe bodily injuries to me and thousands of dollars in medical bills. According to the store’s own accident report, “multiple photos” were “taken of scene” and the store was instructed to send the photos to its insurance company —FCCI Insurance. But when I requested copies of the photos, the store and its insurance company lawyers played games and wouldn’t provide the photographs as they were required to do. And then the games began when the store manager initially answered in interrogatories "… to the best of my knowledge and belief, no photographs were taken. However, if photographs were taken, I do not have possession of any." And then later sang a different tune on further interrogatories by changing his previous answers, this time stating “I believe I took photographs; however, I do not recall taking photographs…. I believe I took photographs. I did not produce any photographs after a diligent search, I do not have any photographs.” and then amazingly went on to state in another interrogatory answer “I took photographs on my phone that I had at the time which I no longer have. I did not produce any photographs after a diligent search. I do not have any photographs in my possession.”. Because of these games I filed a motion to compel the production of the photographs and a motion to amend the complaint to add the insurance company as a party defendant for spoliation of evidence, and Fish set my motion for hearing for July 17, 2026. And then things got real ugly with Fish as he went on a tirade and refused to allow me to address the specific items from my motions ridiculously stating that it would take up too much time to do so, notwithstanding that that was the point of the hearing. When I insisted that Fish follow the rules and allow me to address my motions, he instead resorted to a very inappropriate intimidation tactic by threatening to have me jailed for addressing my concerns as to what was going on with the so-called “hearing” —which in reality was nothing more than a sham hearing. Fish smiled in a smirking manner after threatening to have me jailed showing just how much of a despicable judge that he is. I filed two written motions for him to disqualify and recuse himself and he denied both motions and threatened to sanction me —which was an obvious attempt to silence me. Thereafter Fish set another hearing as to another motion to produce evidence and as to my motion to amend the complaint to add the insurance company as a party defendant for spoliation of evidence, i.e., the photographs of the wet floor, to take place on August 20, 2026. On September 11, Fish issued an order denying my motion for leave to amend the complaint by interjecting and utilizing outright lies falsely stating:

• The hearing record and discovery indicate that Mr. Hewlett took photos on his personal phone, which he later lost. While FCCI requested the photos, it never received them.

• “While FCCI requested the photos, it never received them.”

• Because FCCI never took possession of the photographs, it owed no duty to the Plaintiff to preserve them under Indiana law. Therefore, the proposed amendment is legally futile.

Each of these statements were all lies by Michael A. Fish and in light of Fish’s lies, on September 18, 2026 I filed a motion asking Fish to provide “Written Findings of Fact” which he refused to do in a subsequent order in cowardly denying my motion for an explanation of his lies. Fish knows these were all lies which is why he refused to issue “Written Findings of Fact” —he knew he couldn’t do so because each of his statements were lies.

After the clown judge/clown JAG Officer Michael A. Fish inappropriately threatened to hold me in contempt of court and to have me thrown in jail for my attempt to exercise my right to be heard as to my motions at the July 17, 2026 hearing, on July 31, 2026, I filed a motion requesting a copy of the courtroom video of the July 17, 2026 hearing. On August 3, 2026, Fish denied my request for the video recording calling the motion “moot” and “factually impossible” expressly stating in the order “The Plaintiff's request is DENIED as moot and factually impossible. Porter Superior Court 1 does not capture, maintain, or preserve video recordings of its courtroom hearings. No video recording of the July 17, 2026 1 proceeding exists. Furthermore, pursuant to Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.17 and governing administrative rules, the recording, broadcasting, or indefinite preservation of courtroom video streams is strictly prohibited…….The Plaintiff's Motion for a Copy of Courtroom Video is DENIED, as no video recording was taken, none exists, and the preservation of courtroom video is prohibited by rule.” However, Fish’s statements are belied by the existence of several videos of his courtroom hearings, one of which shows him mocking a mentally ill person in his courtroom. In other words, Fish lied. A YouTube video shows how Fish publicly mocked an obviously mentally ill person who clearly was in desperate need of mental health care. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2197280547865055. At the 0:02 and 4:45 marks in the video Fish told the mentally ill person “Sing a song, do whatever you want to do”, and then the mentally ill person sang a song just as Fish told him to do. This was disgraceful conduct on the part of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish. Rather than ordering some obviously much needed mental help for the mentally ill person, Fish sentenced him to 25 days in jail for “contempt”. After the hearing was over, Fish undertook some inappropriate banter with a lawyer overtly mocking the mentally ill person which can be seen toward the end of the video beginning at the 15:50 mark. JAG Officer Fish told the lawyer he could do “rap battle” by “spitting bars” just as the mentally ill person did —and Fish named the mentally ill person in doing his disgusting banter with the lawyer. The disgraceful mockery of an obviously mentally ill person by the disgraceful Michael A. Fish was inappropriate and clearly inapposite to the expected behavior standards of a JAG officer of which disgraceful mockery of a mentally ill person constituted unbecoming conduct which demonstrated that JAG Officer Michael A. Fish is unfit to hold a commission. Such disgraceful conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person is a court-martial type offense under Title 10 §933 Art. 133. And the fact that Fish lied in stating that “the recording, broadcasting, or indefinite preservation of courtroom video streams is strictly prohibited” when he denied my request for a copy of the courtroom video that would have shown how he smiled and smirked when I was addressing his inappropriate and outrageous conduct of threatening to have me thrown in jail simply because I was trying to exercise my right to be heard as to my motions, is further evidence of unbecoming conduct of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish since there are several videos of Fish’s courtroom hearings published on the internet. If Fish’s statement that “pursuant to Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.17 and governing administrative rules, the recording, broadcasting, or indefinite preservation of courtroom video streams is strictly prohibited.” and that “the preservation of courtroom video is prohibited by rule” and that it was “factually impossible” had a scintilla of truth to his statements, then how could there be so many courtroom videos of his disgraceful courtroom antics that have been published on the internet not only showing him mocking the mentally ill person, but several other videos showing Fish trying to look like the big man on the block acting like a macho man? Facebook; Bing Videos; Bing Videos; Bing Videos; Judge Fish TRIES to Stop Defendant From Talking—But He Keeps Making Things Worse. These are just a few of the videos that are published online, there are many more. The fact of the existence of these videos belies the integrity and credibility of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish’s statements in denying my motion for the video of the July 17, 2026 hearing when he threatened to have me thrown in jail and how he smirked in doing so. The video of the hearing of July 17, 2026 would show how JAG Officer Michael A. Fish smirked when I was addressing his disgraceful threats to have me thrown in jail for my attempts to address my motions at the hearing. The video of his smirking would speak volumes as to his unsavory conduct when he threatened my freedom, and then had the audacity to smile and smirk about it. It is interesting that all of these other videos were available about his hearings, but the one video demonstrating his enjoyment of disgracefully threatening my liberty because I tried to exercise my right to address his nefariousness is not available. JAG Officer Michael A. Fish is unfit to serve in the United States Military.

~ The Formal Complaint Against JAG Officer Michael A. Fish is
Being Whitewashed by the Indiana National Guard ~

On October 14, 2026 I submitted a detailed complaint directly to the Inspector General of the Indiana National Guard showing the nefarious conducts of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish which warrant disciplinary action and court-martial under Title 10 §933 Art. 133. Two days later a sergeant, Benjamin Wisehart, called me and it became very evident to me that the Indiana National Guard was more interested in sweeping Fish’s misconducts under the rug rather than holding him to account under military law for his despicable conducts which clearly violated the “Army Values” which he is bound to follow at all times —to which he should be court-martialed under Art. 133. Wisehart was very condescending and belligerent and came across more as a lackey than as a legitimate representative for the Inspector General’s office. On October 19, 2026 I messaged the Indiana National Guard on Facebook and stated that I would like to address directly to the Adjutant General a concern I have regarding the handling of a complaint I have submitted for misconducts of a JAG Officer of the 38th Infantry Division of the Indiana Army National Guard warranting court-martial under Art. 133. I stated that I have tried to locate the email address of the Adjutant General but I do not see it shown anywhere on its website, and I asked that they please send me the email address of the Adjutant General in order that I may express my concerns to him/her. The Indiana National Guard responded “There is no record of an email being sent to ng.in.inarng.list.pao@army.mil on the date you indicated regarding the JAG.” I then sent the Indiana National Guard a screenshot showing the date and email address just as I stated to them when they said they didn’t receive it. After I sent the screenshot of my email, the Indiana National Guard did an about face and admitted that it in fact received the email which it initially denied receiving, and stated “The message will be sent forward for processing.” I have not heard anything since. It would be very easy for the Indiana National Guard to simply provide the email address for the Adjutant General, but it doesn’t want to do so because it doesn’t want me to report to the Adjutant General the cover-up that is obviously going on by the lower level misfits of the Indiana National Guard.

~The Whitewash by the Indiana National Guard Demonstrates
that the Indiana National Guard Has No Credibility~

We are at a nadir in this country since we now know based on what is taking place in the Indiana National Guard’s apparent attempt to cover-up and sweep under the rug the nefarious behaviors of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish that it will lie during the complaint process such as lying that it didn’t receive the email message I sent requesting the email address of the Adjutant General, and the apparent lie that it would send the email for processing after it was caught in its lie about my request for the Adjutant General’s email address so I could report to the Adjutant General what was going on. A JAG officer who abuses his position and inappropriately threatens a citizen to have him thrown in jail for the citizen’s attempt to address his properly filed motions is a blatant violation of the military’s so called “Army Values”; a JAG officer who abuses his position as a state court judge and lies on an official court document in order to protect wrongful conduct of a local business and its insurance company who have destroyed evidence is a blatant violation of the military’s so called “Army Values”; and a JAG officer who abuses his position and inappropriately publicly mocks a mentally ill person is a blatant violation of the military’s so called “Army Values”; and make no mistake about it, JAG Officer Michael A. Fish did all of these things. And for a military organization such as the Indiana National Guard, who has the detailed information concerning JAG Officer Michael A. Fish’s blatant misconducts, goes so far as to have its lackey, Sergeant Benjamin Wisehart, to call me in a condescending manner and conduct himself in a belligerent manner while obviously attempting to sweep Fish’s misconducts under the rug, is a cause for alarm, and for a military organization such as the Indiana National Guard to lie and say that it didn’t receive my message requesting the email address of the Adjutant General only to admit that it in fact did receive my message requesting the Adjutant General’s email address after I provided a screenshot of the email to which the Indiana National Guard then fessed up that it did indeed receive the email is a cause for alarm. These are all red flags demonstrating that we as a country cannot trust a military organization such as the Indiana National Guard to do the right thing and follow its own rules of behaviors and governing disciplinary processes including court-martial process. The Indiana National Guard should be ashamed of what it is doing in trying to protect the unsavory actions of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish. The Indiana National Guard apparently stupidly believes that it will be able to somehow protect this miscreant JAG officer by sweeping under the rug the information I have provided and that it will be able to hoodwink me during its infected process —but that will not happen.

The Indiana National Guard likes to impress the public be posting action shots of its members carrying and firing guns in military stance positions and posting feel good slogans, and most people fall for that kind of propaganda designed to make itself look like it is an organization of integrity on the up and up, but an organization that brags about a certain code of conduct but doesn’t actually follow the code of conduct and blatantly lies to protect one of its own, is not an organization of integrity by any stretch of the imagination. It takes more than posting action shots with firearms and posting sound good slogans to be a credible organization, it takes honesty and respect for the rules and processes to be a credible organization, and based on how the Indiana National Guard is proceeding in protecting the unsavory conducts of JAG Officer Michael A. Fish for his unbecoming conducts of threatening to have me thrown in jail for my attempts to address my motions and his disregard of the process, and for his conduct of lying on an official court document, and for his conduct of publicly mocking a mentally ill person, and for the Indiana National Guard lackies to then lie to me during the process, and refusing to provide the email address of the Adjutant General so I can report those unsavory activities, the Indiana National Guard fails the test in every way.

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse"
~Edmund Burke

Investigation Is Needed as to the Missing Donated Funds to the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's

2026-07-16T12:49:06-04:00

There are some very serious questions that need to be answered regarding the question of what happened to all of the money that was donated by the public to the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s that was founded and owned by former federal court of appeals judge Richard Posner. In September 2017 Posner opened the Posner Center purporting to the public that he wanted to help pro se litigants —unrepresented litigants— with their court cases. In 2018, Posner heard that I had won a federal civil rights jury trial in March 2016 by representing myself without a lawyer and he contacted me and hired me to work for him as executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s and also as an advisor to him in his personal capacity. We agreed on a yearly salary of $120,000 with payment for my services to be paid on a deferred basis. However, when the time came for Posner to pay me for my work, he reneged on our agreement and wouldn’t pay me for my work.

I received a letter dated February 28, 2022, from a lawyer, Robert W. Kaufman, who was representing Posner stating to me “What you clearly do not know is that, soon after your conversations with Judge Posner in early 2018, he received a confirmed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease”, and “As to the substance of your claim, we believe that medical evidence will show that the Judge did not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts in 2018.” which was absurd, because Posner was quite active in doing interviews, running the Posner Center, writing books, working as a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law School, and even taking on a new job as an advisor to Legalist in 2019 and also participating in an amicus curiae brief filed in the Federal Circuit on January, 23, 2019. The letter went on to state “The Posner Center dissolved as of July 23, 2019 and, to our knowledge, the entity had no assets with which to pay its liabilities at such time.” The Posner Center received thousands of dollars of donations but there were no public disclosures of what happened to the money, and no audits or reports were released to the public. This begs the question what happened to the money? Was the money embezzled? Who received the money? Who had access to the money? Who cashed the checks? What did he/she do with the money? What do the banking records show? What do receipts show in terms of expenditures of the money? What was the money used for? Public policy and societal interests dictate that these questions must be answered. Since all of the money was inexplicably gone when the Posner Center closed, and there were no public disclosures of what happened to the money, and no audits or reports were released to the public, the donors deserve an explanation as to what happened to their money. Since the money was inexplicably all gone when the Posner Center closed with no audits and no reports were released to the public, there is a substantial question of embezzlement of the donated funds that needs to be investigated.

There are many questionable things that went on. After collecting thousands of dollars in donations, the Posner Center posted a “Notice of the Dissolution of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s” on the Center’s website on July 23, 2019, stating: “The stated reason for the Posner Center's dissolution is that the Center was receiving many more requests for assistance from pro se litigants than it could handle. I was then contacted by Litigation Daily and I informed Litigation Daily that the Posner Center was less then truthful for its stated reason of closing down. The dissolution statement by the Posner Center was nonsense and self-serving. I explained that there were enough lawyers to handle the requests for help from the pro se’s, but the reality was that the lawyers involved in the project did not really want to help pro se litigants; they just wanted their name attached to the Posner Center to make themselves look good. I knew that to be the case because when I as executive director contacted member lawyers to help pro se’s with their cases, almost every one of the lawyers I contacted would give a ridiculous excuse to not provide help. The publicly stated reason that the Posner Center gave to the public was hogwash, plain and simple.

Because Posner conned me into working for him so he could get free labor from me, I filed a breach of contract lawsuit against him in the United States District Court in Hammond, Indiana. And some very nefarious things went on there with Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin. Martin started things out by doing something almost unheard of, he departed from the normal way of doing discovery as almost without exception litigations involve two way discovery where both sides are able to conduct discovery, but Martin decided to disregard the norm and only allowed Posner to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but refused to allow me to conduct discovery as to my claims —and by doing so he ignored several decisions from the Northern District of Indiana courts by at least two federal judges who had previously denounced bifurcated discovery. And when I asked Martin to explain why he was not willing to follow the decisions from the district court judges who have denounced bifurcated discovery, Martin refused to provide an explanation. What he did was rotten to the core. And Springmann allowed it.

The case was so tainted that one of Posner’s lawyers, Justin M. Ellis, on March 8, 2024, wrote a letter directly to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin requesting “this Court’s assistance in discovery to help bring this case to a swift end.” And even after Martin had already accommodated Posner and his lawyers’ desire for one sided discovery where he allowed Posner to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but disallowed me from conducting discovery as to my claims against Posner, that apparently wasn’t enough as Posner’s lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, desired even more “help” and “assistance” from Martin, to put the case to a “swift end” because things were getting scorching hot for Posner and his lawyers which is why they felt the need to inappropriately ask Martin to accommodate them by providing his “help” and “assistance” because in addition to the embezzlement of donated funds issue, there are issues of Posner and his enablers submission of false and fraudulent information to the IRS. By disallowing me to conduct discovery as to my claims, Posner and his enablers would then be able to escape responsibility from their wrongful and unlawful actions of tax fraud and skirt any questions of possible embezzlement of the donated funds to the Posner Center. And after Martin did his part, Springmann then did her part in the scheme of things and quite nicely did exactly what the letter from Posner’s lawyer asked the court to do, she brought the case to a “swift end” just as the Posner lawyer’s letter asked. Springmann and Martin performed triple back somersaults to protect Posner. What Springmann and Martin served was a cocktail of judicial poison. It would be risible to even suggest that Springmann and Martin were operating on the up and up —they each surrendered their judicial integrity. The case is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. All eyes should be on the Seventh Circuit on this.

At this point there needs to be a state and/or federal investigation into what happened to the missing money that was donated to the Posner Center. There is a substantial question of public concern when a former federal judge opens up an organization and collects thousands of donated dollars and then closes the organization after a relatively short period of time and the donated money is all gone without any explanation as to what happened to the money —there were no public disclosures of what happened to the money, and no audits or reports were released to the public. And the whitewash by Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin in forbidding discovery into the issue of potential embezzlement of donated funds is a red flag that the public should be very concerned with. Everybody knows that when lawyers gather around a suitcase full of money that the money is going to vanish —and the donated money indeed did vanish. Now, the question is, whose pockets did the donated money end up in? The fact that there were no public disclosures of what happened to the money, and no audits or reports were released to the public speaks volumes. Who is Springmann and Martin trying to protect? It is clear that there needs to be a very serious state and/or federal investigation into what happened to the inexplicably missing donated money!

IT’S OFFICIAL NOW ~ AMERICA IS NO LONGER A FREE COUNTRY UNDER TRUMP'S CITIZEN EXECUTION POLICY

2026-01-25T11:49:47-05:00

With the Trump administration’s sanctioning of the public execution of Renee Good, we now know what we have been suspecting for a while —we have a government that condones governmental murder against its citizens, and consequently we no longer have a free country. There was a time when our country actually had a Constitution that not only worked, but was respected and idolized. That has gone by the wayside now under the unsavory leadership of the criminal in chief Donald J. Trump and his merry band of immoral marauders. The shamefulness of our current government has been crystalized by the brutal murder of Renee Good, a 37 year old mother and Minneapolis resident, who was mercilessly gunned down by a coward ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, holding his cell phone in one hand and his gun in another, committing cold blooded murder for all to see —all except for the unsavory president of the United States and his band of immoral sycophants such as the oversized cowboy hat wearing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and serial liar Attorney General Pam Bondi, neither of which ever passes up an opportunity to lie to the public, and serial liar by nature Vice President JD Vance who competes with Kristi Noem for the top liar prize, both of whom disgraced themselves when they each publicly wrongfully disparaged Renee Good by immorally calling her a domestic terrorist in order to gaslight the public so as to please the mentally disturbed criminal in chief of the United States with 34 felony convictions. I don’t need to explain what the video actually showed —we all saw with our own eyes that Renee Good was murdered in cold blood, and in the immediate aftermath we all saw just how far our current unsavory government will go to protect its infected agents and how it immorally condones the governmental actions of murdering our citizens in cold blood by public execution —which is exactly what happened to Renee Good at the hands of our murderous government. After the governmentally sanctioned murder, we are now in Phase 2, which is the cover up phase, where the federal authorities are involved in the obvious cover up by keeping the evidence away from the local and state authorities —a tactic we all know very well by now in light of how the disgraceful Pam Bondi has unlawfully concealed information from the “Epstein Files” in order to protect the pedophile criminal in chief with 34 felony convictions —we can now expect much of the same shenanigans in a classic cover up of the murder of Renee Good, without doubt.

As a country there are some very important things that need to be addressed which have not received due attention. For starters, we need to figure out what we are going to do with lying public officials such as serial liar JD Vance who publicly lied when he stated that the murderous ICE agent who killed Renee Good enjoys “absolute immunity”. This is false. Vance lied. The reporters should be asking Vance to identify a statute that gives the murderer ICE agent “absolute immunity”. Vance would be hard pressed to state such a statute —there is none. For clarification, while there is such a thing as “qualified immunity” in limited circumstances for regular police, it is not “absolute” immunity. Being a Yale Law School graduate, Vance should know better, and he does know better. But his lack of integrity prefers lying rather than speaking the truth. Vance is simply gaslighting the public. There should be a consequence of lying to the public as Vance clearly did. And the public lie by Kristi Noem falsely stating that Renee Good was involved in “domestic terrorism” in and of itself warrants her impeachment from the office that she is so patently unqualified and unfit for. Noem had no business wrongfully labeling Renee Good as a domestic terrorist, and if Congress had any measure of integrity, it would impeach her for such immorality. She is full of sin and needs to be removed. Vance is also full of sin and without doubt the sensible people will come out in full force in the next presidential election if he is the Republican nominee and Vance will be flushed down the toilet after the people speak by way of their votes.

As for the murderer ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, who was holding his cell phone in one hand and his gun in another while committing the cold-blooded murder of Renee Good, there should be a national discussion about why these rogue ICE agents aren’t wearing bodycams as a matter of policy. For if Ross was wearing a bodycam, there would have been no need whatsoever for him to be holding a distracting cell phone in his hand. The law should be such that any ICE agent not wearing a functioning bodycam while on duty should be cause for immediate discharge. Congress needs to address this.

As for the masks being worn by the rogue ICE thugs, that should be outlawed by Congress. The Gestapo didn’t hide their faces when committing their atrocities in Nazi Germany back in the day, and neither should the rogue American ICE agent thugs be wearing masks hiding their coward faces. Wearing masks effectively renders the rogue ICE agent thugs worse than the Gestapo. Only a coward wears a mask to hide his face when murdering an innocent mother in cold blood as the coward Jonathan Ross did when he sinfully pulled the trigger on Renee Good. Congress needs to address this. And if the governmentally sanctioned public execution of Rennee Good wasn’t enough to satisfy the mentally disturbed Trump and his unsavory compadres such as Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, JD Vance and many others who lick Trump’s boots in carrying out his disturbing policies, we now as a country have to suffer through yet another cold blooded public execution style murder with the public execution of Alex Pretti, a 37 year old American citizen from Minneapolis who was an intensive care unit nurse at the VA who was brutally murdered by ICE on January 24, 2026, simply for being a citizen exercising his constitutional rights to peacefully protest —which the unsavory Trump administration considers a crime. Ironically, both Renee Good and Alex Pretti were both 37 years old. The troubling question now is, who will be the next 37 year old innocent citizen of Minnesota who will be publicly executed by unsavory ICE agent thugs in Minnesota and then wrongfully and immorally labeled as a domestic terrorist in order to please the immoral criminal president of the United States, Donald J. Trump?

And who are these masked thugs purporting to be ICE agents? Where are they from? What are their personal histories? What are their backgrounds? Do they have criminal histories? This is the kind of information that should not be kept secret. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayer dime and the taxpayers have every right to know who these government thugs are. Employment records of regular police in America are subject to scrutiny under the law. In public records requests, and discovery requests in civil rights lawsuits, local and state police agencies must produce employment records of their police officers including records of disciplinary actions against any officers. The public needs to know who these governmental masked marauders are. Congress needs to obtain the employment records of all ICE agents and post the individual employment records on its website for the public’s inspection to include the ICE agents’ full history. We know that the unsavory president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has 34 felonies, and now we need to know if any of the ICE agents abusing people all over the United States have criminal convictions on their records as well. The people should be demanding that Congress takes steps to publish the employment records of all ICE agents on a specially created website for this purpose. The people have a right to know who the criminal thugs are who are wearing masks while terrorizing communities under the name of ICE.

And as for the ICE agents’ routine conduct of threatening and intimidating people who are recording their wrongful actions, in some cases physically accosting people and taking their cell phones from them, this should be cause for immediate discharge. Congress needs to enact this into law.

We are at a nadir in our country as we can no longer consider that we have a free country under the current circumstances of the infected Trump administration. A free country depends on an honest government headed by persons of integrity —and we currently do not have that with our current executive branch headed by the corrupt Donald J. Trump and his misfit compadres who are willing to sell their souls in every way at the expense of the American people. And a free country depends on police who operate with strong moral standards under sound policies. ICE is a police force that operates with immoral standards and very unsound policies. The policy of the United States under Donald J. Trump that permits ICE to conduct the murdering of innocent citizens in cold blood by way of public execution to be acceptable as a matter of official governmental policy renders the United States as a nation that is no longer a free country. This needs to change.

Brian Vukadinovich is a retired educator and former executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s, and the author of Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case and Rogues in Black Robes. He is available for speaking engagements on governmental and judicial corruption issues. https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/451268/Brian-Vukadinovich

POSNER AND HIS TEAM OF LAWYERS HAVE EVERY REASON TO BEING FEARFUL OF A PUBLIC TRIAL

2025-03-05T05:13:05-05:00

There is substantial interest in my pending breach of contract case against former federal court of appeals judge Richard A. Posner. There have been many questions about what is going on in the case and where things currently stand. And I believe the public has a right to know.

First, I want to make it clear that Posner was sued in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as a judge. Posner contacted me in February 2018 after he learned that I had won a federal civil rights jury trial by representing myself against my former public school corporation employer in March 2016 when I beat a team of corporation lawyers in a five day jury trial and the federal jury determined that the corporation violated my due process rights when it terminated my employment and awarded me damages in six figures. Posner at the time he contacted me had retired from the judiciary purporting that he was displeased with how the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago were mistreating pro se (unrepresented) litigants and treating them as if they were “trash”. He started a company called “The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s” based in Chicago and asked me to come on board. In his initial email he quoted a yearly compensation of at least $80,000.00 “and I hope more” according to the email job offer. A couple of weeks later we met in Chicago and agreed on a $120,000 salary as he wanted me to do some advisory work for him in his personal matters in addition to my work as executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s. We agreed on a deferred payment for my compensation, but when the time came for Posner to pay me for my work, he reneged on the agreement. I gave him several chances to do the right thing and pay for my work in order to avoid litigation, but he chose to stiff me. His wife then sent me an email and told me that Posner “misled” me and she offered to pay me $10,000 for my “trouble”, which I of course declined to accept.

~ The Lawyer Shenanigans Then Began ~

I received a letter from Posner’s Chicago lawyer, Robert W. Kaufman, dated February 28, 2022, stating “What you clearly do not know is that, soon after your conversations with Judge Posner in early 2018, he received a confirmed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease” and “As to the substance of your claim, we believe that medical evidence will show that the Judge did not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts in 2018.” I quickly shot down that sham defense when I pointed out that Posner was quite active in doing interviews, running the Posner Center, writing books, and working as a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law School, and even taking on a new job as an advisor to Legalist in 2019 and was involved in a federal appeal in 2019. So how could it be that Posner could not have had the “legal capacity” to enter into contracts with me in 2018, but he had no problem in doing all of these other things during the same time period and even a year later? That was such a ridiculous statement that when I took that defense to task Posner’s new lawyers then turned to skullduggery in arguing that my “reliance” on Posner’s family lawyer (Robert W. Kaufman) was “misleading” because Posner’s lawyer, who actually made the statement, supposedly did not know Posner’s “history”. What a joke!

~ And Then There Was This ~

When I filed the lawsuit Posner’s lawyers immediately let the court know that Posner was to be treated preferentially because of his status as a retired federal court of appeals judge —even though he was being sued in his personal capacity for breach of contract and not in his capacity as a judge. Posner’s lawyers set the game in immediate motion in Posner’s very first sentence of his memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss complaint, in his so called “Statement of Facts” that “Following a distinguished thirty-six-year judicial career, Judge Posner retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in September 2017” with reference to the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) link showing Posner’s judicial career containing information about his political appointments and so forth. Posner’s lawyers did this as a subliminal message to the court in order to curry favor —it was clearly a “wink-wink” to the court.

Since Posner’s lawyers felt a burning desire to let the court know he expected preferential treatment by mentioning his alleged “distinguished thirty-six-year judicial career”, I responded in kind in letting the court know that Posner’s career was not as “distinguished” as Posner and his band of lawyers would like the court and the public to think. The proof is in the pudding by way of Posner’s own publicly made brash statements:

• Posner publicly proclaimed that “America has a “very bad” judicial system and that “we have a very crappy judicial system…that contaminates much of government.”

https://promarket.org/2017/03/28/richard-posner-real-corruption-ownership-congress-rich/.

• Posner publicly proclaimed his disdain for following rules when he told the New York Times “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” and “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.” An Exit Interview With Richard Posner, Judicial Provocateur - The New York Times (nytimes.com).

• In an interview with Legal Talk Network, Posner characterized himself as a "maverick" and publicly proclaimed his disdain for rules and tradition when he stated "Well, I am a maverick, and I don't really like rules, I don't like tradition." https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/chicago-bar/2018/03/the-ill-be-dreaming-about-donkeys-edition-an-interview-with-judge-richard-posner-ret/

• Posner went on public record stating a judicial ruling need not "be supported by 'reason'" and that most "legal technicalities" are "antiquated crap." https://lawliberty.org/features/the-mystery-of-richard-posner/.

• Posner publicly proclaimed that he saw no value to a judge in studying the Constitution. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/law-school-professors-need-more-practical-experience.html.

• Posner publicly stated that he sees “Absolutely no value” in studying the Constitution. https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=7771.

• A piece published by The Hill on July 11, 2016, stated that “By laying bare is contempt for the Constitution, Posner violated his oath of office and permanently stained the honor of the federal judiciary.” and suggested that “Posner…quietly resign his seat to a more fitting occupant...” https://thehill.com/homenews/287228-resign-or-impeach-judge-posner-must-go/

• Posner stated in a YouTube presentation in September 2008 titled "Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker" at the 32:39 mark of the presentation that he doesn't want to see moral reasoning brought into contracts; at the 49:43 mark of the presentation he stated that judges are confused by "moral language"; and at the 58:57 mark he stated 'I don't think fair, the word "fair" has any content at all."' Fault in Contract Law: Richard Posner, "Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker" - YouTube.

• In speaking about “hard feelings” between himself and the 7th Circuit judges, Posner told Law360 that he was “disinvited” to a 7th Circuit dinner because of animosity between himself and the other judges, and it was also reported that Chief Judge Diane Wood contacted a Judicial Conference’s conduct committee about Posner’s “ethics” of releasing the court’s internal communications. Is Posner's 'baffling' book an ethics breach? Chief judge objects to release of internal memos (abajournal.com).

• On July 10, 2017, Chief Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sent a letter to Chief Judge Rebecca Smith of the Eastern District of Virginia who chaired the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct addressing ethics concerns about Richard Posner.

• On August 8, 2017, Chief Judge Diane Wood sent an email to all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to share an opinion she received from the Judicial Conference’s Committee which stated a conclusion that “the anticipated public disclosure of the confidential, internal court communications…would violate the intent, letter, and spirit of the Code.” Shortly, thereafter Posner was informed by the Judicial Conference Committee chair.

• In an article titled “Fanning furor, US Justice Scalia says appeals court judge lied”, Reuters reported that “Scalia, 76, the longest-serving justice and a leading conservative on the court, said Judge Richard Posner, of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lied in a review in August of a book co-authored by Scalia.” quoting Justice Antonin Scalia who reportedly said in reference to Posner “To say that I used legislative history is simply, to put it bluntly, a lie,” Scalia told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-scalia-idCNL1E8KI1RW20120918/.

• In an article titled “U.S. appeals court strikes back, finds Judge Posner unfair to pro-se defendant” by Injustice Watch, the article pointed out that a panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed a mail-fraud conviction, contending the trial judge (Posner) violated the rights of a defendant who represented himself at the jury trial.
https://www.injusticewatch.org/judges/judicial-conduct/2017/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-back-finds-judge-posner-unfair-to-pro-se-defendant/.

So much for the alleged “distinguished” career.

~ The District Court is Involved in Aiding and Abetting the Concealment of Evidence
of Possible Embezzlement of Funds that Were Donated to the Posner Center ~

Posner's original lawyer, Robert W. Kaufman, in a February 28, 2022 letter to me, in addition to his other nonsense statements stated that “Further, any contract for services to be rendered on behalf of the Posner Center would have been an obligation of the Posner Center, and not an obligation of the Judge…The Posner Center dissolved as of July 23, 2019 and, to our knowledge, the entity had no assets with which to pay to pay its liabilities at such time.”

First off, Kaufman’s statement is very incorrect as the oral agreement was that Posner would personally be responsible for payment for my services, not the Posner Center. And since Posner’s lawyers want to go with such a sham defense, they should be required in the litigation to explain in detail exactly what happened to the publicly donated money that was gone when the Posner Center dissolved? The problem is, the district court has refused to allow me to conduct discovery into that information. That is very concerning. Public policy and societal interests dictate that the complete financial records including bank records and records of all persons affiliated with the former Posner Center should be disclosed in order that the public will have an explanation as to what happened to the money since it was all gone when the Posner Center closed. Who received the money? Who wrote the checks? Who cashed the checks? What did he/she do with the money? What do the banking records show? What do receipts show in terms of expenditures of the money? What was the money used for? Who had access to the money? These are clear public policy questions and the district court has plenty to answer for here in disallowing me from pursuing this information in discovery. Inasmuch as the Posner Center was a publicly licensed organization operating under an Illinois license that sought and received donations from the public, there is a very substantial societal interest and consequently the public has a right to know what happened to the money that was donated to the Posner Center —public policy requires a full accounting of the publicly donated funds, public policy does not support Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s actions of concealing this information from the public. Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s actions preventing me from conducting discovery in the normal fashion of two sided discovery reeks of judicial malfeasance as the prevention of my discovery rights serves to conceal information of potential embezzlement of public funds that were donated to the Posner Center to which the general public has a right to know what happened to the donated funds which were all gone when the Posner Center dissolved. It is of paramount importance that the general public be privy to the records of the donated funds —every penny of the donated funds. A federal magistrate judge should not be involved in any form of complicity in concealing information relevant to potential embezzlement of funds donated to a state licensed entity —such judicial malfeasance is against public policy. Embezzlement of public funds is a very serious crime and a federal district court should hardly be involved in protecting information that well could lead to proof of embezzlement of publicly donated funds.

~ The Judges Are Complicitly Involved in Concealing Evidence of Tax Fraud
Which is a Federal Offense that Falls Under the Category of “Frauds and False
Statements” Under Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 7206 ~

One of the reasons that Posner, his lawyers, and his enablers are nervous about going to a trial against me is they know there are IRS documents showing their lies to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in tax returns by reporting that the Center did not pay any employee a salary, and lies to the district court falsely purporting that no employees of the Posner Center were paid a salary. In at least two separate filings with the district court, Posner, by and through his lawyers, falsely stated that the Center “never paid any employee a salary” and utilized IRS tax returns containing false information to wrongfully buttress their false arguments to the district court to try to mislead the court into believing that no employees were paid a salary by pointing the court to IRS tax returns falsely purporting that the Center paid “$0 in salaries to employees and staff” in either year of 2018 and 2019, when in fact the Center did pay a salary to a Posner Center employee, Joyce Hutchens, which was evidenced by information that Posner’s lawyers unwittingly let out of the bag when Posner’s lawyers stated in the litigation “After Ms. Hutchens filed a state-law administrative complaint against Defendant for back pay, another staffer paid her a settlement of $8,020 and then was reimbursed by the Center. And Posner’s lawyers further stated “And in 2019, the Center paid … $8,020 in the settlement with Ms. Hutchens.”

The former employee who received a salary notwithstanding the lies by Posner’s lawyers’ on his behalf, Joyce Hutchens, sent a choice email to Posner on September 9, 2018 which stated:

Dick Posner:
Today is Sunday, a day on which I do not have to work. However, I have
worked this entire weekend for the Center, even when it meant taking time
from my family and other things I must do. During the past 24 hours--and
actually during the past week, you have insulted, offended, berated, threatened
and harassed me for no reason with your nearly 20 epic emails which remain
and will continue to remain in my possession. I’m not sure what your issue
is with me and frankly I do not care. Effective immediately, I resign from
the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s and I DO NOT want to receive
another email from you. I have NEVER been disrespected like this. Slavery
ended more than 100 years ago, and I am not your slave. To ensure that you
do not contact me, I am immediately blocking you from my emails—forever.

I am the second Black woman that has exited your so-called “justice center”
within the last 60 days in an unpleasant way. That doesn’t look very good,
sir--particularly for a so called “justice center” and it says plenty about your
integrity and lack thereof. Perhaps you could use some diversity training.
Moreover, it is absolutely incomprehensible that you think I give a hoot about
working for your center when I don’t even get paid. Get over yourself. I DO
NOT have to work for you. Finally getting you out of my life is one of the
happiest days of my life--something I had planned to do this week anyway.
I am not putting up with your BS another second.

It’s no wonder the law school, the 7th Circuit and Lord knows who else doesn’t
want to be bothered with you. I will leave instructions with someone else on
where I am leaving the work of yours I have in my possession AFTER I receive
the salary I am owed. I will leave everything at 227 W. Monroe along with my
ID. In the meantime, do not bother me. Good riddance.

Joyce

This email is evidence that this former employee was a paid employee of the Posner Center which directly contradicts the statements submitted to the IRS and in the litigation by Posner’s lawyers and his enablers to the contrary, and also is evidence that the information provided by Posner and/or his enablers to the IRS was fraudulent information. Furthermore, this email is evidence of a custom on the part of Posner to hire employees to work for him, and then not pay for their work —which is exactly what he did with me. It is unfortunate that the magistrate judge, John E. Martin, with the blessing of the district court judge, Theresa L. Springmann, chose to side with Posner’s request that I not be permitted to conduct discovery as to my claims, and that only Posner should be able to conduct discovery as to his defenses, by allowing such one sided biased discovery these judges are complicitly playing along with concealing this particular information not only from me, but also from the public. And that is exactly what has been going on —and they know it. And Martin and Springmann well know that at least two different judges in the district denounced the notion of bifurcated discovery in several different opinions in the district. Martin and Springmann, without any explanation, chose to completely ignore Judge DeGuilio’s admonishment in this division that “Bifurcation is the exception, not the rule.” from the decision of Real v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 195 F.R.D. 618, 620 (N.D. Ill. 2000) But when it came to protecting Posner and preventing me from the information that I am quite entitled to, Martin and Springmann chose to play the game proffered by Posner’s lawyers and decided that bifurcation when it comes to this case should be the “rule” and not the “exception”. This is a classic example of how a court corruptly influences a decision in order to protect the unsavory activities of an influential person and his unsavory lawyers in order to silence and intimidate a person with a legitimate case —but Martin and Springmann will see, that when the smoke clears, such judicial thuggery will be taken to task and will be exposed. After all, concealing evidence of tax fraud is a federal offense that falls under the category of “frauds and false statements” under Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 7206. And Martin and Springmann know that if this case goes to trial, all of this information is going to come out, and that is why there is such a major attempt to keep this case from going to trial. And make no mistake about it, this is one of the reasons Posner’s lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, wrote a letter directly to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin and explicitly asked “for this Court’s assistance in discovery to help bring this case to a swift end.” And Martin has certainly been very accommodating to Ellis’ request. But as I said, all of the nefariousness and corruption is going to come out in the end when it is all said and done —that is a given. And that is what is making Ellis and the rest of Posner’s lawyers very nervous.

~ Posner’s Lawyers Recruited a Confederate Who Is No Stranger to
Submitting False Information in a Legal Proceeding to Lie for Posner ~

Posner’s legal position is so weak, and his lawyers are so desperate, that they decided to recruit a confederate lawyer from Chicago, Sakina Carbide, to lie for them, and indeed lie for them she did. As you will see, Carbide is no stranger to providing false information in a legal proceeding which she attempted to do in the Illinois state court system —and was caught in her lies, and lost. This was a case where Carbide tried to fleece a person who could not understand well, nor speak fluent English to the tune of $177,000 at a rate of $400 an hour. When the Illinois court asked Carbide to explain the discrepancies in her calculation of the fees, Carbide responded that her files “were stolen from her office.” When Carbide was taken to task regarding time entries on her time sheet records, Carbide stated that her records are “written contemporaneously with the work,” but that they are “not inputted by [Carbide].” When confronted with this, Carbide stated that sometimes her “writing is not exactly clear” and that “it could be a mistake both by her staff and by [Carbide] in [her] review.” The Illinois trial court concluded that Carbide’s affidavit and testimony were unworthy and the court ruled that Carbide shouldn’t receive any money from her claims after hearing and considering her testimony.

The list goes on to the point that the Illinois Court of Appeals wrote “Carbide claims to challenge many of the trial court’s actions, however, she merely lists most of the alleged errors and fails to provide adequate argument, and/or citations to authority, in support of any of those claims.” The Illinois Court of Appeals noted that the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding an issue as to whether Carbide and petitioner had entered into a written agreement as Carbide claimed, and after the evidentiary hearing the trial court concluded “based on the credibility of the witnesses, that Carbide failed to establish the existence of such an agreement, and denied her petition for fees.” When it was all said and done, the Illinois Court of Appeals wrote ‘Carbide’s reliance on her own affidavit, attesting to her own “interpretation of the evidence and memory as to what happened, is not well taken.” https://casetext.com/case/in-re-marriage-of-christian-1.

And notwithstanding that Sakina Carbide had already been deemed untrustworthy by the Illinois courts, Posner’s lawyers recruited Carbide and on February 16, 2024 Posner’s lawyers filed an affidavit titled “Declaration of Sakina Carbide” containing one lie after another. Carbide’s lies were so blatant that I asked the court to hold an evidentiary hearing requiring Carbide to appear and testify under oath so the court could see firsthand how she lied and could also see the frauds that were perpetrated upon the court by Posner and his lawyers by way of their recruitment of this confederate nonparty witness, an apparent serial liar.

And as you might have guessed, the judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana chose not to hold an evidentiary hearing, which of course prevented me from showing the court just how far Posner and his lawyers would go to advance lies in order to escape responsibility from his obligations to pay for my work to him. What the district court is doing in protecting Posner and his lawyers is unconscionable.

The lies by Sakina Carbide were many. If there is a trial, I will be sure to put her on the witness stand. An example of one of Carbide’s many lies to the court was Carbide stated in her so called “Declaration” that neither I or Posner ever mentioned to her any contract between us and she went on to state “it was always my understanding, directly from Defendant during those times, that no salary was promised.” Carbide must have been suffering from delusions of grandeur of some kind to think that she was somehow a person of special standing that required both Posner and I had to divulge to her our personal business affairs —which quite frankly was none of her business. The nail in Carbide’s coffin is demonstrated in Posner’s February 25, 2018 email to me where Posner stated to me “I should be able to pay you at least $80,000 a year and I hope more.” of which amount was increased to $120,000 a year by oral agreement. This is what happens when lying lawyers recruit other lying lawyers to lie for them. It’s too bad the court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing as I would have fried Carbide on the stand —and the court knew it.

Carbide went on to further lie in her so called “Declaration” that there was no discussion about the amendment of the contract between Posner and I when we met for lunch in Chicago on March 19 or “or in any of my many conversations with them after that meeting.” Carbide had a problem reconciling the fact that Posner and I met before the lunch meeting with Carbide so we could privately discuss the terms of our amended contract, which of course was no business of Sakina Carbide since it was a private contract between two private parties.

In Carbide’s illusions of grandeur Carbide went on to further lie in her so called “Declaration “I am aware that Plaintiff has alleged, under penalty of perjury, that, at the March 19 meeting, Defendant told Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s salary would be $120,000 per year and would “roll over” each year. That did not happen at the March 19 meeting I attended, or at any other time, ever. There was no discussion of Plaintiff’s receiving any salary or that salary rolling over each year. Nor did Plaintiff or Defendant ever mention any such salary in any of my many conversations with them after the March 19 meeting. If Defendant ever intended to, or had, made such a proposal or commitment, I am certain that he would have discussed it, or at a minimum, disclosed it, to me, due to my involvement with the Posner Center, and due to Defendant’s trust and admiration of my work.”

Carbide was on another planet if she thought she had some kind of special status that there was in her twisted mind an obligation for me or Posner to check in with her about our private contract matter. If she would have had any such status, Posner would have copied her on the email he sent me in February 2018 when he made the job offer to me and he quoted a yearly compensation of at least $80,000.00 “and I hope more” according to the email job offer.

It was absolutely ludicrous for Carbide to make such cavalier and ridiculous statements of puffery. The reality is that Posner had disdain for Sakina Carbide and had an extremely low opinion of her work of which disdain and low opinion is demonstrated in an email Posner sent to me on February 25, 2018 stating “Brian, do you have any idea what she’s doing? I don’t...She doesn’t write intelligible English, and I think with her suggested changes the probability of the Supreme Court’s granting cert. falls to zero. And to think I appointed her Regional Director for Cook County!” The email certainly doesn’t at all support Carbide’s statement in her “Declaration” that “If Defendant ever intended to, or had, made such a proposal or commitment, I am certain that he would have discussed it, or at a minimum, disclosed it, to me, due to my involvement with the Posner Center, and due to Defendant’s trust and admiration of my work.” In reality, the email Posner sent to me shows that Posner had no “trust” and “admiration” of Carbide’s work —the email shows quite the contrary. She certainly was full of herself.

One may wonder with everything that was at stake, why wouldn’t the judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana choose to hold an evidentiary hearing requiring Carbide to appear and testify under oath? The answer to this question is quite obvious —the judges well knew that had they granted my request for an evidentiary hearing that I would have put Carbide on the stand and showed her as the liar that she was in making the false statements in her so called "Declaration", and she would have had to admit that Illinois courts had previously deemed her affidavit and testimony as unworthy, i.e., ‘Carbide’s reliance on her own affidavit, attesting to her own “interpretation of the evidence and memory as to what happened, is not well taken.” https://casetext.com/case/in-re-marriage-of-christian-1. The court did her and Posner’s lawyers a big favor as I would have shown her for the liar that she is, and make no mistake about it, I would have done exactly that —and the court knows it.

The moral to this story is that while Carbide’s lies were not well taken by the Illinois courts, sadly, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had no problem in accepting her lies. And that is precisely why the Indiana judges in the case chose not to hold an evidentiary hearing, because the judges knew very well that it would have been a very embarrassing episode for Carbide and Posner’s lawyers —and by doing so, the court embarrassed itself, plain and simple.

~ And Then There Is Posner’s Lawyers Foolishly Trying to Intimidate Me Into
Not Publicly Exposing Judicial Corruption and the Corrupt Acts by Posner ~

The facts are so bad for Posner that Posner’s lawyers went way out of their way when they repeatedly and very pathetically attempted to slant the district court against me for exercising my free speech rights under the First Amendment and complained to the court that I was writing books, complained that I was writing blog posts, and complained that I was posting on X (formerly Twitter). Posner’s lawyers, namely Justin M. Ellis, whined in the litigation that “Plaintiff has posted hundreds of times on social media about this case” and in his whining Ellis filed hundreds of screenshots of my postings on X (formerly Twitter). Who does such a thing other than a stalker? It is concerning that Justin M. Ellis is so obsessed with me that he is taking the time to take hundreds of screenshots of my public interviews. Posner’s lawyers, particularly Justin M. Ellis, must be really stupid if they think for a minute that such foolish intimidation tactics will work with me. No way will that ever happen!

~ And How Could We Forget the Letter Sent By One of Posner’s
Several Lawyers Asking Magistrate Judge John E. Martin for
“Assistance” and “Help” to Bring the Case “To A Swift End"? ~

The case is so tainted that one of Posner’s lawyers, Justin M. Ellis, on March 8, 2024, wrote a letter directly to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin explicitly requesting “this Court’s assistance in discovery to help bring this case to a swift end.” And then Martin certainly reciprocated when he accommodated Posner and his lawyers’ desire for one sided discovery when Martin allowed Posner to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but disallowed me from conducting discovery as to my claims against Posner. It stands to reason that things were getting scorching hot for Posner and his lawyers that Ellis felt a need to directly beg Martin for "assistance" and "help". It should be noted that for a lawyer to directly ask a judge to arbitrarily provide "assistance" and “help” to bring a case "to a swift end" is entirely inappropriate. But by getting Martin to play ball, Posner and his enablers who submitted false and fraudulent information to the IRS and his lawyers who submitted false and fraudulent arguments in the case utilizing false information submitted to the IRS would then be able to escape responsibility from their wrongful and unlawful actions of tax fraud. The letter speaks volumes as to just how tainted the proceedings are under Magistrate Judge John E. Martin who has most certainly been very acquiescent to the March 8 letter since the record demonstrates that Martin has been graciously accommodating Posner and his lawyers at every turn in disregarding of precedents and in disregard of the governing rules. Just a few days after Ellis sent the March 8, 2024 letter to Martin requesting his “assistance” and “help” in discovery, on March 14, 2024, Martin, conducted a telephonic status conference where he indicated that he would side with Posner on the contested issue of phased discovery as to Posner’s defenses, and indicated that I could not conduct discovery as to my claims. When I asked Martin about his failure to follow the precedents from this division against one sided discovery, Martin refused to explain his reasoning for disregarding the precedents from this division that went against the notion of bifurcated discovery in his approval of one sided discovery only for Posner. So what happened was Martin set the stage for Posner to file a motion for summary judgment where he allowed Posner to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but disallowed me from conducting discovery as to my claims, even though Martin knew that as the plaintiff the burden is on me to prove my claims, but he chose to disallow me to conduct discovery which of course essentially makes it difficult to almost impossible to prove the claims without discovery. To say that the fix is in would be an understatement.

One may wonder why would a district court go to such lengths to allow only one side to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but not allow the other side to conduct discovery as to his claims? The answer is very evident here, the defendant, Richard A. Posner, is a former federal court of appeals judge. And it should not be forgotten that at the outset of the case Posner’s lawyers reminded the district court as much. The district court knows that there is underlying evidence of tax fraud and the very real possibility of embezzlement of funds that were donated to the Posner Center. And the court knows that Posner’s lawyers have repeatedly lied in their arguments and that Posner’s defenses are a sham, and that discovery would indeed provide tangible evidence of the sham defenses. The district court knows that if there was to be a trial, that all of this would be brought to public light, and this the judiciary does not want to happen. For if there was to be a public trial, the district court knows that I will expose the IRS tax frauds, the probability of embezzlement of funds, the lies by Posner’s lawyers, and the sham defenses, and many other nefarious things that took place that Posner’s lawyers and the district court doesn’t want the public to know about. And that is exactly what is going on in the case. And that is why Ellis wrote the March 8, 2024 letter to Martin. Because by accommodating Posner's direct message for "assistance" and "help" to bring the case "to a swift end", Posner and his enablers who submitted false and fraudulent information to the IRS, and his lawyers who submitted false and fraudulent arguments in the case utilizing false information submitted to the IRS, would then be able to escape responsibility from their wrongful and unlawful actions of tax fraud.

The Ellis letter speaks volumes as to just how tainted the proceedings are under Magistrate Judge John E. Martin asking for his “assistance” and “help” to bring the case “to a swift end.” And that is why Martin accommodated Posner’s lawyer in only allowing Posner to conduct discovery as to his defenses, but disallowing me from conducting discovery as to my claims —a decision in favor of one sided discovery that has been frowned upon in several cases by at least two other judges in this division. Posner’s lawyers have now filed a motion for summary judgment and the ball is now in Judge Theresa L. Springmann’s court. I feel very strongly that I have the facts and the law on my side, but based on things that the judges have allowed to take place in nefariously protecting Posner, I am very concerned. Perhaps the judges may think that if they issue a gaslight ruling granting Posner’s motion for summary judgment, that the strongarm tactics that were very prevalent in the case will somehow cause me to go quietly away, but that would be a mistake —that will not happen under any circumstances. Gaslighting a ruling in order to deny a trial to me would not suppress the truth, it would only guarantee that the truth will indeed come out, one way or the other —that is a given. And if it has to happen that way, Posner’s lawyers and the judges are not going to like it.

THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHO IS PROTECTING FORMER FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE RICHARD POSNER

2024-08-21T11:27:21-04:00

It is very disheartening to have a federal magistrate judge involved in a case where the judge is throwing out gratuitous rulings left and right in order to help a well known federal judge who is a defendant in a breach of contract case —and that is exactly what is happening in my breach of contract case against former federal court of appeals judge Richard Posner.

In 2018 Richard Posner hired me to work for him as executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s and also as an advisor to him in his personal capacity. But when it came time to pay for my services, Posner reneged on the agreement and I was forced to file a lawsuit against him for breach of contract after giving him several opportunities to pay what he owed me for my work. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The judge assigned to the case is Judge Theresa Springmann and the current magistrate is Magistrate Judge John E. Martin —a disaster.

Almost without exception litigations involve two way discovery where both sides are able to conduct discovery, but Martin has chosen to disregard the norm and is only allowing Posner to conduct discovery to his benefit in his quest to have the case dismissed, but Martin refuses to allow me to conduct discovery as to my claims —and he has chosen to proceed in this discriminatory manner even though several decisions from the Northern District of Indiana courts by at least two federal judges have denounced bifurcated discovery. And when I asked Martin to explain why he was not willing to follow the decisions from this district which have denounced bifurcated discovery, Martin refused to provide an explanation. The fact that he refused to explain his actions speaks for itself —he is on shaky ground and he knows it. And if that wasn’t bad enough, Martin furthermore refused to follow his own previous ruling on discovery in the decision of Foster v. Maistrendko, No. 2:21-CV-368-TLS-JEM, where Martin determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” But Martin chooses not to follow his own precedent when it comes time for him to fix a decision for an influential former federal judge —the proof is in the pudding.

One may wonder why it is that a judge would go against the norm and order one sided discovery that benefits only one side of the litigation, especially when other judges in the same district denounced such a process. The reason is very simple, this is what a judge does when he is interested in fixing the case to go a certain way —and that is exactly what Magistrate Judge John E. Martin is doing.

~ MARTIN’S PROTECTIONISM OF POSNER’S BOGUS DEFENSES ~

In a letter dated February 28, 2022, a lawyer for Posner, Robert W. Kaufman, sent a letter to me stating “What you clearly do not know is that, soon after your conversations with Judge Posner in early 2018, he received a confirmed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease”, and “As to the substance of your claim, we believe that medical evidence will show that the Judge did not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts in 2018.” which is absurd, and Martin knows it is absurd because Martin knows that Posner was quite active in doing interviews, running the Posner Center, writing books, working as a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law School, and even taking on a new job as an advisor to Legalist in 2019 and also participating in an amicus curiae brief filed in the Federal Circuit on January, 23, 2019. And after I blew that argument to smithereens, Posner’s lawyers have now recently embarked on a pitiful argument that “Plaintiff’s reliance on a 2022 quote from Defendant’s family lawyer, who did not know the parties’ history is misleading.” The skullduggery is sad to say the least.

Posner’s lawyers have filed so called “affirmative defenses” stating that:

• “Plaintiff’s claims fail, in whole or in part, because Defendant lacked capacity to form a binding contract.”

• “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged contract, if formed, was unconscionable at the time it was made.”

• “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of equitable estoppel because, among other reasons, Plaintiff knowingly induced Defendant to enter the alleged contracts, Plaintiff knew that Defendant lacked mental capacity to do so, Plaintiff induced Defendant to rely on Plaintiff’s nondemand for payment during the life of the alleged contracts, and Defendant’s position has prejudicially changed as a result.”

• “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of ratification and waiver because Plaintiff intentionally relinquished any right to payment by acting inconsistently with that right, including, without limitation, by allegedly continuing to perform despite Defendant’s alleged nonpayment and by failing to seek payment when it was allegedly due.

• “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by a failure of consideration in the parties’ alleged agreements because, among other reasons, Plaintiff failed to perform the acts promised under the alleged contracts.”

• “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he materially breached the parties’ alleged agreements by failing to perform the acts he promised to perform.”

But yet Martin refuses to allow me to conduct discovery against these bogus so called “affirmative defenses”, and the reason is very evident —Martin knows each and every one of these so called “affirmative defenses” are bogus. Martin's actions are corrupt to the core.

~ MARTIN IS INVOLVED IN CONCEALING EVIDENCE OF
POSSIBLE EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS THAT WERE DONATED
TO THE POSNER CENTER TO WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT
TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY ~

According to information provided on tax returns filed with the IRS which have been submitted in the case as exhibits to a memorandum of law filed by Posner’s lawyers, “the Center received $20,600 of donations. The information submitted by Posner’s lawyers further stated that “The Center dissolved in July 2019 without assets.” This begs the question, what happened to the $20,600 that was purportedly donated to the Center? Public policy and societal interests dictate that the complete financial records including bank records and records of all persons affiliated with the former Posner Center should be, and must be, disclosed in order that the public will have an explanation as to what happened to the money since it was all gone when the Posner Center closed. Who received the money? Who wrote the checks? Who cashed the checks? What did he/she do with the money? What do the banking records show? What do receipts show in terms of expenditures of the money? What was the money used for? Who had access to the money? Public policy and societal interests dictate that these questions must be answered —and they must be answered in discovery according to the Seventh Circuit decision of Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). However, Martin, by way of his infected ruling in favor of one sided discovery in favor of Posner’s espousing of one sided discovery, prevents me from my rights to discovery of this information. Martin knows his actions of preventing me from this entitled discovery goes against Judge Jon DeGuilio’s decision in Albert’s Diamond Jeweler’s, Inc., v. Aaland Diamond Jewelers, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-39 JD, 2023 WL 6284632 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 27, 2023) where Judge DeGuilio wrote that “There is a strong public policy in favor of disclosure of relevant materials” and there is a “societal interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in the particular case before the court”. (citing Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002).

Inasmuch as the Posner Center was a publicly licensed organization operating under an Illinois license that sought and received donations, there is a very substantial societal interest and consequently the public has a right to know what happened to the money, and because public policy dictates that society is entitled to an explanation of what happened to the money that was donated to the Posner Center by members of society, it is axiomatic that the records of all of the donated money be disclosed —and not concealed. In light of the public policy and societal interest questions involved here, Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s actions of concealing this information and keeping it under wraps is a major red flag and cause for alarm as his actions potentially are protecting the possible crime of embezzlement of funds —and no judge should be involved in concealing information of possible evidence of embezzlement of funds donated by the public. It is entirely inappropriate for Magistrate Judge John E. Martin to be involved in concealing this information from me by way of his infected decision to allow one sided discovery which in effect serves to conceal this information of possible embezzlement of funds donated by the public.

~ MARTIN IS INVOLVED IN CONCEALING EVIDENCE OF TAX FRAUD ~

Posner’s lawyers have lied in court documents and filed IRS tax forms filed by Posner and/or his enablers falsely stating that no employees were paid a salary. In two separate court filings, Posner, by and through his lawyers, led by the lead lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, falsely stated that the Center “never paid any employee a salary” and referred to IRS tax returns falsely purporting that “Those returns state that the Center paid $0 in salaries to employees and staff in either year” of 2018 and 2019. These lies were done to make it look as though nobody was supposed to be paid in order to help them win the case. These were blatant false and fraudulent misrepresentations because Joyce Hutchens, a former employee of the Posner Center, was paid a salary of several thousands of dollars a month as the Posner Center’s research director. Martin knows these were lies because the lies being advanced by Posner’s lawyers are shown in an exhibit to one of their infected memorandums explicitly showing that a “A settlement of $8,020.00 was paid to a former employee of the Center.” The $8,020 stated in the document was for back wages after Ms. Hutchens threatened to sue Posner for unpaid back wages. And yet Martin chooses to conceal the evidence of this tax fraud from me because he knows it would show evidence of the lies being advanced by Posner’s lawyers in order to win the case, which is actually a losing case for them —if decided on the actual merits and not by corruption.

The information that Martin is preventing me from obtaining in discovery is tangible evidence of a crime upon the IRS which would effectively demonstrate evidence within the case that Posner and his lawyers lied in their court filing while defending Posner of his breach of the contract by way of their false and fraudulent arguments filed in the case. It is interesting that Posner, as a judge, did not accept misrepresentations by lawyers, and had no problem in issuing sanctions, when the panel he was on in Tomczyk v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 951 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1991) issued financial sanctions against attorneys for submitting disingenuous arguments stating that ‘We previously have held that misrepresentations of controlling law and disingenuous arguments, "because they postpone resolution of the real issues and cause delay, can be evidence of bad faith..."’ But as a litigant, as a defendant, he has no problem with having lawyers who have brought many lies on his behalf in the case, but then again, Posner is a self proclaimed “maverick” who told the New York Times “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” and “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.” An Exit Interview With Richard Posner, Judicial Provocateur - The New York Times (nytimes.com), and in another interview with Legal Talk Network on March 7, 2018, characterized himself as a "maverick" and publicly proclaimed his disdain for rules and tradition when he stated "Well, I am a maverick, and I don't really like rules, I don't like tradition." https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/chicago-bar/2018/03/the-ill-be-dreaming-about-donkeys-edition-an-interview-with-judge-richard-posner-ret/. And if that wasn’t bad enough, according to a December 1, 2016 article in the Los Angeles Review of Books titled "Richard Posner Is a Monster", Posner in his younger days called himself “the mighty one,” and he wrote to editors at Cambridge University Press, “Don’t you know who I am?” and according to the article Posner has referred to himself as a “monster”. And last, but not least, the self proclaimed “maverick” who doesn’t like rules, has publicly stated in an interview titled “Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker” that 'I don't think fair, the word "fair" has any content at all."' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvIDdJpF5oM.

And yet Martin would prefer to help this self proclaimed “maverick”, who has called himself a "monster", who doesn’t like to play by the rules, to prevail in the case in order that he can benefit from his con job in the end by not having to pay for the work I did for him, which in effect is tantamount to an approval of slave labor which in effect is being endorsed by Magistrate Judge John E. Martin.

Martin’s actions in preventing me from conducting my entitled right to discovery into the false and fraudulent information that Posner and/or his agents/representatives submitted to the IRS was not only a violation of my entitled rights to this information, but also was tantamount to helping along concealment of tax fraud which is a federal offense that falls under the category of “frauds and false statements” under Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 7206. Martin’s conduct of preventing me from obtaining this information in discovery could potentially render him criminally liable for helping cover up these tax fraud crimes.

~ THE LETTER SENT BY POSNER'S LAWYER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN ASKING FOR THE JUDGE'S "HELP" AND "ASSISTANCE" TO "HELP" BRING THE CASE TO A "SWIFT END" SPEAKS VOLUMES AS TO HOW CORRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ~

~ MARTIN’S THREATS TO ME WILL NOT WORK ~

On April 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge John E. Martin issued an order inappropriately threatening to sanction me for a nonexistent rule violation in response to a letter I sent to the chambers of Chief Judge Holly Brady reporting Martin’s judicial malfeasances in the case. In the interest of full disclosure, I sent a copy of the email to Martin. Martin responded in a huff by issuing an order stating “This matter is before the Court sua sponte. An email was received by the Court from Plaintiff Brian Vukadinovich. The Court refuses to consider ex parte communications…Accordingly the Court hereby STRIKES the letter and CAUTIONS Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s Rules and Orders may result in sanctions.”

Martin was completely out of line as the email was not an ex parte communication. Had I not sent it to him then it would have been ex parte. A first year law school student would know that, but Martin obviously blew a gasket when he saw that I reported his corruption to the chief judge, and he didn’t like it —too bad for him. His ridiculous threat was nothing less than a form of judicial thuggery on his part calculated to inappropriately intimidate me into not further exposing judicial malfeasances that he has been involved in. Unfortunately for Martin, his threats won't work.

~ THE CASE IS REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN'S CORRUPTION REQUIRING HIS DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE CASE ~

Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explicitly states "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective."

Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct for United States judges explicitly states "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 actions by Magistrate Judge John E. Martin in preventing me from conducting my entitled right to discovery of which actions of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin blocks the discovery of information of potential embezzlement of publicly donated funds to the Posner Center hardly maintains and enforces high standards of conduct and hardly does much to preserve the “integrity and independence of the judiciary.” Nor does the act of preventing information of potential embezzlement of publicly donated funds “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Nor does protectionism of tax fraud do much to preserve the “integrity and independence of the judiciary” or “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Nor does using fiction to make threats against me in order to intimidate me into not further reporting issues of corruption on the part of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin do much to preserve the “integrity and independence of the judiciary” or “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Canon 3(C)(1) explicitly states "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings".

28 U.S. Code § 144 expressly states: Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

28 U.S. Code § 455(a) expressly states “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

“Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s corrupt behavior is bad wine of recent vintage who has proceeded in a very corrupt manner and has tainted the proceedings. His infected and poisonous actions render him disqualified from any further involvement in the case.

On August 7, 2024 I filed a motion for the disqualification and recusal of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin. I sent a copy of the disqualification papers to Chief Judge Holly Brady and informed Chief Judge Brady that because of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin’s corrupt actions in the case, that it is imperative that the record of his corrupt acts be made known to the appropriate officials who monitor judicial malfeasances. I also informed Chief Judge Brady that because we cannot as a society have corrupt judges on the federal judiciary, that it is very important that Magistrate Judge John E. Martin not be considered for reappointment as magistrate judge, and must never be appointed to a district court or appellate position, and that the information about his corrupt actions should be and must be made part of his file in order that the appropriate officials who review judges for higher judicial appointments have the information about his corruption. What Martin has been doing to thwart the administration of justice is appalling and he has no business being in the federal judiciary. A judge who disregards decisions from his very district against one sided discovery who nevertheless approves of one sided discovery in order to help an influential former federal court of appeals judge unfairly prevail in a case, by which one sided discovery also serves to conceal information of tax fraud and possible embezzlement of publicly donated funds, and who utilizes threats based on fiction in order to intimidate a litigant into not reporting the magistrate judge’s malfeasances, is not only unfit to stay on the particular case, but is unfit to serve on the federal judiciary.

According to the Supreme Court, any judge who does not comply with his/her oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in an act of acts of treason. S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). This makes Magistrate John E. Martin a treasonous judge according to the Supreme Court’s precedents. What Magistrate Judge John E. Martin had been doing is unconscionable with his judicial malfeasances —and he must go.

What this sorry excuse of a federal magistrate judge, John E. Martin, is doing is showing just how far the machinations of the federal judiciary will go to protect one of its own —and it certainly is a very ugly picture. But it is what it is, and the powers that be at the federal judiciary may rest well assured of one thing for sure, and that is that I will most certainly not be intimidated by Martin’s threats to silence me, and I will most certainly not sit still for the obvious nefariousness that is going on with Martin’s unsavory judicial behaviors in his abuses of his position as a magistrate federal judge in order to help a brethren judge escape liability for his wrongful actions —the powers to be at the federal judiciary can take that to the bank.

Chief Justice John Roberts: You Can Run, But You Can't Hide!

2023-02-18T09:02:00-05:00

The time has come for Chief Justice John Roberts to understand that, we, the people, are onto him, and that we demand an immediate attitude change from him, or he should resign. Roberts needs to understand that he has overplayed his hand, and the jig is up.

It is no secret that Roberts steadfastly refuses to adopt a formal set of ethics rules for the United States Supreme Court —the only court in the United States without a formal set of ethics rules. Roberts says that “every justice seeks to follow high ethical standards” and therefore a code of ethics for the Supreme Court is unnecessary. Roberts’ stated position is that the Supreme Court has “no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.” Roberts says that “every justice seeks to follow high ethical standards” and that they may turn to “judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles and disciplinary decisions,” and also seek advice from one another. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-gives-incomplete-history-lesson-ncna1286943. That is laughable at best.

We all know about the fiasco surrounding Justice Samuel Alito and the so called "leak" regarding the draft opinion that was written by Alito calling on the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade —the landmark 1973 opinion that legalized abortion which has been overturned by the current clown court headed by Roberts. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn. And we all know about Clarence Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself from a case involving White House January 6 records which revealed texts Thomas’ wife, Ginni, had sent about the bid to overturn the 2020 election. So much for so called "ethics". But what people don't know is how Chief Justice John Roberts looks the other way in the face of evidence of case fixing and cover up by judicial miscreants in the federal judiciary. But that cocky smile that Roberts likes to put on will soon be erased because soon the people are going to learn about just how corrupt the federal judiciary is as I will be exposing the problem of judicial case fixing and cover up in my soon to be released book Rogues in Black Robes. I will expose how a decision in an appeal I had filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago against rogue Indiana police was fixed by a judge, Michael S. Kanne, of which case fixing was disclosed by a former member of that court, Richard A. Posner, and my book will expose how the chief judge, Diane S. Sykes, and her compadres on the Seventh Circuit, protected the case fixing judge who didn't even have to deny, on the record, that he had the appellate decision fixed because of the brazenness of the miscreants on the Seventh Circuit.

In my book Rogues in Black Robes I will expose how the Administrative Office of the United States Courts refuses to provide a status report of the petition I filed with the Judicial Conference of the United States in Washington, D.C., regarding the case fixing and cover up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, and how Chief Justice John Roberts has chosen to look the other way even though he was informed about the case fixing and cover up.

Chief Justice John Roberts has plenty to be concerned about as my book Rogues in Black Robes will expose how the federal judiciary and its hierarchy go out of their way to protect corrupt federal judges who have had judicial-misconduct complaints filed against them, and how the peoples' judicial-misconduct complaints are routinely dismissed as a matter of course by brethren judges —in a secret manner.

When people read my upcoming book Rogues in Black Robes they will undoubtedly wonder why Roberts was afraid to respond to the letter I sent him on October 4, 2021, where I informed him of the case fixing and cover up going on at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago that was disclosed by former judge Richard A. Posner when he came clean and disclosed that Judge Michael S. Kanne had a decision fixed from the appeal of a civil rights case against the Valparaiso Police Department from Indiana.

When people read my upcoming book Rogues in Black Robes they will undoubtedly wonder why Roberts was afraid to confront the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago for its refusal to follow Rule 26 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct in refusing to request that the Chief Justice of the United States transfer my Judicial-Misconduct Complaint proceeding to the judicial council of another circuit rather than keeping the matter in house —which was obviously done in order that the judicial miscreants at the Seventh Circuit could sweep the information under the rug, even though Kanne did not deny, on the record, that he had the appellate decision fixed —just as Judge Posner disclosed.

When people read my upcoming book Rogues in Black Robes they will undoubtedly wonder why Roslynn Mauskopf, who was appointed by John Roberts as director of the Administrate Office of the United States Courts, refuses to inform me of the status of my petition for review of the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of my judicial-misconduct complaint against Kanne.

When people read my upcoming book Rogues in Black Robes the answers to these questions, and many other questions that people will undoubtedly have, will be readily answered, and the ultimate conclusion by the people will undoubtedly be that our country's judiciary is a cesspool permeated with corrupt judges and corrupt administrative officials, and has little to nothing to do with dispensing justice for the common people of our country. It is time for the people of our country to stand up and be heard and let John Roberts and all of the judges and judicial administrative officials in America know that we are onto their game, and the game must change.

Cockroaches go running when the lights are turned on —it's time to turn on the lights, and the lights will be turned on when my soon to be released book Rogues in Black Robes shines the lights on the judicial cockroaches that permeate the judiciary. It would behoove John Roberts to read it.

Recently FeedSpot has named my blog, Brian Vukadinovich Blog, one of the 15 Best Anti-Corruption Blogs and Websites to Follow. I am humbled that FeedSpot bestowed such an honor to my blog site. https://blog.feedspot.com/anti_corruption_blogs/.