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

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 2018 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/.

Judges Shouldn't Be Riding Shotgun With Rogue Police

2023-01-27T17:03:12-05:00

Here we go again with yet another senseless police murder of a helpless person, Tyre Nichols, who was mercilessly beaten to death at the hands of five rogue police officers of the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department on January 7, 2023. According to Nichols' mother, Rowyaughn Wells, Tyre was two minutes away from his home when he was pulled over for an alleged traffic violation, which, when it was all said and done, resulted in the five officers inflicting a fatal beating on Tyre. After the incident, Nichols reportedly "complained of having a shortness of breath" and was transported by ambulance to Memphis' St. Francis Hospital in critical condition. He died three days later. One of the attorneys for the family said "He was a human piñata for those police officers." and said that "It was unadulterated, unabashed, nonstop beating of this young boy for 3 minutes." The family said they saw the police kick, pepper spray and use a stun gun on their son all while Nichols repeatedly asked, “What did I do?”

On January 20, the Memphis Police Department announced that it fired the five police officers following an investigation into Nichols' death. Reportedly, a grand jury indicted the five officers and each was charged with "second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravating kidnapping, resulting in bodily injury, aggravated kidnapping involving the possession of a weapon official misconduct through unauthorized exercise of power, official misconduct through failure to act when there is a duty imposed by law, and official oppression". Reportedly, an independent autopsy, completed by a forensic pathologist hired by the family's attorneys, found that Nichols suffered from "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating". https://abcnews.go.com/US/tyre-nichols-timeline-investigation-death/story?id=96695791. This is a movie we have seen far too many times already, and quite frankly, the people are tired of the reruns. The question now is, what are we as a society going to do about this rampant ongoing problem —if anything?

The George Floyd saga should have resulted in serious police reforms, but it didn't. And now we have yet another travesty that should have never happened, and wouldn't have happened, if we, as a country, actually had a government that was serious about fixing the problem —but we don't. What we have is a government that actually exacerbates the problem in a lot of different ways. For starters, the first thing that should happen is that the doctrine of qualified immunity for police should be eliminated. Most people have heard of it, but most people don't realize that qualified immunity is not a law, it is a judicial doctrine conjured up by the Supreme Court that other courts choose to follow simply designed to help rogue police escape liability for their wrongful and disgusting actions. It is a legal shield that allows a police officer to not be civilly (financially) liable if they violate someone’s civil rights. Congress could end it, or change it, but it doesn't want to because it would step on the toes of the people in power who are interested in protecting rogue police —at all costs. That is the plain and simple of it. Police love the idea of qualified immunity because it basically gives them license to violate peoples’ rights in many different ways without much worry about any legal repercussions to them. Believe it or not, the five officers who collectively murdered Tyre Nichols will have the doctrine of qualified immunity available to them in the inevitable lawsuit that is sure to come, and I would be very surprised if their lawyers don't utilize it as a legal defense —that should tell you something about how bad of a doctrine it is, and why it should be eliminated. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't be surprised if a judge grants qualified immunity to those officers who murdered Tyre Nichols utilizing this ridiculous doctrine. Judges are notorious for passing out qualified immunity to bad police officers during civil rights litigations as if they were giving candy to a baby. They do it all the time.

Another thing that would be quite helpful in police reform would be to have a national database where all police departments would have to list the number of and the type of misconduct complaints that have been submitted against each officer in their respective departments. Police departments, even during civil rights litigations, have their unsavory lawyers fight against efforts to have the misconduct records of the corrupt police disclosed. While there are certainly a lot of honest and hard working police officers on all departments across the country, nevertheless, there are tons of bad apples in police departments all over the country that are being protected by their governmental employers —they don’t want the people to know they have dangerous police who may injure or kill you. This must change. Since police departments are allowed to have dangerous out of control rogue police who are hurting and killing innocent people, then the people —the taxpayers— should have a right to know who they are. Just as there are laws that require that the identities of sexual predators and child molesters be made public to safeguard the people, so too should there be laws that require that the identities of corrupt and dangerous rogue police who have a history of injuring and killing innocent people be made public so people can safeguard themselves from these psychopath cops that have permeated the country with the blessings of their municipal employers and afforded protections by corrupt judges. On May 20, 2021, I did an interview with Lakeshore Public Radio where I spoke about the need for the elimination of qualified immunity and the need for a national database identifying who the rogue police are in all of the police department in the country. https://www.lakeshorepublicradio.org/local-news/2021-05-20/regionally-speaking-thursday-may-20-2021.

Another contributing aspect to the societal problem of out-of-control rogue police that is never discussed, but yet a significant factor as to why there are so many people getting hurt or murdered by police, is because of the infestation of judges in the state and federal courts who protect rogue police and basically give them a license to wreak havoc against the citizenry. Police department officials, officers within the departments, and police unions, know that generally speaking, judges are friendly to police —let's call a spade a spade here and not sugarcoat it. I myself was a victim of several police brutalities back in the day in Indiana, and I saw firsthand how judges went out of their way to protect rogue police. I wrote about this corruption in my book Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case. https://www.amazon.com/Motion-Justice-Rest-My-Case/dp/1662473427/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1536738363&sr=8-3. Based on my own personal experiences, I'm not at all surprised that rogue police are out there doing what they are doing to people such as what these animals just did to Tyre Nichols. You see, police generally know that judges have their backs, and it emboldens them to know that they can pretty much do what they want, and they certainly do what they want —we saw that with George Floyd and with many before and after him, and now with Tyre Nichols.

As we speak there is a serious issue of case fixing and cover up going on at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is trying to cover up with the blessing of the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, in order to protect rogue police and in order to protect a federal court of appeals judge who had an appellate decision fixed to protect rogue police. After Judge Richard A. Posner retired from the Seventh Circuit after nearly 36 years on that court, because of his disenchantment with the other judges at the Seventh Circuit, he decided to come clean and disclosed to me that a judge, Michael S. Kanne, persuaded him to fix a decision of an appeal I had against the Valparaiso, Indiana police —Kanne was not on the panel, but Judge Posner was. Judge Posner disclosed to me after he hired me to work as his executive director of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's that he allowed himself to be pressured by Kanne into throwing the decision in favor of the police. When I submitted a judicial-misconduct complaint against Kanne, the chief judge, Diane S. Sykes, and her confederates, dismissed the complaint without issuing a ruling on the merits, even though Kanne did not submit an on the record denial of having the decision fixed, and even without interviewing Judge Posner. I filed a petition for review to the Judicial Conference of the United States in Washington, D.C., and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts refuses to provide a status of the petition and have done nothing other than sweep it under the rug. I reported the case fixing and cover up to Chief Justice John Roberts and he has chosen to look the other way. Attorney General Merrick Garland has chosen to turn a blind eye to the case fixing and cover up as well.

The decision that was fixed by Kanne, as disclosed to me by Judge Posner, and covered up by the Seventh Circuit and the judicial minions above, centered around the shenanigans that were done by the trial judge, James T. Moody, at the civil rights trial when Moody refused to let me show the jury an order by a state court judge, Mary R. Harper, who had ruled that the Valparaiso police did not have probable cause to stop, detain, and arrest me. Moody also wouldn’t allow me to play the tape recording of one of the false arrests to the jury where the Valparaiso police were laughing and one cop even said “I’m goin’ to get the son-of-a-bitch. F--- him.” Had Moody allowed the jury to hear the tape recording, the jury would have right then and there known what was going on. But Moody didn't want the jury to know, and the Seventh Circuit ruled that while I “correctly” stated the tape recording was included in the pretrial order and that the Valparaiso police failed to object to its inclusion as required by the rules, that nevertheless “even if the tape was improperly excluded” that it was “harmless error”. Moody also disallowed me to show the jury the evidence of many corrupt activities of the officers of the Valparaiso Police Department including evidence of many police brutalities against citizens —and that also was perfectly fine with the Seventh Circuit. And Moody refused to let me put a former Valparaiso police officer, Jon Cooros, on the witness stand who had direct inside knowledge and information about what was taking place by the Valparaiso officers who were scheming to arrest me, take my freedom from me, and who had brutalized me, but Moody wouldn't let this officer testify which corruptly prevented the jury from knowing about all of these police perversions. Moody's refusal to allow me to put this officer on the stand was so outrageous that the Seventh Circuit miscreants were afraid to even mention it in their corrupt decision, even though it was one of the most important aspects of the appeal. This is the type of judicial nefariousness that emboldens rogue police to do what they are doing to people such as what was done to George Floyd, and the many before and after him, and now Tyre Nichols, the police know they can count on these types of misfit judges such as James T. Moody who might as well been sitting at the defendants' table with the rogue police and their lawyer at the trial, and the misfit judge of the Seventh Circuit, Michael S. Kanne, who had the appellate decision fixed according to Judge Richard A. Posner —and swept under the rug by the chief judge of the Seventh Circuit, Diane S. Sykes, and her compadres, and likewise swept under the rug by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The judicial hierarchy doesn't want the public to know about how it protects police corruption. This will all be exposed in my upcoming book Rogues in Black Robes which will be launched in March. The public will then know the truth about how corrupt the judiciary is and how far it will go to protect dirty cops. When judges ride shotgun with rogue police, we as a country are in big trouble, and make no mistake about it, the judges are riding shotgun with rogue police, and we as a country are in big trouble.

Judicial Concealment of Criminal Proceeding of Former Indiana Judge/Lawyer Caught Stealing Estate $

2022-11-05T19:05:42-04:00

The Indiana judiciary is back to its sleazy corruption once again as concealment and cover up and protectionism of a former judge and former lawyer is alive and well in the Hoosier state judiciary.

It was reported on February 3, 2022, that a litany of 18 criminal charges including felony corrupt business influence, several counts of felony theft, felony forgery with intent to defraud, felony obstruction of justice, felony perjury, and deception were filed against former Jasper County Judge and former attorney Robert V. Montfort in Jasper Superior Court in Rensselaer, Indiana by special prosecutors. The charges were related to estate matters that Montfort handled in litigation in Jasper Superior Court in Rensselaer where reportedly Montfort thieved a substantial amount of money from two estates. https://www.newsbug.info/rensselaer_republican/news/monfort-faces-18-charges-refiled-by-special-prosecutors/article_65156415-5e35-59a0-9a8b-7f52df7e4089.html. In August 2018 the Jasper Newton Foundation filed a lawsuit against Montfort and his law office and legal assistant Terri Hardin after they discovered that a will had been changed and in various proceedings and filings it was revealed that Montfort and his partner in crime Hardin had taken funds from the estate. In addition to the criminal charges and the lawsuit, Montfort was accused by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission in a complaint in engaging in criminal acts and "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" among a litany of other ethical charges filed by the Commission on April 27, 2020. He resigned from practicing law in June 2020 after a disciplinary hearing was filed with the Indiana Supreme Court for unethical handling of the estates. https://city-countyobserver.com/former-judge-accused-of-defrauding-estates-resigns-from-bar/.

After all of this I was curious as to whether this guy was locked up in jail or whether there might be any shenanigans going on since he was a former judge and lawyer. I started smelling a rat a few days ago when I noticed that the criminal case was not shown on the Indiana state court website "mycase.in.gov" which typically publishes filings, orders, and so forth. I did some investigating on my own and on November 1, 2022, I contacted the special prosecutor John Meyers and asked him about the status of the case. He emailed me back asking me "Who are you and what is your intimacy the case?" His response was not only out of line as it is none of his business as to who I am, but his grammar was quite suspect in asking "what is your intimacy the case?" Certainly not the writing of a Rhodes Scholar. But nevertheless I emailed him back and told him I was a concerned citizen and journalist. He then emailed back and told me that Montfort's case was set for trial in White Circuit Court (Monticello, Indiana) in March.

The next day on November 2, I sent a message to the judge of the White Circuit Court, Jason A. Thompson, on facebook, and told him that it was my understanding that the Montfort case was transferred from Jasper County to the White Circuit Court and that no information about the case was showing up on the state's website, and that I would like him to provide me with information as to how I may access the publicly allowed information from the case. Thompson messaged me back and told me that he is not the judge in the case, that a Judge "Vazquez" is the presiding judge. I could not locate any information about a Judge "Vazquez" and I messaged White Circuit Judge Thompson back and asked him for a first name for Vazquez and which court he (Vazquez) presides in, city and county —but Judge Thompson did not answer the question. Something wasn't feeling right and I began to wonder why wouldn't the White Circuit judge (Thompson) want me to know the first name of the judge presiding over the Montfort case after I told him I couldn't locate any information about any Judges named Vazquez in Indiana. I then emailed the special prosecutor, John Meyers, and told him that Judge Thompson gave me a last name for the so-called Judge "Vazquez" but then wouldn't tell me the first name and what court he presided in, city and county, and I asked Meyers to tell me. And then things got really heated and I knew I struck a nerve when Meyers emailed me back and said "Why are you contacting judges?" It was a very stupid question to ask since he should have clearly realized that I was trying to get information about the case.

The fact that the case information wasn't showing up on the state's website was a red flag that there was something nefarious going on —which was becoming more evident by the moment. I emailed Meyers back and told him the reason was because there is no information shown about the case on the state's website that would be considered public information, such as the information that is typically shown on the state's website such as filings, orders, and so forth. I told him that people have a right to this type of information, and for some strange reason the information was not being published to the public, and that it is a cause for alarm. I also told him that the fact that there is such concealment about the information about the Montfort case raises substantial concerns. The nerve was struck again because Meyers emailed me back and said 'I am definitely not going to assist you in contacting judges. That you think it is proper to do that is "cause for alarm."' But through his obvious nervousness about what was going on, he got it all wrong as I wasn't asking him to "assist" me in "contacting judges", I simply asked him to tell me the name of the judge presiding over the case, and which court the judge presided in, so I could track down the information from the Montfort case —information that is supposed to be public information according to the law. I emailed Meyers back and told him that the public has a right to know who the judges are in court cases, and the fact that he wouldn't disclose to me who the judge is in order that I could look up the information about the case is definitely cause for alarm. Meyers then emailed me and said "What in the world are you talking about?” I emailed him back and told him "Unless you are really stupid, you know exactly what I am talking about. It is more than clear." He then sent me an email diatribe of 278 words saying he was "angry" and that "You called a judge even though you know that is improper" and that "you can find the information that you want in less than a minute through MyCase. Or if you simply check Google, you will find that Montfort practiced in Jasper County. That is enough info that you can find the case numbers of the original venue in MyCase, again, in less than one minute. I would expect an apology but not from someone like you." He was obviously very nervously shaken up as this was a very irrational response because I had already told him that the information about the Montfort case wasn't showing on the state's website. And his throwing in his diatribe that a simple google check would show that Montfort practiced in Jasper County was irrelevant to the information I was looking for, I didn't ask him if Montfort practiced in Jasper County, I obviously already knew that. The funny thing is, all this guy, the so called "special prosecutor" Meyers, had to do was send me the first and last name of the presiding judge in the Montfort case and the city and exactly what court, city and county, the judge presided in. He could have done that in 4 or 5 words which would have taken care of the issue, but he instead decided to send a diatribe of nonsense that quite frankly was irrational. Because his diatribe was uncalled for and mean spirited I emailed him back and told him "You have no class and I am not going to dignify your pitiful message with a response as it was all garbage." Ironically, just as I am writing this, I received an email from "Mr. Special Prosecutor" John Meyers, he said "Do not ever contact me again." I emailed him back and said to him "Who do you think you are? For your information you work for the people. I pay your salary. You aren't my boss, and if you think you have some kind of power to dictate orders to me, you are very very wrong!" Clearly he is nervous and probably sensing that I am onto their game.

So what we have is a former judge/former lawyer who allegedly thieved a great deal of money from estates who was eventually criminally charged, the judges from the county where the thievery took place, Jasper County, recused themselves, special prosecutors were brought in and the case is transferred to another court. And what we also have is one of the special prosecutors, John Meyers, telling me the case was transferred to White Circuit Court —which is in Monticello, Indiana. And we have the White Circuit Court Judge Jason A. Thompson telling me that he is not the judge in the case, that a Judge "Vazquez" is the judge, but when I checked I couldn't locate any such judge. And then when I asked the White Circuit Judge Thompson for Vazquez's first name and asked what court he presided in, city and county, Thompson didn't tell me. And we have the so-called special prosecutor, John Meyers, refusing to tell me the name of the judge and what court the judge is located in, and even ridiculously telling me in his diatribe that I could access the information from the state's "MyCase" website when I had already told him the information is not on there. And very importantly, we have a state court website that is supposed to contain all of the filings in the court cases in order that the public can access the information, but the information from the Montfort case is inexplicably not shown on the state website. This all leads to the obvious conclusion that they are trying to hide things and that the fix is in!

It is clear the special prosecutor, John Meyers, is nervous about my questions, and he has reason to be. But he needs to learn a few things about the law if he is going to play prosecutor. First off, he shouldn't be asking a citizen who he is and what his interest is in a case when a citizen is trying to access public information records that he is entitled to under the law. And as for his question to me about why I was contacting judges, he should understand that judges are not Gods, they are simply lawyers dressed up in costumes, i.e., black robes, and are public employees being paid on the taxpayers dime, and that when there are judicial shenanigans going on, as there clearly are here, the people have a right to contact judges and inquire about records that they are entitled to, but are deprived of their access due to judicial chicanery —which is clearly taking place here. And since the so-called special prosecutor, John Meyers, and whoever the currently unknown judges are who are involved here, apparently either don't know the Indiana Rules of Court and/or have chosen to intentionally violate them by concealing the records of the Montfort prosecution, they need to learn the rules. Rule 2(A) of the Indiana Rules of Court explicitly states in relevant part "All persons have access to Court Records as provided in this rule,…” The "Commentary" applicable to Rule 2 states "Subsection (A) provides the general rule that all persons, including members of the general public, the media, and commercial and noncommercial entities, are entitled to the same basic level of access to Court Records. Access to Court Records is not determined by who is seeking access or the purpose for seeking access,…." Rule 3(F) states "Public Access" means the process whereby a person may inspect and copy a Court Record. So it would behoove special prosecutor John Meyers and any other minions involved in the cover up going on in the Montfort case to learn about the governing rules and follow them instead of being indifferent and belligerent to people who know the rules and are entitled to the information.

Clearly there are some nefarious things going on with the Montfort case that the "system" is trying to conceal from the public. That is more than clear by the actions of concealing the case from the state's "MyCase" website and by the White Circuit judge's refusal to state the name and court of the judge who is supposed to be presiding over the case, and by special prosecutor John Meyer's shakiness in refusing to state the name of the presiding judge and exactly what court it is in. The concealment of all of this information is very telling, and unfortunately it appears that the fix is in, so the people need to keep a close eye on things here. What Montfort did was reprehensible and he should be sent to prison for a long period of time, and if that doesn't happen, we will have a very clear understanding of why these judicial miscreants are going out of their way to violate the established governing rules and operate in secret fashion in order to conceal their reprehensible activities to the point that they don't want the people to know anything about what is going on in the case including even who the judge is and what court it is in. The evidence is clear, the fix is in!
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse"
~Edmund Burke

It Is Time for the United States Courts to Either Put Up Or Shut Up!

2022-09-26T07:14:32-04:00

The United States Courts on September 23, 2022, tweeted “The Judicial Conference of the United States has provided a century of service to the judiciary and to the public by setting policy and overseeing administrative needs.” Along with this sound good tweet it posted a self-serving article boasting about how great of a judicial agency that it is such as stating that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is that it brings judges together from across the country, with a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice.” https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2022/09/23/judicial-conference-century-service-federal-judiciary?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=usc-news. And then there is a quote from Roslynn R. Mauskopf, director of the Administration of the United States Courts stating “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary.” and that “We are a nationwide court system, sharing common challenges and common goals. The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole.” My my, the kumbaya is enough to bring tears to one’s eyes.

The article discussed the 2017 year-end report by Chief Justice Roberts mentioning inappropriate conduct in the workplace, with a goal of ensuring “an exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee.” and bragging that for the past four years the Judicial Conference, the courts and circuits, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center have made significant strides to strengthen protections and streamline processes to ensure a workplace of respect, civility, fairness, tolerance and dignity, free of discrimination and harassment. And in further spreading manure, the article stated that for the past four years the Judicial Conference, the courts and circuits, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center have made significant strides to strengthen protections and streamline processes to ensure a workplace of respect, civility, fairness, tolerance, and dignity, free of discrimination and harassment and that the so called “Conference” has approved or endorsed updates to a so called “Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan for judicial employees, the codes of conduct for judges, and the Rules for Judicial Conduct.” And then there is the worthless minion of Chief Justice John Roberts, Roberts’ hand-picked director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and secretary to the Conference, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, who said “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary,” and that “We are a nationwide court system, sharing common challenges and common goals. The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole.” And for additional propaganda effect, the article added in a typical John Roberts quote, a quote that has been wearing thin on people, “The judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.” What a bunch of poppycock! Only the naïve would fall for such sickening propaganda, and that is all that it is, sickening propaganda that isn’t worth the paper that it is printed on.

The Office of the United States Courts is a prime example of what is wrong with the judiciary, and Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the director who runs that worthless agency is a prime example of why we should be removing such unnecessary and dangerous miscreants from the judicial sector. For starters, the propaganda spewed by the United States Courts in so cavalierly tweeting that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is that it brings judges together from across the country, with a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice.” is laughable. When sexual harassment of employees in the federal judiciary became a hot topic in 2021, members of both parties introduced the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 that was to provide some much needed protection for judicial employees subjected to sexual harassment by pervert judges and other high level court officials, and would have given judiciary workers the same rights and whistleblower protections as other federal employees. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-federal-judiciary-has-a-harassment-problem-but-theres-a-fix; https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2553/text. And yet, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Roslynn Mauskopf, sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee indicating that the Judicial Conference opposed the bill. Mauskopf wrote that the bill, “fails to recognize the robust safeguards that have been in place within the Judiciary to protect judicial employees, including law clerks, from wrongful conduct in the workplace, including protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct.” Mauskopf also wrote that “the bill interferes with the internal governance of the Third Branch…and imposes intrusive requirements on Judicial Conference procedures”. https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/08/25/judiciary-informs-congress-its-opposition-bill.

The audacity of the U.S. Courts to spew out such misinformation to the public that things are hunky dory in the federal judiciary when the U.S. Courts know that there is a serious problem in the federal judiciary with sexual predator judges and court officials is very unbecoming to say the least. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-calls-judicial-independence-amid-growing-political-criticism-federal-courts.

The garbage that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf spew out by way of the so called United States Courts agency in bragging that “one of the greatest values of the Conference is …. improving the delivery of justice” is as laughable as could be. If Roberts and Mauskopf and the United States Courts along with the Judicial Conference of the United States want the public to believe that “improving the delivery of justice” is actually a “goal” as was purported in their recent publication, then they should have no problem in answering some very important questions.

Question number 1: Why is John Roberts 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?

Question number 2: Why is John Roberts 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 and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 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 it 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?

Question number 3: Since John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States is the nation’s highest ranking judicial official, and speaks for the judicial branch of the federal government, and serves as the chief administrative officer for the federal courts, and heads the Judicial Conference of the United States, and he appointed Roslynn Mauskopf as the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Roberts should state on the record if he believes that the fact that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts led by Roslynn Mauskopf 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 should be considered a "delivery of justice", and if the conduct of sweeping the petition under the rug should be considered a “delivery of justice” such as what the United States Courts bragged about in its recent propaganda release.

Question number 4: John Roberts should explain why he thinks it is okay and not an injustice for the Judicial Conference of the United States to sweep under the rug my petition for review of the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of my judicial-misconduct complaint against Judge Michael S. Kanne for his case fixing activities as was disclosed by Judge Richard A. Posner.

Question number 5: Roslynn Mauskopf should explain why her office, the Administrative 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, and if the conduct of sweeping the petition under the rug should be considered a “delivery of justice” such as what the United States Courts bragged about in its recent propaganda release.

Question number 6: John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf should each explain why they have not referred Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, and her minions, to law enforcement authorities for their criminal activities of concealing Judge Michael S. Kanne’s case fixing activities as such case fixing activities by Kanne and cover-up activities by Sykes and her minions who were complicit in the cover-up constitute criminal violations under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2, 18 U.S. Code Sec. 3 and 18 U.S. Code Sec. 4.

The propaganda statements spewed in the recent publication by the United States Courts that there is “a shared goal of improving the delivery of justice” and the quote from Roslynn R. Mauskopf that “The independence of our courts is a hallmark of the federal judiciary” and that “The work of the Conference and its committees unify us in the administration of justice, and brings a real dimension of camaraderie and collegiality to the Branch as a whole” couldn’t be more farcical. Retired Judge Richard A. Posner, the very judge who disclosed the case fixing of Judge Michael S. Kanne that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are working overtime to try to sweep under the rug in order to conceal from the public just how serious a problem there is with case fixing and cover up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, let the cat out of the bag when he publicly stated 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/. And also unfortunately for Roberts, during an oral argument on December 1, 2021, Justice Sonia Sotomayor let the cat out of the bag when she succinctly asked “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sotomayor-suggests-supreme-court-won-t-survive-stench-overturning-roe-n1285166.

The fact that John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are covering for the case fixing and cover up that is going on in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago by trying to sweep it under the rug in order to keep the information about the judicial corruption away from the public speaks volumes. It is so sad that as a country we have to endure such a corrupt judiciary even at the highest levels, and Roberts’ and Mauskopf’s complicity in covering for the case fixing and cover up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago underscores just how serious of a problem that we have in this country with judicial corruption. Having corrupt judges in the federal judiciary who fix cases and having chief judges who cover up the case fixing with their brethren minion judges, along with the Chief Justice of the United States and director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts who play ball in acquiescing and accommodating the cover up of the case fixing and cover up activities such as what John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf are doing are hardly acts of "administration of justice".

The jig is up and we don’t need any further propaganda being spewed by John Roberts and Roslynn Mauskopf through the propaganda machine of the United States Courts. If Roberts and Mauskopf are afraid to answer the above questions, then they should do the public a big favor and keep their lying mouths shut.