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.

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, it is axiomatic that society is entitled to an explanation of what happened to the money that was donated to the Posner Center by members of society. 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.

                        ~ 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 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 Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, needs to stop whining and start acting more like a chief justice.  As chief justice, Roberts serves as chairman of the Supreme Court, but he acts more like a spoiled brat who cries when he doesn’t get his way.  Case in point, in the recent aftermath of the Supreme Court’s infected action of overturning Roe v. Wade, in setting back by several decades women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies without governmental interference, after the public backlash Roberts recently told a judicial conference in Colorado “If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the Constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate opinion is.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/11/roberts-remarks-misunderstand-court-anger/.  I don’t agree with that, I think the public’s opinion should count for something, and it certainly should count more so than the opinion of illegitimate members of the Supreme Court who got there by lying during their confirmation hearings, which is exactly what Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch did —let’s call a spade a spade and make that as clear as can be, they lied.  So to respond in kind to Roberts’ statement that “you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate opinion is”, I will wholeheartedly say that I would much rather put my faith in a conscientiously expressed opinion by the public —the actual stakeholders— rather than the opinion of illegitimate members of the Supreme Court who are nothing more than political sycophants who had no problem in lying under oath to achieve their underhanded goals to pacify certain right wing political organizations headed by crazies and lunatics of the highest social order.

The media’s obsequiousness to John Bolton is absolutely mind boggling.  This is a guy who has done a lot of bad things to the country when he was in a position to do good in various positions in the government, and even after he left government, but he drastically failed the test of honor.  Why the media kowtows to this misfit is mind boggling.  To say that his record in government is a travesty would be an understatement.  To say that he was a governmental servant of integrity would be an overstatement.  He was far from it, and I have known it for a long time from my own personal experience with him.

The attorney general of the United States, Merrick Garland, likes to publicly talk about the so called “rule of law”.  In his press conference addressing the warrant served at Trump’s property at Mar-a-Lago and the confiscating of boxes of documents, Garland said “Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy.  Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor.  Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.”  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11103507/Justice-Department-asks-judge-UNSEAL-search-warrant-Trumps-raid.html.      Garland needs to put his money where his mouth is.  He has a terrible track record of “Faithful adherence to the rule of law”.  With all due respect, "upholding the rule of law" is precisely NOT happening under his “watch” when it comes to federal judges who are breaking the laws of the United States.  It's almost as though they have diplomatic immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution.

It is high time that we as a country finally come to the realization that our federal judiciary is infested with judicial terrorists who have been and continue to be on a mission to deprive “we the people” of our rights. Yes, indeed, there are actually federal statutes in place that criminalize judges who choose to violate the laws of the United States. These statutes are as follows:

Because judges in the federal judiciary and justices on the Supreme Court have generally not been operating with a high degree of trust, the confidence level of the people in our federal judiciary and Supreme Court is at all all-time nadir.  The recent controversy surrounding the leaking of the Alito draft opinion as to the upcoming anticipated overruling of the Roe v. Wade decision regarding women’s abortion rights has brought the country to a tipping point.  It is therefore time for Congress to revisit and make some changes to some laws pertaining to federal judges and Supreme Court justices.