A PARODY OF JUSTICE
The Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Federal Judges as legal shields for the defendants
I filed a complaint of employment discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the fall of 2012. After I obtained a right to sue, I filed a federal lawsuit at the Central District Court of Illinois, Peoria Division, against the defendants Western Illinois University, Rose McConnell, and Susan Martinelli-Fernandez. A similar complaint was filed before the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan. Sadly, while claiming to investigate this case, the Office of The Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the attorney general in person were concomitantly serving as legal counsel for WIU and the individuals Rose McConnell, and Susan Martinelli-Fernandez. Lisa Madigan signed several court documents including, the motion to strike all counts alleging discrimination and retaliation against those individuals. The so-called investigation of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General served only to collect information to prepare the defense of the defendants. Doc 27 shows e-mail correspondences between the Office of the Illinois Attorney General and me during 8 months of supposed investigation, while this office was defending the same case in court. Lisa Madigan visited WIU in the Spring of 2013 just after I file my complaint against WIU et al. before her office and wrote her a letter to explain the discriminatory treatment I was subjected to. From that moment, the legal process turned into a parody of justice and the federal judges served as legal shields to the defendants. They helped them construe the case to fabricate their own false story. The judges arbitrarily and abusively stroke the counts based on falsehoods. The opinions of the judges were nothing but made up copies of those falsehoods. Finally, my rights for a trial by a jury were alienated based on falsehoods and fabricated facts. The involvement of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan as an investigator and as a counsel for the defendants in the same case caused a flagrant conflict of interest. Furthermore, like for the transcripts of the grievances at WIU, this office, forged the transcripts of the 7-hour deposition it subjected me to on February 2, 2015 at the Peoria Court House. During the deposition, the Assistant Attorney General Joshua Ratz was repeatedly calling the magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley to intervene. The judge joined the deposition to force me to say what the other party wanted to hear. As they failed to obtain what they wanted from me, they forged the transcripts to yield a document different from the true deposition. This forged document was used to justify the summary judgment. When I moved to denounce this forgery, the Office of the Illinois Attorney General did not deny that it happened, but challenged the procedure I followed in denouncing it. I now openly challenge the President and Provost of WIU, and the team of Lisa Madigan on the authenticity of the transcripts they produced. I urged them to release the tapes of the hearings of the grievances and the deposition. Good advocates of transparency should have no problem releasing tape-records to prove the veracity of their transcripts.
The Seventh Circuit sabotaged the appeal to prevent me from filing a brief
Following the summary judgment granted to the defendants, I filed a notice of appeal for a review of the case at the Seventh Circuit on the 30th day following the order. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that the notice of appeal was received on the 30th day and requested the payment of $505 for docketing fee. Although I paid this docketing fee, the Clerk’s Office of the Seventh Circuit continued sending me orders to respond to imaginary motions and asking me to again pay $505 as fee for docketing the same case. When I questioned those acts, the Seventh Circuit immediately suspended the case, preventing me from filing my brief of appeal. In January 2016, after an unprecedented sabotage, the Seventh Circuit prevented from filing a brief of appeal, and denied the case claiming that the notice of appeal was untimely. Per Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373 “A notice of appeal is considered timely filed if it is actually mailed or delivered to the third party commercial carrier on the 30th day after the date of the final order appealed from, even if it is not received and file stamped by the circuit court clerk until after the 30 days has expired.” Although my notice of appeal was mailed by the 30th day following the summary judgment, as stated in the notarized certificate of service and the USPS tracking records, the Seventh Circuit denied the case in violation and total disrespect of Rule 373 of the Illinois Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court’s Handling of the Case
In April 2016, I filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court for review of the case. While the Clerk’s Office of the Supreme Court was still advising me that the case was not yet docketed, I received a letter dated November 1, 2016 from the Office of the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan signed by an Assistant Attorney General. Enclosed to this letter was a waiver form baring the US Supreme Court case number 16-581 (Doc 28). On November 20, 2016, I received from the Clerk’s Office of the Supreme Court, a letter dated November 16, 2016 with the case number 16-648 (Doc 29). In this letter, the Clerk instructed me to send a copy of the waiver to the respondents to inform them that the petition has been docketed. Per the rules of the United States Supreme Court, as a petitioner, it was my responsibility to inform the respondents of the petition being docketed and provide them with a copy of the waiver form I received from the Supreme Court. Curiously, it was the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan who sent me a case number and a waiver form even before the Supreme Court has officially docketed the case. Which means that the Office of the Illinois Attorney was privileged to receiving information that I should have been the first to have, as a petitioner. The fact that on November 16, 2016 the Supreme Court provided me with a case number different from the one I was served by the other party suggests two possible things: - either the case was effectively docketed on November 1, 2016 but the Clerk’s Office of the US Supreme Court did not inform me while the respondents were informed the Office of the Illinois Attorney General sent me a fake case number and a waiver form.
In either case, it appeared that nothing in the process was transparent and fair. No doubt that the petition never reached the desk of the justices of the United States Supreme Court. Although I respect the discretion of the Supreme Court in deciding what case should be reviewed by the justices, I have multiple reasons to question the fairness of the process as conducted by the Clerk’s Office of the United Supreme Court. From the federal court to the Clerk Office of the Supreme Court, everything was set to prevent the case from being conveniently adjudicated. The due process was obstructed and the case never received the attention it deserves. Insights in the way this case was handled are summarized in the writ of certiorari available at the following Website