She won her post after pulling off an upset in the March 2002 primary. She beat out a sitting judge, Robert Quinlivan, who was endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party and Chicago Tribune and was highly rated by the bar associations. Leonard Levin vacancy
Adding to the odds, candidate Brennan raised just $9,535 for her campaign, compared to the $17,625 raised by then-Judge Quinlivan, state campaign finance records show.In a tight three-way race, candidate Brennan garnered 198,828 votes, or 36.7% of the ballots cast, edging out Mr. Quinlivan.
“I think I was very lucky that day,” Judge Brennan says. Mr. Quinlivan said his defeat was partly due to the arbitrariness of judicial elections. “A lot of it is driven by the name,” he said, referring to some voters’ preference for Irish last names.
Before the primary, the Chicago Council of Lawyers praised candidate Brennan’s legal knowledge and integrity. But the group, which is sometimes prickly in its evaluation of judicial candidates, questioned her lack of experience, saying she had not “established a track record sufficient to warrant our confidence that she can run a courtroom” and didn’t have “the depth and breadth of experience that the office requires.”
Helping Judge Brennan overcome the rap by the Council of Lawyers was the better-known Chicago Bar Association, which gave her a “qualified.”
Also in her corner were five (5) sitting Circuit Court judges who contributed a total of $400 to her campaign. Campaign contributions by sitting judges to judicial candidates are uncommon but not prohibited by ethical rules.
Most of the judges who contributed to Judge Brennan’s campaign once worked in the city of Chicago’s law department — where Judge Brennan began her career — or at the Chicago Transit Authority, says Judge Ronald F. Bartkowicz, one of the contributors and a former CTA attorney. “There’s a certain camaraderie,” he says. (“mutual trust and friendship among people who spend a lot of time together“: or another fancy word for “corruption” when a camaraderie helps friends to get a position of public trust, at detriment of not-so-well connected candidates)
Before her election, Judge Brennan appeared before Judge Bartkowicz on several personal-injury cases while she was a lawyer with ComEd, and he also met her on social occasions, he says. “I knew her personally. I knew her integrity and also her competency,” he says. “In my view, that’s the kind of person we like to have on the bench.”(Batrkowicz was regularly criticized as a judge, and even sued for conspiracy to steal a property, Case 16 CV 05148. Bill Randle v. Judge Ronald F. Bartkowicz, et al
Also backing her campaign were colleagues at Exelon, with 17 employees donating a total of $1,375. Pam A. Strobel, an Exelon executive vice-president and chief administrative officer who resigned in 2005, co-chaired Judge Brennan’s campaign, giving $200, records show. Randall Mehrberg, Exelon’s general counsel who resigned in 2007, gave $100. Mr. Mehrberg is also the former top lawyer at the Chicago Park District. A ComEd spokesman calls the contributions “not unusual.”However, ComEd fogot to mention and Mr. Randall Mehrberg is a very generous donor for various judicial and political campaigns. Randall Mehrberg political contributions
The primary win was key, because candidate Brennan ran unopposed in the general election. After the election, she labored in judicial obscurity until September 2008, when she moved from Bridgeview to the Daley Center when Chief Judge Tim Evans decided to increase the number of judges specializing in foreclosures.
Judge Brennan received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Illinois in 1984 before going on to IIT’s Chicago-Kent College of Law. After getting her law degree in 1987, she was hired by the ABA, where she worked for a committee on prepaid legal services, according to a biography submitted to the Council. In 1989, she went to work for the city of Chicago’s law department, where she prosecuted traffic tickets and defended personal injury cases. She joined the ComEd legal department in 1994.
Judge Brennan lives in west suburban Indian Head Park with her husband, Robert J. Drummond, a personal-injury lawyer whose office is on the Southwest Side. They have two children, ages 10 and 13.
However, Brennan decided to hide her personal records (read: conceal names of her election supporters) from the public. “Two other Cook County judges, Eileen Brewer and Margaret Brennan, had their entire domestic files sealed. Brennan and Brewer, who used initials in her filing, have said they had safety concerns.” “If you avail yourself of the court system, you have to pay the price of it being public,” said Nancy Chausow Shafer, president of the Illinois chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “If we start making exceptions for the rich and famous, it creates a dual court system, which goes against our populist belief of what a court should be, which is really justice for all without distinguishing between the rich and poor.”
While Margaret Ann Brennan’s PERSONAL information, including her home address and phone number, is widely available through all open public records, her ELECTION records, including donors’ names (particularly 5 sitting judges who supported her in 2002) are hidden from voters’ view.
I have my personal and very negative experience in Judge Brennan’s court.
Margaret Ann Brennan was the second judge in my case filed on May 25, 2012 against a predatory HOA, its management Company and its lawyers, where I am as a PROSE plaintiff running 7 well-connected law Firms, including Law Firm Hinshaw &Culbertson LLP (who have at least 5 personal Judges in Cook County Court); Karbell Cohen, Economou, Silk&Dunne, LLC; O’Hagan LLC; Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman LLP; Elenius Frost &Walsh; Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit PC.; and Dickler, Kahn, Slowikowski & Zavell, Ltd – all represented by at least one top partner and an associate. So, I had a force of at least 14 well-connected lawyers to battle as ProSe.
But my main and most aggressive adversaries during the entire proceeding were JUDGES – Judge Daniel J. Pierce; Judge James P. Flannery, Jr.; Judge Thomas L. Hogan; Judge Margaret Ann Brennan; Judge Irwin Solganick; and Judge John C. Griffin – who did anything in their power to derail me from my case; committed fraud upon the Court; acted in excess of all jurisdictions; trespassed all applicable laws and rules of ethics; granted motions behind my back, from their chambers; verbally and financially abused and harassed me, trying to put me under extreme stress, so I could give up; relentlessly lied to me from the bench, concealed their personal connections and substantial amounts of money received from my opponents; provided full support to my opposing parties well-connected lawyers, regardless of how many rules they violated, and fixed my case for a bribe (Judge John C. Griffin) while my case was under Appeal Court jurisdiction.
All of this was part of unconscionable schemes designed to improperly influence the courts in their decisions. Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) has been found only in those instances where the fraud vitiates the court’s ability to reach an impartial disposition of the case before it. Id. In my case, there was fraud; there was fraud on the court; and there was a conspiracy to defraud. This fraud was intentional. The fraud was perpetrated by officers of the court. Herring, 424 F.3d at 386. A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). In my case, the fraud was directed at the judicial machinery itself; and subverted the integrity of the courts. The worst part of it – the fraud was committed by JUDGES.
In the severely plagued by corruption Cook County Court, Judges fix cases for their parties of interests in violation of all applicable laws and acting in excess of all jurisdiction – with total impunity, specially in ProSe litigants cases.
Judge Margaret Ann Brennan also perpetrated fraud on the court. Judge Brennan’s willfulness has been characterized by open defiance and reckless disregard of my Constitutional rights. This willfulness is inextricably related to, but exceeds mere error.My experience is that judges ignored the facts, ignored the law, committed crimes regularly, and will do anything to damage and stop anyone who does not belong to their sphere of interests from attempting to find justice.
Summary of the case: In 2006 I failed two month behind on my assessments due to bank’s lie about my “fixed adjustable rate”, which grow the next month after closing and added about $100.00 to my monthly payments. I offered HOA to repay my dues through a payment plan, but they refused. To the contrary, HOA promptly used my breach for their advantage, swamped me with a mountain of additional bogus fees, including an extra month for assessments (I got possession on Feb 1 2006, but HOA charged me from Jan 1, 2006). On May 1, 2006 HOA claimed $1,481.12 in “debt”. I objected, but it had the same effect if I would tell thugs on the street that they have no right to take my wallet. My assessments were $282.04 and I made all payments except two months, so I would not “owe” more than $714.00 including $75.00 late fees. HOA was able to obtain a favorable judgement and my unit was rented from Dec. 1 2006 for $900.00 to a bona fide tenant. All this time lawyers advised HOA Board and its managers to avoid any communication with me. On October 23, 2007 HOA filed a second collection case, where they stated that I “owe” $7,442.00 from….January 1, 2006, and all payments were credited (bear to repeat, the unit was in possession of HOA and gainfully rented). During all this time HOA, its managers and lawyers tirelessly applied all possible fees and charges, in violation of the Declaration. On October 1, 2011, after 5 years of consecutive rent, my existing debt to HOA was….$3,614.35 or almost twice more than in 2006!!!
I was out of remedies and had to I proceed with the Court action. My complaint has 18 counts and 65 defendants where I am a ProSe whose native language is not English. I was given: 21 day to file 1AC, accompanied by judge Pierce threats with sanctions for suing lawyers; and off-color comments on my national origin each time I appeared in his Court (he was the first of 3 judges on this case, all of them have personal connections and acted with bias to ProSe); 20 days to file 2AC, interrupted by 2 demands for TRO and 1 bogus defamation case filed by one of my Defendants; 4 days to file 3AC just to replace one wrong Defendant; 21 day to respond 8 motions to dismiss (2.4 days per motion); 35 days to file 4AC AFTER my case was consolidated over my objections** (so, it was basically the 1st Complaint in the new case) and 49 days to respond to 9 briefs: 8 motions and 1 answer, or 5.4 days per motion.
The first judge in my case was Daniel Pierce, who very was very likely connected with the subsequent judges, Margaret Ann Brennan and John C. Griffin.
All parties in my case are officers of corporations; and were property served in accordance to 735 ILCS 5/2-204 and 735 ILCS 5/2-205. It was property done in my case; and validity of my service of process was never questioned by Judge Daniel J. Pierce. However, he denied four of my Motions for Default Judgement; and did anything to keep my Defendants in good standing.
Defendants finally appeared 5 months after commencement of the case (after Pierce said that he will grant my 5th Motion).
Defendants hired lawyer Marc Forkins from Edward Kozel law Firm who on (or about) October 25, 2012 filed “Special and Limited Appearance” on behalf of HOA Board members. Lawyer Forkins knew or had a reason to know that there is no such thing as a “special and limited” appearance in Illinois anymore, which was abolished on December 29, 2009. If the attorney is appearing pursuant to a limited scope representation agreement, the attorney should file a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13, which became effective on January 1, 2010.
Forkins failed to follow Rules, thus, he never properly submitted his “clients” under this Court’s jurisdiction. Judge Pierce ignored Forkins’ violations, and acting in excess of jurisdiction, granted Forkins’ numerous Motions for extension of time to file responsive pleadings. Pursuant to Limited Scope of Appearance, Forkins had to identify each aspect of proceeding where he plan represent his clients; and must file a new Notice before ANY additional aspects of the proceeding he intends to appear.
None of it was done by lawyer Forkins, who received total about 112 of extensions during 4 hearings, without any negative comments from Judge Pierce, who was concentrated on abusive and humiliating statements about my (ProSe) wisdom and national origin.
On January 17, 2013, attorney Forkins filed a defective Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons. His Motion was defective because it lacked statutory requirements such as Notice of Motion; Sworn Affidavit under penalty of perjury pursuant to 5/1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure; and Proof of Service.
In absolutely identical situation in Judge Dianne Marsalek’s Court, she instantly denied ProSe Motion to Quash Service due to purported Lack of Sworn Affidavit- even though the Affidavit was attached to the Motion; and the ProSe party was personally present in the Court to be sworn, if necessary. But for licensed lawyer Forkins who represented (unlawfully) third parties (not present at the hearing) Judges used totally different approach and completely ignored and trespassed all applicable laws to accommodate insurance-backed lawyer Forkins fatally defective Motion.
On February 1, 2013 Judge Pierce (thanks to beneficial connections with Ald. Burke and his wife Anne Burke), was quietly transferred to Appeal Court due to “public necessity” – and my case was transferred to Judge Margaret Brennan.
Judge Brennan started to act bias and corrupt from day one in my case; immediately failed to respect the Law, acted in the manner inconsistent with Canons of Judicial Ethics, and failed to uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Judge Brennan abused her discretion when she acted without jurisdiction. Brennan also knew or had reason to know that “Special and Limited Appearance” does not exist in Illinois. Pursuant to IL Supr. Ct. R. 11 and 13, an attorney seeking limited representation for his clients must file “Scoop of Limited Representation”, Form ___ and then clearly describe each tasks he is allowed to do. Moreover, SLA is usually only used when an attorney contests client’s jurisdiction, which is not an issue in this case.
When I pointed out to Honorable Brennan that Forkins is not authorized to represent Defendants with SLA, Judge Brennan insisted that “they are property represented”. Judge Brennan trespassed IL Supr. Ct. Rules 11 and 13 when she accepted Forkins’s SLA as valid representation, therefore acting without jurisdiction.
On March 5, 2013, Forkins walked his defective Motion to Judge Brennan’s chambers. On March 11, 2013 Judge Brennan issued a favorable ExParte Order without having a hearing on merits, instantly granting Forkins’ request. I never received these documents; and was not given an opportunity to contest Forkins’ defective Motion. A litigant cannot file any papers with the Court that were not served to the other party
When Honorable Brennan blindly accepted the deficient Motion, she trespassed my Due Process rights, trespassed 5/1-109 and Cook County Court Rules, and therefore once again acted without jurisdiction.
In the United States the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both, federal and state Courts, is sharply limited by the Fifth and fourteen Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty without due process of law. In practice, it has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. Judge Brennan trespassed provisions of Fifth and Fourteen Amendments and violated ProSe Due Process rights when she granted deficient Motion to Quash Summons without appropriate hearing on merits of such request.
Besides gross violations of my Due Process rights, this Motion placed me under undue and a very significant burden since I had to pay $60.00 again, to serve all parties who were property served. While my Defendants had free for them $1 million of funds for litigation coverage from HOA’s liability insurance (purchased from my assessment’s money); I covered all expenses from my own funds; thus, additional $3,600.00(++) unnecessary and unlawful expense was very harmful.
I filed Motion to vacate Ex Parte Order entered by Judge Brennan without jurisdiction (Forkis still did not filed any Notices of Limited Scope Appearance), which was set to hearing on or about March 19, 2013.
At the hearing on March 19, 2013, Judge Brennan asked about any Motions filed in my case. I reasonably expected that Judge Brennan’s question was addressed to ALL parties. Since I am a Plaintiff, and the only one party who filed a Motion to Vacate Ex Parte Order, I said “Your Honor, I filed….” – but was sharply cut in the middle of my sentence by Judge Brennan who in a very rude manner confronted me “I did not gave you rights to talk!”. Obviously, Judge Brennan was only interested to talk with licensed lawyers.
During the hearing Judge Brennan continued to violate all Rules of professional Ethics when she gave Forkins a lead and asked him if he plans to file a Motion to Dismiss. Forkins, still acting with invalid Appearance, gladly agreed with this suggestion.
It is unethical for Honorable Margaret Ann Brennan to give any implied or direct advice to the parties represented by attorneys. It would be more correct to ask an attorney what he plans to file next, rather than lead him to file a particular pleading. I officially objected to Honorable Brennan’s unsolicited legal advice to attorney Forkins by filing an Interlocutory Appeal contesting Judge Brennan’s unethical Court practices on April 9, 2013. On or about April 19, 2013 lawyer Forkins filed his Motion to allow Answer or plead – but Judge Brennan refused to hear it due to pending Appeal.
Worth to mention, Judge Griffin, who substituted Brennan in October 2014, freely acted in favor of my Defendants despite several pending Appeals.
My Appeal was dismissed in March 2014. After Appeal Court issued a Mandate returning my case to Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Margaret Ann Brennan demanded me to reassign my case back to Law Division by a Motion before Judge Flannery, as required by Law Division rules, which I did on April 1, 2014.
Once again, these Rules only apply to ProSe litigants. Judges and their preferred licensed lawyers are completely exempt from all laws and rules; since neither Judge Griffin or Judge Flannery never demanded any reassignment by Motion from my opponents – when my Appeals were concluded in July 2015. To the contrary, Griffin actively ruled in favor of my Defendants for whom he fixed my case, acting in excess of all jurisdictions; and trespassed all laws.
I again appeared before Judge Brennan on May 30, 2014, where she once against inquired a licensed attorney if they plan to file a Motion to Dismiss. Such unethical practices not only instantly compromise a Judge’s impartiality, but Honorable Brennan’s consistent leads about which Motion she wants to see from Defendant lawyers suggests that she already made up her mind in advance. It implies that the Motion to Dismiss is not only desirable by the Judge, but will be favorably decided regardless of the case’s merits. By giving preferential treatment to licensed lawyers by way of leads and extensions, Honorable Brennan abused the powers of her office. She failed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and acted in a manner that is bias, unjust, and lenient to licensed attorneys.
Judge Brennan continued to act corrupt and lenient to my well-connected, insurance-backed Defendants; and once again ordered me to reserve them – solely to cause me undue financial burden to derail me from my case.
Brennan regularly abused her power in corrupt manner, and put me under hazardous environment to deprive from seeking justice; while acted extremely lenient to all lawyers’ malpractices. For example, all parties must make reasonable efforts to facilitate the discovery process and to resolve differences without the assistance of the Court. Despite my extensive, long-time efforts to resolve this dispute amicably and without Court proceeding, I was unable to reach accord. At all times, all Defendants and their lawyers acted unreasonably and sabotaged all of my requests for document production.
On May 30, 2014, Judge Brennan entered an Order giving me 14 days to file my Second Amended Complaint. For me, a ProSe, 14 day to amend a Complaint against over 60 Defendants was a reasonable time from Brennan’s perspective.
In order to accomplish this task, I sent a number of lawful discovery requests under 735 ILCS 5/2 -1101 in the form of Subpoenas to the Defendants. This request was necessary evidence to present claims to the Court. Forkins immediately filed a Motion demanding to Quash Subpoenas and a Protective Order against me. I am acting ProSe; and my only option to proceed with this case is to conduct appropriate discovery among all parties. Forkins’s inadequate response and demand of Protective Order against Discovery conducted by the Plaintiff in this case is unlawful. Not only Forkins lacked standing due to invalid appearance but he wanted to preclude me from all appropriate steps readily available to licensed attorneys, such as offering settlements to the parties and conduct mandatory discovery.
Defendants Motions for TRO against me were always favorably granted by Honorable Brennan and without any reprimand to attorneys who filed Emergency Motion for non-emergency matter, in violation of this Court Rules and IL Rules of Civil Procedure. All granted by Judge Brennan. But when I, a ProSe, filed one (1) Motion for TRO asking to stop my Defendants’ abusive practices – Judge Brennan denied my Motion claiming that I am “not entitled to such extreme remedy” as TRO. Obviously, only Brennan’s preferred lawyers are entitled to extreme remedies, regardless of all trespasses of the law.
For example, on Friday, September 12, 2014, Defendants Chicagoland Management et. al filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Quash Subpoenas to Third party witnesses. In addition to their request for an Emergency hearing on September 16, 2014 this case already had a regular hearing scheduled for September 22, 2014. Illinois and federal courts consistently describe a TRO as an extraordinary remedy that is not favored by Courts. TRO can be issued in exceptional and emergency circumstances when necessary to preserve the status quo until the court has an opportunity to rule on a motion for preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Coca-Cola Co. v. Alma-Leo U.S.A., Inc.719 F. Supp. 725, 726-27 (N.D. Ill. 1989). The Motion for TRO may be only granted upon a showing good cause.
Motions for TRO granted by Judge Brennan lack good cause and interferes with my lawful rights to request supporting documents from third party witnesses as provided in 735 ILCS 5/2 -1101. The Motions filed by Defendants lawyers are exemplary documents how licensed attorneys abuse process to obstruct justice by withholding material evidence to aid and abet its corrupt client’s fraud and racketeering activity by using well-known conspiracy tactics. My numerous requests for judicial opinions in Judge Brennan court , to explain the legal reasoning for extreme emergency relief, were never considered and legal grounds of Judge Brennan’s decisions were never provided.
Judge Brennan’s favorable decisions grating Motions to Quash Subpoena and TROs against me further enabled Defendants obstruction of justice and sabotage of document production.
Moreover, Defendants evolved into a mafia-like protection racket. On July 15, 2014, CCM and its collection mill lawyer Michael T. Franz from Sanchez Daniels & Hoffaman LLP filed a malicious “defamation” complaint against me, entirely based on false statements in an attempt to retaliate against my case. Since Judge Novak, who handled this bogus case in Chancery, did not play into Mr. Franz’s desperate demands to consolidate his Chancery case with my Law division case, Judge Brennan’s history of lenience to attorneys was his final hope.
Note that Mr. Franz bought Judge Hogan’s favorable decision in the Law Division, who consolidated a frivolous defamation case with my valid Law Division claim while Judge Hogan acted without jurisdiction and concealed over $4,550.00 he received from my Defendants’ lawyers Hinshaw &Culbertson LLP.
Judge Brennan’s history as a former Comed attorney who carefully withheld any of her personal information from the public and refused to disclose her election campaign materials when officially requested in this case is also suspect to accepting bribes, thus enabling racketeering activity. Brennan also reinforced Defendants false sense of untouchability when they see such unfailing strong support from the Judge.
VINDICTIVENESS AND FAILURE TO RESPECT PROSE RIGHTS
While Defendants represented by experienced trail lawyers feel comfortable in Judge Brennan’s Court, single ProSe like myself is always subjected to undue harsh treatment.
Judge Brennan acted in a systematically discriminatory manner when she regularly grants licensed attorneys more time to prepare pleadings than ProSe, and confronts, in a rude manner, my reasonable requests for extensions. There are multiple examples of this:
- On May 30, 2014, Brennan granted me as ProSe 14 days to file a Second Amended Complaint against several large corporations, its management company, and its attorneys. Lawyers were automatically given 28 days to reply. After objecting, I was given 21 days to reply or still a week less than theattorneys.
- At August 4, 2014 hearing, I found that she accidentally put an incorrect party in the Second Amended Complaint (originally filed June 20th). Counsel representing Mesirow, the wrong party, appeared at the hearing and assisted me to identify true party to the case, CNA/Continental Insurance Company. When I requested to substitute CNA for Mesirow in my Motion Brennan said that I must file a THIRD Amended Complaint and suggested it be done the SAME day. After I objected Brennan granted FOUR days to file a Third Amended Complaint that included over 60 parties. Note that the mistake occurred due to Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with my discovery request, when Judge Brennan granted Defendants Motions with a blind eye and did not punish the Defendants for their obstruction to discovery. She only forced me as ProSe to bear the grunt of this error and gave an unreasonably little amount of time to amend the complaint.
- On August 4, 2014 Brennan provided a briefing schedule and provided attorneys from highly experienced litigation law firms to take 28 days to prepare one Motion to Dismiss, previously suggested by Brennan, this already approved by her.
- But she gave ProSe 21 days to respond to 5 Motions to Dismiss, or about 4 days per each Motion. My request for an extension to properly respond to these multiple, voluminous Motions to Dismiss – some were up to 30 pages long- was again denied under the pretense that I wanted “intentional delays with litigation.”
- Previously in this case Judges Brennan and Pierce several times granted an extension to attorney Forkins to file a single Motion to Quash Service, total about 112 days, which was still defective after their generous extensions. Forkins was never reprimanded for contempt with Court orders when he failed to prepare his Answer when it was due.
- In Case 2014-L-005157, Dex Media Inc. vs. A Abortion Birth Control, presented before Brennan during September 16th hearing, Brennan granted Plaintiff’s licensed lawyer, Levy Jay K. , until October 24th, or 40 days to amend his complaint, an amount of time unheard of for ProSe ’s case. Copy of the Order available.
- During the same September 16, 2014 emergency hearing, Judge Brennan politely suggested licensed lawyers in another case to invest more time in conducting discovery and further amend their Complain. A similar request from ProSe was met with confrontational disapproval.
- Honorable Brennan advised me to initiate discovery AFTER the hearing on the Motions to Dismiss. Since those very motions were previously encouraged by Judge Brennan, I had absolutely no doubt that Brennan decided this case already, which will be the dismissal of the Complaint.
Such undue harsh behavior appears to be either a corrupt abuse of power; or personal retaliation against me for my disagreements with Brennan’s previous Court decisions; or both.
Brennan’s actions never reflect those of a reputable, impartial Judge. When I rightfully criticized Brennan’s lenient attitude for the case’s licensed attorney (which she conducted since day one in my case) , including giving them leads on what motions to file next, Honorable Brennan responded with a tirade against me that I “must not tell her how to run her Court.”
When blatantly acting partial to one party, Brennan erred and abused her discretion. She treats the Court of the Peoples of United States of America as her personal venue. It is worth reminding her that she is merely an employee of the State on taxpayer-funded payroll.
When Brennan ran for election, she pleads for me and other voters to entrust her this important position in exchange for impartial, just, and equal services.
I have a right to express her disagreement if Judge Brennan breaches her promise and treats me with bias. As mentioned, experienced trial lawyers in my case were always given no less than 28 days to file anything, including getting numerous extensions without any restrictions or inappropriate comments. I had not been so privileged. As a ProSe litigant, I is entitled to an adequate or at least proportional amount of time as her adversaries.
For the reasons stated above, I demanded to recuse Judge Brennan from my case and further requests that an order of substitution of judge for cause be issued, and this case be assigned to a judge who knows and complies with the law, who does not have a conflict of interest, and a judge who will act impartially.
However, my case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge John C. Griffin, who failed to disclose his personal conflict of interests with my defendants and lied that he “does not remember his campaign donors”; and, according to my defendants, received “substantial amount of money to dismiss” my case – all while it was pending under Appeal Court jurisdiction.