Judge John C. Griffin is currently sitting in Cook County Circuit Court, Law Division. He must be impeached and removed from the bench for corruption, lack of personal and professional integrity, obstruction of justice, relentless lies, trespasses of the law; criminal conspiracy with opposing parties and fixing cases in favor of his parties of interests.
Judge John C. Griffin must be also investigated for bribery scheme since I have all reasons to believe that John C. Griffin fixed my case in favor of his parties of interests for a compensation, in other words accepted a bribe. My conclusion is supported by my Defendants’ own words that their clients “spent substantial amounts of money to dismiss” my case.
Judge Griffin is did not earn his post by merit but through personal connections and deception. He first attained his seat through 2008 assignment from IL Supreme Court who regularly put their cronies to IL benches. No surprise why IL Court system is so corrupt.
In 2010 Judge Griffin made following statements to Chicago Tribune: .” I have been completely honest. I do not believe that my integrity has ever been questioned.”. It was not true. In 2009 at least three individuals requested Judge Griffin’s election Petitions for review – obviously they had concerns about Griffin’s integrity.
When in 2009 Griffin became the judge in Chancery Division, he started to deprive IL citizens from civil rights and fix foreclosure cases in favor of big banks. In 2009 Judge Griffin was a defendant in case 09CV5243, Gregory v. Judge Griffin, et.al . for his bias practices in a foreclosure case. Plaintiffs challenged court jurisdiction and alleged violations of Due Process and Equal Protection rights. Plaintiff contended that Defendant judges are involved in conspiracy in violation of 42USC1985, are legislating from the bench, are blatantly disregarding the law.
In 2010 Judge John C. Griffin and his committee defrauded IL Board of election when they concealed in-kind contributions, which resulted in Administrative case 1-AP064.
Clearly, Judge Griffin’s statement that he has been “completely honest. I do not believe that my integrity has ever been questioned” was a false statement to mislead voters.
In the same interview to Tribune Judge John C. Griffin said: [I will] apply the law to the facts to make just decisions. In the process, I would treat people equally, fairly and respectfully“. It was another lie and deception.
In his July 17, 2015 Opinions in my case Griffin said: “In its ruling of December 19, 2014, the Court [..] DIRECTED the Plaintiff to the Circuit Court County’s website entitled “For People Without Lawyers”. [..] The “options located to the right’ contain detailed information regarding Attorney Referral Services, free/low cost legal services […]. In addition December 19, 2014 ORDER stated as follows: [..] Therefore, a self-represented individual MAY HIRE AN ATTORNEY to assist them for limited purposes such as drafting and/or reviewing pleadings. The foregoing is part of the Court’s attempt to make reasonable efforts, [ …] TO FACILITATE THE ABILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO BE FAIRLY HEARD.”
In other words, Judge Griffin informed me that if my pleadings had been drafted by a lawyer the SAME LAW would have been applied DIFFERENTLY.
Evidence that Griffin did exactly this – apply law differently for a ProSe versus a lawyer – includes but not limited to: 735 ILCS 5/2-603 has three subsections: (a), (b) AND (c) (“pleading shall be liberally constructed with a view of doing substantial justice between the parties”); and also has §2-606 covering exhibits, §2-612 and §2-613, all of which support Fedorova’s Complaint. But for me as ProSe Griffin deducted that 735 ILCS 5/Art.2, Part 6 is limited only to §2/-603(a) and (b), which he then applied to the most adverse degree for the Plaintiff manner. No need to say, Griffin completely ignored all hard facts from my case all-together and in every count ruled in favor of well-connected Defendants. According to Griffin, I was not even able to prove HOW my management company owes me fiduciary duties! Which is absurd.
The 2010 election that followed for him to keep his position in 2016 was not free or fair either. Griffin comes from a family of professionals with ties to the Cook County court, including his father James L. Griffin, who was a judge; his aunt Helen Griffin, who worked for the Chief Judge for 25 years between about 1960-1985; and his uncle Joseph P. Griffin, who worked as a Treasurer Speaker Michael Madigan and later served as a Commissioner of Court of Claims.
I have absolutely no doubt that John C. Griffin’s 2008 appointment and election were procured through personal ties. Griffin not only concealed his family connections when running for office but has vehemently denied to me that he knows his election donors.
This is a lie. Judge Griffin’s election donors are on public record. The records show that Griffin’s campaign employed vote buying from political organizations to obtain his judicial seat. For example, on September 21, 2009, Judge John C. Griffin’s Committee donated $500.00 to the Chicago Federation of Labor & Industrial Union Council PAC. The Union reciprocated the favor on June 16, 2010, by contributing $9,758.68 to Griffin’s campaign and giving him an official endorsement. It’s easy to guess that they reasonably expected a significant return on their money in the form of judicial favors from John C. Griffin. On September 11, 2009, Griffin donated $1,000.00 to Local 399 Political Education Fund, who in return also endorsed Judge Griffin to the bench. In addition, Judge Griffin donated $900.00 to Judicial Retention Committee in 2016 to keep his judicial seat despite Griffin’s highly adverse personal records , a transaction that looks like a bribe rather than an altruistic donation to the organization. In spite of these negative public records, John C. Griffin has been able to maintain his position as a judge due to his network of cronies.
This alone disqualify him from the bench, no need to say he corruptly fix cases in favor of his parties of interests who are usually insurance companies, banks; corporations and their well-connected donors.
Moreover, Judge Griffin relentlessly lied when on October 2014 he said “I do not even remember who are my election donors”; and on January 2016 he insisted that he “does not know” who are his election donors. These statements were blatant lies.
The largest donor for Judge Griffin’s election was himself who donated $31,695.98 to his campaign on January 26, 2010. It is absolutely impassible for Judge Griffin to “forget” and even not know his own very substantial contribution.
On June 28, 2017 Judge Griffin “recalled” that he gave himself money for continued to tell that he does not know who are his other donors. Which was once again a blatant lie. His second largest donor was his own Law Firm, Griffin &Gallagher LLC who between August 2009 to February 2010 gave money to Griffin’s campaign seven (7) times. According to Griffin’s interview in March 2010 with Chicago Tribune, he ” practiced law and managed my own law firm for over 30 years” . So, it is impossible that the owner of the business does not know how his company spends money – which were a substantial amount of $1,900.00.
Other donors to Judge John C. Griffin are prominent well-connected lawyers who regularly appear in this Court: Michael Demetrio, partner at Corboy&Demetrio and husband of Appeal Court Justice Katherine Rochford; Robert J. Bingle, Corboy &Demetrio partner; Daniel S. Kirschner, Corboy&Demetrio Partner, Daniel Kotin, nephew to Phillip Corboy, former top partner to C&D and President of Chicago Bar Association who are responsible for judicial selections (Corboy&Demetrio has at least three personal judges in this Court system: Katherine Rochford and Terrance Lavin (former Associate to C&D) in Appeal Court and Eve M. Railly in Municipal Division; Joseph A. Power, Jr. son of well-connected Judge Joseph A. Power, Judge Griffin’s friend Daniel J. Pierce, who is a well-connected lawyer and former classmate with Justice Thomas E. Hoffman, who is a long time crony with Edward Burke and his wife, Justice Anne Burke.
In my case Judge John C. Griffin has acted corruptly from day one. In October 2014, when Judge Griffin first oversaw the case, he immediately created obstacles that prevented me from having a fair hearing. These include but are not limited to: (1) Griffin prohibiting me from collecting any information from my Defendants which could advance her case, like documents or records of inside communication, which was Griffin’s immodest support for well-connected lawyers and their corporate clients; (2) he denied a Motion where I demanded disclosures about her Defendants’ lawyers’ personal connections with judges, even though I has reasonable suspicion that these ties existed when on October 1, 2014, Judge James P. Flannery Jr. passed his seat to Judge Thomas L. Hogan, who then unlawfully consolidated my claim with frivolous “defamation” case 14-CH-11573 filed by Chicagoland Community Management while concealed information about numerous donations from my defendant’s lawyers Hinshaw &Culbertson, LLP; and (3) told me that he “does not even remember who are [his] election donors”. Besides being a largest donor to himself, Judge John C. Griffin received donations from Anthony McMahon, whom I have all reasons to believe who works for CNA/Continental Casualty Co., a defendant in my case; who covers for other defendants’ legal bills. On November 1, 2012. Chicago Lawyer magazine published that Anthony McMahon, 44, works within the Coverage Oversight Unit of CNA Insurance. He typically involves himself in the day-to-day coverage issues that arise in the claims offices as well as any coverage litigation that may arise.
SCOOP OF THE CASE:
Case 14-L-3632 was filed on May 25, 2012 against a predatory HOA Carl Sandburg Village Condo Association #1, its management Company Chicagoland Community Management, Inc. and its lawyers, including Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit P.C.. I am a Pro Se plaintiff against numerous well-connected law Firms including Hinshaw &Culbertson LLP who has at least 5 (five) personal Judges sitting in this Court: James E. Snyder; Thomas R. Mulroy, Jr. (both previously lost elections and obtained judicial seats through personal connections); Sharon Sullivan, sister of lawyer Peter Sullivan who represented my Defendants; Cecilia Horan and John C. Griffin, who is I believe a relative to lawyer Joseph W. Griffin, H&C former partner.
In 2006, I fell two month behind on my assessments because I was misled about the terms of my mortgage, which put me under financial stress. To compensate the HOA for their loss, I offered to repay my dues through a payment plan. They refused. In a malicious act against a vulnerable homeowner, the HOA promptly used my breach for their advantage by swamping me with bogus fees, including an extra month for assessments prior to my ownership of the unit. (I got possession on Feb. 1, 2006, but the HOA charged me starting from Jan 1, 2006.)
On May 1, 2006, the HOA claimed that I owed them $1,481.12 in “debt.” I contested this amount but was ignored by the HOA. My monthly assessments were always $282.04. With the exception of the two months, I made all payments. So there was no possible way that I could owe more than $714.00, which also takes into consideration the $75.00 in late fees.
In a case contesting these charges, the HOA was able to obtain a favorable judgment and took possession of the unit. My unit was then rented from Dec. 1, 2006 to a bona fide tenant for $900.00 a month. At all times throughout the rental period the assessments remained $282.04. At this time, the HOA Board and its managers were advised by their lawyers to avoid all communication with me, which made it impossible for me to respond to their hostilities. On October 23, 2007, the HOA filed a second collection case, in which they claimed that I “owe” then $7,442.00 as of Jan. 1, 2006 and that any payments made for the unit were credit. It was a lie. At the time of this case, the unit was in possession of the HOA and gainfully rented. To hide the rental income, the HOA, its managers, and their lawyers applied all possible fees and charges in violation of the Declaration. Some creative charges even include a “holiday party” and non-existing “parking.” By October 1, 2011, after 5 years of consecutive rent, my debt to HOA was calculated as $3,614.35.
On July 17, 2015, after several years in court, my case against the HOA was dismissed with prejudice by Judge John C. Griffin in the Law Division. Judge Griffin ruled that:
- My fraud claim was based on “fraud; common law fraud and constructive fraud”. Breach of fiduciary duty is a constructive fraud; fabrication of unlawful debt to withhold possession of the property to rent it for personal gain (which is HOAs common practice) is a common law fraud and statutory fraud. But judge Griffin built his decision solely on 815 ILCS 505, which is mainly related to consumer protections against dishonest sellers. He found that my HOA did NOT commit fraud because I was not able to show RELIANCE on their actions. Griffin completely ignored the fact that HOA did not need my reliance because they have unlimited power over homeowners and can abuse them as much as they want. Judge Griffin’s verdict opened HOAs a door of opportunity for even more exorbitant unlimited abuses.
- Griffin ruled that HOA did NOT commit breach of fiduciary duty because their decision to increase of my debt from $1,481.12 in 2006 to $3,614.35 in 2011 after five years of collecting $900.00 in monthly rent was legal per a “BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE”. To note, the HOA never reported taxes from these profits, which is fraud against the IRS, which was also found acceptable by Griffin.
- Griffin ruled that HOA did NOT breach the building Declaration as a contract because I “breached it first” when I fell behind on two months’ of payments. But my one-time breach in 2006 was fully cured through rental gains by no later than February/March 2007. Per Griffin’s ruling, the HOA had the right to breach the contract indefinitely since I breached it once almost ten years ago. To note, contract law does not work one way. If one was to follow Griffin’s logic then if the HOA breaches its obligations once, which happens all the time, then I or any other resident are no longer subject to the Declaration. I can refuse to pay my assessments all together for the HOA’s breaches to the contract, including its misuse of community funds, its negligence of the building premises, and so on.
- Although my defendants always acted as a group, judge Griffin said here was no conspiracy involved and HOA was not acting as an “enterprise” where lawyers and managers are agents. This is not true. Each defendant alone would not succeed in this extortion racket. While HOA, its Board and the management company fabricated fees, lawyers presented their false statements before the judges to help them withhold possession.
- I had been “given” enough opportunities to Amend my Complaint and that I “failed to state a claim or identify a cause of action.” Yet then he addressed my claims, which would de facto imply that the claims were stated.
To note, my complaint includes 65 defendants represented by six prominent law firms charged on 18 counts. I am Pro Se without any partners in this case. English is not my native language. Despite the clear imbalance of power, over the course of this case I was given:
- 21 days to file my First Amended Complaint, at which time the case’s presiding judge Pierce threatened me with sanctions for suing lawyers. During this time he also made racist comments on my national origin each time I appeared in his Court.
- 20 days to file Second Amended Complaint, which was interrupted by 2 demands for TRO and 1 bogus defamation case filed by one of my Defendants.
- 4 days to file Third Amended Complaint just to replace one incorrectly listed Defendant. (originally offered by Judge Brennan to file it at the same day of hearing on August 4th, 2014). To compare, in Case 2014-L-005157, Dex Media Inc. vs. A Abortion Birth Control, 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 Fedorova’s case. Copy of the Order available.
- 21 days to respond to 8 motions to dismiss (or about 2.4 days per motion).
- 35 days to file Fourth Amended Complaint because one of the defendants successfully consolidated my case with a frivolous defamation case, all of which was done my objections. The Fourth Amended Complaint was then actually the First Complaint for this new, consolidated case.***
- 49 days to respond to 9 briefs, including 8 motions and 1 answer, or 5.4 days per motion.
The Defendants appeared about five (5) months after the commencement of the case. Their lawyers were:
- Given approximately 112 days to file a single two-pages Motion to Quash service, which was then favorably granted by judge Brennan Ex Parte in her chambers without notice given to me
- Granted never less than 28 days to file a motion.
- Instant favorable decisions for all TRO demands, seven in total (two on an emergency basis) despite my objections,
- *** When my Dfs realized that Chancery division judge is not going to entertain their “defamation” claim, they demanded consolidation and on the stunning span of less than 30 days deceived 6 (SIX! ) judges in TWO Divisions to obtain a verdict to consolidate with my Law division case solely with intent to overcomplicate my claims and create confusion hoping to obtain a quick dismissal. They succeed with judge Griffin’s aid and abet.
- Judge Griffin, who promised to apply law to facts, ever forced the HOA to disclose how it arrived at the calculations from $1,481.12 to 3,614.35 after five years of renting my property as it did. Lawyers said that they under “no obligation to explain it.
- Discovery process requested by me in several stages of the proceeding was never ordered, names of the parties were never disclosed in violation of IL S.Ct.R 224.
In the extremely harsh decision made in my case, Judge Griffin took 75 days to deliver practically identical Opinions (8 in total) and Order (one) smashing the entire factual basis of my case with prejudice. Most of his verdicts were technical critiques of my filings as Pro Se. I was the one who was blamed for “delaying the litigation” and “wasting judicial resources.” The lawyers’ malpractices were never noted. In fact, not a single critique of their filings was made. The totality of Judge Griffin’s decisions came solely with repercussions for me. Worth to mention, during all this time Griffin was acting in excess of all jurisdiction since my case was pending in Appeal Court since November 17, 2014 to July 1, 2015 and never was reassigned to Law Division as requested by the law. Clearly, Judge Griffin is above the law and acts beyond jurisdiction.
Justice was not done in Case 14-L-3632. From further research, I found that Judge Griffin’s political patronage for his previous judicial election campaign included donors that benefited from his decision against a vulnerable homeowner. I strongly suspect that the 75-day period taken by Griffin to decide the case was just to weight the pros and cons of committing blatant discrimination against a Pro Se defendant.
This scoop is to elaborate my whistleblowing claims in the Law Division and to reach out to the court for justice. My case is a small tip of the iceberg of HOA harassments and abuses against vulnerable homeowners with help from and predatory Sanchez Daniels &Hoffman LLP Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit PC. (KSN) Here is a sizable collection of cases against KSN pending in both Courts. Besides numerous Federal claims for violations of FDCPA, which include a recent class action Complaint, here are three Law Division cases: Case 2015-L-006334, Stroller v. Kovitz. Senior Living Suits management conspired with KSN lawyers to harass an elderly 66-yo person with legal Notices for “non-payments” (the payment was made) because Mr. Stroller is in the conflict with administration; Case 14-L-012093, Frank v. Board of Directors, KSN et.al. KSN conspired with the Riviera & Palos HOA Board to illegally change By-Laws without Notice to the residents or a vote by the membership. The Board and KSN secretly came up with a plan to amend By-Laws without the members’ participation, as required. In 2011, KSN advised The Board to ignore owners’ concerns about HOA’s practices which resulted in a legal case 11-CH-35674, Czarney v. The Riviera, resulted in substantial waste of community funds, just the same like in LTCA and Carl Sandburg whom KSN’s incoherent advises brought into a lengthy and expensive litigation; Case 14-L-4517, Bastani v. KSN et.al. where Kovitz harassed Bastani with frivolous collections.
Now these predatory lawyers will commit even more outrageous abuses, armed with Judge Griffin’s decision, and based on the public records they regularly do.
Griffin continued to act in violation of the law when he ruled in both cases, 14-L-3632 and 14-CH-11573, after I filed her Notice of Appeal on November 17, 2014, of which Griffin was perfectly aware. Nonetheless, he ordered me to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in BOTH consolidated cases, even though at that point it should have been the First Consolidated Complaint, and demanded to Answer Case 14-CH-11573 after I appealed its consolidation with my claim.
On July 17, 2015, Judge John C. Griffin, acting without jurisdiction, ruled in favor of my Defendants in violation of all applicable laws and binding precedents.
I filed a Petition where she demanded to reconsider Griffin’s decision. On January 20, 2016,I appeared before Judge Griffin to contest his void orders. During this hearing a court reporter was present. Nearly all of the Defendants were absent, except Continental Casualty insurance Company and Dickler Khan Slowikowski & Zavell Ltd.. This again supported my intuition that Judge Griffin had ExParte communication with my Defendants and informed them about the court reporter present, encouraging them not to attend in order avoid being on official record for this particular hearing.
Griffin denied my Petition without any explanations or applicable laws in support, even though many of her defendants had not even showed up to this hearing; and all absent defendants were purportedly represented by ONE lawyer, Paul Sheldon, who was representing insurance Company who covered other defendants’ lawyers legal bills, which was a glaring conflict of interests.
More recently I discovered additional evidence that Judge Griffin has multiple personal connections with her defendants’ lawyers, especially with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and its partner, Peter Sullivan. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP represent Chicagoland Community Management in my case.
I have reason to believe that Judge Griffin’s father, Judge James L. Griffin, and Peter Sullivan’s father, Harold Sullivan, were close friends in their personal and professional circles. I also believes that Judge Griffin is a relative of lawyer Joseph W. Griffin who was a top partner to Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Here again I see enough evidence to support Griffin’s recusal from her case for conflict of interest, which Griffin repeatedly refuses to do, which is a direct violation of my rights under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3); and shows that Judge Griffin has absolutely no personal and professional integrity and does not follow the law.
Furthermore, Judge John C. Griffin failed to disclose his personal connections with his Judge Daniel J. Pierce, who was a major donor to Griffin’s election campaign. Pierce was the first judge in case 14-L-3632 (former 12-L7111) and acted highly prejudiced against me as ProSe when I appeared before him in the court.
Given Griffin’s unlawful behavior and personal connections, I am absolutely confident that Judge Griffin fixed my case 14-L-3632 in exchange for monetary compensation commonly known as a bribe, defrauding me of honest services.
Judge Griffin committed fraud upon the Court, acted corrupt and in excess of his subject/matter jurisdiction when he (1) deprived me from Due Process and Equal Protection rights; (2) accepted and favorably ruled on defendants’ legally insufficient as a matter of law Motions filed by licensed lawyers without Sworn Affidavits, in violation of 5/1-109; 5/2-605; 5/2-615; 5/2-619; IL S. Ct.R. 191; and F.R. 47; (3) ruled on purportedly consolidated cases 14-CH-11573 and 14-L-3632, while case 14-CH-11573 was in Appeal Court; (4) acted partially in favor of his parties of interests; (5) applied double standards of review on ProSe vis-à-vis licensed lawyers, for the identical claims; (6) mislead me about his election donors and his personal interests in defendants and their lawyers; (7) refused to reverse his Opinions and disqualify himself.
I have proper material evidence that Judges Flannery and Griffin, with aid from ex-Judge Thomas L. Hogan, fixed cases 14-L-3632 and 14-CH-11573 in favor of corporate defendants, all of whom belong to the sphere of these judges’ personal interests.
I strongly believe that Judges Flannery, Griffin, and Hogan received indirect (election donations or promises for donations) and direct compensation for their favorable decisions for defendants in my case. In other words: they accepted bribes.
A breadth of evidence backs my suspicions: public election records; the judge’s incessant deception; unjustified lenience to the defendants’ lawyers; acceptance of legally insufficient motions from defendants’ lawyers; extreme bias against me as ProSe; the defendants’ own claims that they have spent a “substantial amounts of money” to dismiss my case; and judge Hogan’s rapid retirement from the bench after my complaint to FBI.
I diligently pursued her legal options of vacate void order on consolidation of cases 14-CH-11573 with 14-L-3632 and void judgement entered by Judge Griffin on July 17, 2015 and November 5, 2015, in violation of all applicable laws, including §2-615 and §2-619.
Judges Flannery and Griffin acted from their position of power, repeatedly abused their discretion, acted corrupt and bias against me, applied double standards; refused to comply with the law or follow due process and equal protection clauses; deprived me from honest judicial services; fraudulently concealed and/or misled me about their personal conflicts of interests with defendants; readily accepted legally deficient motions filed by licensed lawyers; and customary ruled in favor of their preferred parties, in disregard of lawyers’ fatal deficiencies in pleadings and defendants’ false and contradicting statements.
Judge Griffin refused to recuse himself despite his flagrant conflicts of interests with my defendants; and continued to rule in their favor, in the most corrupt and prejudice manner. Defendants were perfectly aware of his decision on November 5, 2015 and came to the hearing with a fully preprinted favorable verdict.
Judge Griffin’s repetitive refusals to recuse himself from case 14-L-3632 after he had been automatically disqualified by law due to his bias and partiality, constitute judge Griffin’s lack of subject/matter jurisdiction, war against the Constitution, treason and anarchy. It supports my argument that judge Griffin’s favorable verdicts were procured by fraud upon the Court, corruption and undue influence, commonly known as a bribe.
Double standards in the court for judges’ Flannery and Griffin favored litigants are the norm in my case. As mentioned before, Judge Griffin applied the same law differently to the two parties before him when presiding over my case. Clearly, Griffin acts with extreme bias against ProSe litigants, with whom he prefers to act under the color of the law; and favors pleadings prepared by politically connected lawyers.
Griffin committed unmitigated crimes punishable under Federal Criminal Code of Conduct 18 U.S.C. 242, deprivation of civil rights acting under colors of law; engaged into a Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Griffin violated 42 U.S.C. 1986, when he neglected to prevent the wrongs conspired to be done by defendants and its lawyers, as mentioned in section 1983 and 85 of this title, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglected or refuses so to do.
Judge John C. Griffin must be removed from the bench and criminally investigated for corruption, obstruction of justice and bribery.