A lawyer and judicial reform advocate has asked a federal appeals panel to give new life to his legal claims accusing Illinois' largest judicial lobbying group of wrongly using its collective power to shield member judges - and particularly, the judge overseeing Cook County's divorce and family law courts - from criticism and consequences for alleged unethical actions.
On Dec. 5, plaintiff Edward "Coach" Weinhaus filed his opening brief before the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in his appeal of two rapid decisions from a federal judge this summer, quickly tossing his claims against the Illinois Judges Association and Cook County Judge Regina Scannicchio.
In his appeal, Weinhaus argued U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey misapplied a U.S. Supreme Court precedent to wrongly decide Weinhaus was attempting to use federal courts to overturn state court rulings against him - in particular, rulings against him in Cook County divorce court before Scannicchio.
Weinhaus
| Weinhaus
Scannicchio is now assigned as the presiding judge over Cook County's domestic relations division.
Weinhaus asserted Blakey's rulings wrongly blocked him from raising his claims against the Illinois Judges Association, which he said would have no impact on the outcome of the divorce court decisions.
Weinhaus is represented in the appeal by attorneys Adam Florek, of New York, and Antonio Valiente-Rivera, of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Florek has clerked for the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, as well as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
All of Weinhaus' "allegations in the underlying lawsuit concern conduct which preceded the state-court decision," Weinhaus' lawyers wrote in the appellate brief. "Nothing in the underlying lawsuit invites the federal district court to review, reject, overturn, modify, or otherwise disturb the underlying state-court judgement.
"Instead, (Weinhaus') lawsuit seeks money damages for the deprivation of his rights to Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, (Weinhaus) was unable to raise the issues implicated in this lawsuit during the state court proceedings because these claims are against unrelated parties and would have required (Weinhaus) to institute a new lawsuit in state-court to adjudicate the violations of his Constitutionally protected Equal Protection and Due Process rights."
Weinhaus had initially filed suit in April, accusing the Illinois Judges Association of dominating Illinois' court system, by using its position as a "Business League" "arm of the state" used by judges to shut down efforts by litigants and others to hold judges accountable for alleged wrongful actions.
Weinhaus asserted the IJA collects dues from judges "then empowers them to write all the rules, join together to rule over the people, protect each other without disclosure, enforce the rules to the detriment of any other group, then both the state and the (IJA) brag about it."
Weinhaus' legal claims center on actions taken by Illinois appellate justices to allegedly protect Cook County Judge and IJA Board of Directors member Regina Scannicchio for alleged improper actions she took against Weinhaus amid Weinhaus' contentious divorce proceedings with his then-wife.
Scannicchio is also named as a defendant in Weinhaus' action.
Weinhaus asserts Scannicchio improperly sanctioned him in 2020, a ruling that triggered appeals from Weinhaus in which he accused Scannicchio of "ethical lapses." The complaint does not offer specifics about those alleged "ethical lapses."
Weinhaus' appeal, however, was dismissed by a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court in Chicago.
Weinhaus asserted the denial of the appeal was improper under Illinois Supreme Court rules, and was motivated by a desire to "circle the wagons" to protect Scannicchio, one of "their own," from public scrutiny over her alleged "lapses."
Weinhaus asserted the appellate justices should have recused themselves, or at least disclose their professional relationship to Scannicchio.
Weinhaus amended his complaint to add other allegations against Scannicchio, accusing the judge of allegedly improperly placing calls and sending messages to other judges in Illinois concerning cases in which Weinhaus was involved and "her opinion of him."
He specifically accused Scannicchio of allegedly using her influence through the IJA to secure a quick dismissal of his appeal of Scannicchio's earlier decisions before the state's First District court.
Weinhaus has asserted this amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights to a fair hearing before an impartial judiciary.
Scannicchio has reportedly filed an ethics complaint of her own against Weinhaus with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), which investigates complaints of misconduct against lawyers in Illinois and can recommend to the Illinois Supreme Court to take actions against them.
While the ethics complaint against Weinhaus is not public, Weinhaus has called Scannicchio's complaint politically motivated and baseless.
Meanwhile, in federal court, Blakey also quickly dismissed both versions of Weinhaus' lawsuit against the IJA and Scannicchio. Blakey ruled the case doesn't belong in federal court, because it would violate the the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal legal precedent which prohibits federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
Blakey said he believed the lawsuit's reliance on the state courts' handling of his divorce-related matters mean the lawsuit runs afoul of Rooker-Feldman, as it would leave the federal judge "unable to consider the reasons for the dismissal without re-evaluating the appropriateness of the dismissal, as well as the underlying orders appealed."
Blakey said allowing Weinhaus to win damages in federal court from state court judges for allegedly violating his constitutional rights in how they handled his state court cases "effectively reverses those orders" rendered in state court.
On appeal, Weinhaus and his attorneys assert it is Blakey's reasoning that falls short, saying the judge did not take the time to properly examine Weinhaus' case against the judges using the so-called four factors of the test established under Rooker-Feldman.
Those four factors include:
- The plaintiff in suing in federal court must have been a "state court loser;"
- The case in state court must have received a final judgment before the federal case was filed;
- "The state court judgment must have caused the alleged underlying injury underlying the federal claim;" and
- The federal lawsuit must ask the federal judge to essentially revisit and overturn the state court ruling.
Weinhaus said his case doesn't violate either the third or fourth Rooker-Feldman factors.
"Importantly, the District Court (Blakey) failed to consider the genesis of (Weinhaus') injury – the collusive behavior of (the IJA and Scannicchio), not the state-court decision – or whether the relief sought in the Amended Complaint would require overturning, modifying, or otherwise disturbing the underlying state-court judgement," Weinhaus said.
"... Here, the District Court erred when it dismissed (Weinhaus') Amended Complaint pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because (Weinhaus) was neither injured by the state-court decision nor did his lawsuit seek to disturb the same," Weinhaus wrote.
"According to the Complaint, the injury was caused prior to the state-court decision – by the external interference of the named Defendant-Appellees (the IJA and Scannicchio.)"
The IJA and Scannicchio have not yet responded to the filing.
In a statement provided to The Record, Weinhaus said: "Leaving Blakey's decision undisturbed would have the federal judiciary allow Illinois to market itself as the state for judicial bribery and other interfering with due process. I doubt that's what the founders meant by 'federalism.'"