WILLIAMSON CO.—The recent revelation of an existing Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) complaint against a Marion attorney has brought forth information about that attorney’s brother.
And it’s not just any brother.
The recent ARDC complaint focused on Josh Bradley—and the information coming from publication of that complaint in the May-June edition of Disclosure—pertains to none other than Harrisburg native/Marion attorney/state representative John E. Bradley.
And while the state’s ARDC office has advised they cannot confirm the existence of a complaint against Rep. Bradley, 43 and an 11-year member of the Illinois legislature, paperwork viewed by Disclosure following the presentation of the article citing his brother’s complaint seems to show that one has been made…and it’s based on alleged actions John Bradley took during the pendency of his recent divorce.
The divorce, while final, had questionable beginnings, being filed in Hardin County, a county that 1, neither party resided in, and 2, has never been connected to the state’s online court documents service, judici…prompting many to immediately opine that this was done deliberately so as to prevent public awareness of the situation.
Since that filing, the divorce file has been booted around to as many as possibly four counties within the First and Second judicial circuits, apparently in an effort to keep the contents from being discovered and scrutinized.
The Bradley divorce, however, is not the only one with questionable circumstances surrounding it; Williamson County court documents on Bradley’s current wife, Michelle Moore, 43, also are curious where it comes to the manner and method deployed in order to get a judge’s signature on the dotted line by a certain date, and for a bizarre reason having to do with Bradley taking his most recent oath of office (early 2013).
John Bradley’s divorce has, of course, not been covered in any mainstream media outlet, despite the fact of highly spurious circumstances surrounding it.
But it all plays into the fact that things have gotten squirrelly for the multiple-term representative who has issued on several occasions the statement that it’s his desire to become the state’s attorney general.
And in making strides toward that, John Bradley has been alleged over the past couple of years to have threatened and influenced those in his circle to keep quiet about his philandering and machinations, at least until Illinois Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan (without whose approval, it’s said, no one ascends to any big office, including that of his daughter Lisa Madigan’s) could ensure that Bradley’s goal could become a reality.
This makes reporting on the situation dangerous to a degree…and at the very least, makes obtaining pertinent documents in the situation increasingly more difficult.
Divorce file ‘in judge’s office’
As of press time, because the divorce file was “in the judge’s office” in Union County, it was impossible to ascertain exactly where the initial filing was made, although online documents indicate that it was moved to Union County from Hardin in September 2013.
The divorce has the attendant accusatory filings surrounding it in the form of Orders of Protection as well as an interesting Legal filing from 2013 in which Amy Bradley, John Bradley’s ex, was the subject of a complaint by then-merely-girlfriend Moore.
Amy Bradley, according to multiple court documents including a DUI filed in 2010 in Williamson County, has an admitted problem with alcohol. Friends and acquaintances of Amy tell Disclosure that she also suffered a head injury from a stairwell fall a few years back, and the pain this caused has at times prompted Amy to “self-medicate” with alcohol in order to control it.
However, OP paperwork and public claims Amy has made seem to indicate that her ex-husband might bear a bit of responsibility for a current, diminished mental state.
At about the time the divorce was being filed, Bradley was already courting Moore, who was then still married, after the two met at Latta Java coffeehouse in downtown Marion. Their romance, despite the still-wedded status of the two, was very public. Sources in Marion state that the two were very physical in public, and nearly slobbering all over each other in the ballfield where their sons played Little League ball.
“In a word,” said one source, “it was inappropriate. In another word, it was ‘disgusting.’”
Moore, it was reported, had problems with other females in Bradley’s life, this leading to his removal of nearly every woman in his circle from around him; even his own mother was reportedly sneered at by Moore.
And Bradley was so smitten with Moore that, according to sources familiar with the situation, he pulled strings in order to get her divorce from Jeffrey Moore finalized in Williamson County—rather abruptly, after it had been filed in October 2011, then dismissed April 2012, then reinstated October 2012.
The dissolution was signed off on by a judge reportedly at or shortly before midnight, December 31, 2012…so that Bradley could take his new paramour to his inaugural event and oath of office in January 2013, after he had won re-election to his state rep seat in November of 2012, as he was worried about the propriety of “taking a married woman to his inaugural event.”
In the court documents: OP
This tense situation with his new girlfriend then came to an ugly head just a few months later.
In early June of 2013, Amy Bradley, still enduring the throes of the custody issues portion as part of the divorce case, had enough and filed for an order of protection against John Bradley.
In the petition for the order, she reported:
“On June 4, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. I received a threatening phone call from John Bradley my ex-husband. The out of control call lasted 26 minutes and 33 seconds. The entire conversation was nothing but threat after threat and (intimidation). He told me he was going to destroy me and take everything away from me. He screamed at me over and over saying I want you to disappear. He said that numerous times. I feel with John Bradley’s power, he could easily make me disappear. I am scared for my life. I don’t have any way of protecting myself. I lay awake at night. I am afraid to close my eyes. I feel the way he repeated how he wanted me to disappear that was a threat to my life. I think this is the only choice I have,” she wrote in justification of the OP petition.
Testimony was given by both John and Amy Bradley on the day the OP was filed, June 6. An emergency OP was declined Amy, but she was given leave to refile a permanent OP. No refiling exists in the court file; the record sheet indicated that the file was reviewed on June 26, and the whole thing was ordered dismissed December 26 by Judge James Moore.
In steps Moore
But in the meantime, Michelle Moore stepped into the picture.
On June 19, 2013, Moore, represented by reviled Mt. Vernon attorney Morris Lane Harvey (which reduced the credibility of the action exponentially and immediately), filed an “L” (legal) case with monetary demand.
In it, Moore claimed that on May 9, 2013, she was at a school concert in Marion when Amy Bradley “came down the stairs from the gymnasium and was very loud and aggressive” toward Moore.
Making such claims as Amy Bradley having pushed Moore; following her down the hallway; yelling at her in the cafeteria; pushing her again; grabbing other patrons; and ultimately following her out to her car, Moore was seeking civil remedy in the filing under claims of a Temporary Restraining Order, a Permanent Injunction; civil Assault and civil Battery.
Moore claimed in an affidavit that Amy Bradley screamed such things as “how do you like the bankruptcy; how to you like my house; how do you like my bed/bathroom/kitchen; John can do better than you; I can’t believe that he stooped so low,” which, coupled with the alleged physical assaults caused such mental anguish for her that she was seeking a judgment of no less than $50,000.
Perhaps detecting that he was in over his sizable head, Harvey withdrew as attorney in the case on July 14, 2013, citing “a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship in this matter” as a catch-all for abandoning it.
John Womick of Womick Law Firm entered an appearance for Moore on July 29, 2013. Attorney Susan Burger was representing Amy. After numerous continuances, at a court setting this April 29, only Burger appeared.
The case was set for status on July 30 at that time.
Naturally, the whole filing prompts questions of why, if Michelle Moore believed she was assaulted and battered at the concert, she didn’t simply call the law on Amy Bradley and have her arrested instead of filing what appears to be a frivolous lawsuit.
Document showed to Disclosure
With things dragging through court in Williamson on the L case, and through Union in the divorce/custody, Bradley and Moore finally married, reportedly in one of the tackiest venues imaginable—Latta Java.
The two reportedly subsequently purchased the business from Marion gadfly Terence Henry, the alleged ‘computer genius’ who finally put together the city of Harrisburg website only recently, having been hired—and paid—last year to do so by then-mayor Eric Gregg, after letting the city sit without a website presence for months on end.
Things seemed to be going well until Josh Bradley’s ARDC complaint was made public in May of this year.
At that time, Disclosure was apprised of a document allegedly filed by Burger with the ARDC, leveling a complaint against John Bradley, which, in short, amounts to this:
Bradley, being an attorney, drafted his own divorce and custody paperwork in which he made himself residential parent of the couple’s two sons (whose names have been redacted from the divorce/custody proceedings on request of Bradley in the Union County file, but one of whose names, Jackson, appears in Moore’s L filing, and both of whom appear all over the Bradley/Moore couple’s Facebook pages); Amy was made a joint parent in the agreement. At some point in time later, Bradley entered an ex parte order changing visitation so that Amy got only visits at Bradley’s approval, and then only in Union County, supervised.
A maintenance agreement and division of property was made, and Amy was allowed to live in a home Bradley owned, but in May or June of 2013, he sent her a letter of eviction. While the maintenance agreement was termed as “having full disclosure made,” however, there was a suspicion of financial matters kept from Amy.
This was, reportedly, a $600,000 check for Bradley’s share of a large personal injury action filed in St. Clair County by Marion attorney Steve Stone. Apparently, Bradley knew the huge check was coming…and had Stone hold it until he could get his divorce finalized, then deposited it in a trust fund account at Southern Illinois Bank.
Holding such a check, then manipulating the divorce filing, is a highly egregious act, even for an attorney acting as his own counsel…and especially as an attorney acting as his own counsel.
And that mistake may have been what could very well be a death blow to Bradley’s legal career—and subsequently, his political career—if it bears out to be the case.
ARDC comments
Disclosure contacted Jim Grogan, Department Administrator at Illinois ARDC of the Supreme Court of Illinois, who confirmed that while Josh Bradley’s ARDC complaint was still valid and being investigated, there was no public complaint on John Bradley.
However, Grogan explained that what Disclosure had viewed may very well have been a legitimate grievance against Bradley’s actions, and grievances are not public, so he couldn’t confirm whether the documents Disclosure was allowed to view were real, or whether they might have been photoshopped material designed to ‘harass’ Bradley…something that public officials/people have to deal with at times.
“A grievance becomes public after an investigation by our board,” Grogan said. “Confidentiality muzzles me, but only me. Any other person involved in the grievance has the right to take the matter to the media if they are inclined.”
The date on the paperwork Disclosure viewed indicated that the ARDC in Chicago had received it October 17, 2013.
“Most investigations can be solved within 30-60 days,” Grogan said. “But serious allegations may be more involved, especially those that pertain to large sums of money. We may have to subpoena banks, take testimony; and sometimes it takes six months to a year to complete them.”
Grogan was asked whether or not the status of the attorney being complained about—such as that of a high-ranking public official (or the public officials’ perception that he’s at least high-ranking)—might have any influence on the outcome.
Grogan assured that it would not.
“The focus is always on whether the attorney has violated ethics guidelines,” Grogan said. “Regardless of the status of that attorney, we will investigate it.”
Contact results varied
In an effort to learn more about the situation, Disclosure attempted to contact Bradley’s office in early July, but got only an answering machine, and thus opted not to leave a message out of deference to any “sensitive” situation Bradley might be experiencing with his new, and obviously insanely jealous, wife.
Emails submitted to a publicly-listed address bounced back undeliverable.
Obtaining Michelle Moore Bradley’s cell phone number through a subscription online service, Disclosure reached the new spouse, who, on that day (Friday, July 11, at about 6:30 p.m.), Disclosure had been advised had recently separated from John Bradley on a temporary basis after a big blowup between the two.
Asked if she would be willing to talk about what happened with the two, the new Mrs. Bradley stated that they were NOT split up and that it was her opinion that Disclosure was “trash”…an amusing characterization, considering Marion sources who attended school with her, and their opinion, to a one, of her character and reputation.
When asked to speak to Bradley since previous attempts had been unsuccessful, the most recent Mrs. Bradley told Disclosure he wasn’t there; when Disclosure advised that they had his cell number and would be calling him as well, Mrs. Bradley said “Oh don’t do that!” and told Disclosure not to call her number back…but only John Bradley can be the one to make that decision, and since he’s a public official who answers to the public (or at least should), telling media not to contact him doesn’t mean it’s a non-story; in fact, it’s quite to the contrary, and makes for a much bigger story in the end.
Attempts to reach Amy Bradley were unsuccessful.
It’s highly likely that now, Bradley will change his number. However, this will not preclude Disclosure from contacting others around him with whom it’s been reported he’s engaged in trysts over the past couple of years, including a female state rep up in Springfield, as well as the beautiful Kelly Kraft, a Pat Quinn appointee to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and former Quinn chief spokeswoman.
There is much more to come regarding Kraft, whose 2012 appointment to the sports facilities is not without its own level of scandal.