Posted by BDM, LLC | January 28, 2026
At BDM, LLC, we are committed to advocating for transparency, accountability, and justice within the legal system. Our mission includes highlighting instances where judicial processes may fall short of constitutional standards, particularly in family court matters that impact individuals and families profoundly. This post examines a documented communication from August 10, 2021, directed to Judge Louis Aranda in DuPage County, Illinois. The correspondence illustrates an alleged pattern of judicial collusion under the leadership of Chief Justice Kenneth Popejoy, where a presiding judge reportedly refused to adjudicate evident court and financial fraud schemes in a divorce case (2015D1868). Drawing from the provided evidence, we outline the key allegations to foster informed discussion on systemic issues in family courts.
Background of the Case
The communication in question was authored by Broc Montgomery, the defendant in a protracted divorce proceeding. Addressed to Judge Aranda, with copies to federal authorities including the United States Department of Justice and members of Congress, the email aimed to present additional data ahead of a hearing on college tuition and alimony adjustments. Montgomery contends that the DuPage County court system, under Chief Justice Popejoy’s oversight, has facilitated a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) scheme. This scheme allegedly involves multiple judges, including predecessors like Judge John Demling and Judge Ann Theriau Hayes, in collusion with the plaintiff (Nichole) and her legal representatives.
The email asserts that Judge Aranda, newly assigned following the sudden removal of Judge Hayes, lacked full context of the case and was potentially directed by Chief Justice Popejoy to perpetuate the alleged fraud. Key elements include the intentional disregard of Montgomery’s filings from March and April 2019, which sought to address non-compliance with the original divorce decree. These filings highlighted the plaintiff’s failure to communicate on medical expenses, manipulate payment timings, and conceal substantial earnings—estimated at over $1 million annually from a publicly traded company—while avoiding equitable division of marital assets valued at more than $5 million.
Allegations of Financial Fraud and Judicial Non-Compliance
Central to the claims is the plaintiff’s pattern of late or withheld alimony payments, detailed extensively in an attached motion. The divorce decree stipulated bi-weekly net payments of $1,314 from the plaintiff to Montgomery, representing a maintenance obligation offset by child support. However, records indicate chronic delays:
- In 2017, out of 26 scheduled payments, only a few were timely. Examples include payments due on January 6 (tendered January 17, 11 days late), April 28 (tendered May 5, 7 days late), and December 8 (tendered December 18, 10 days late).
- In 2018, the pattern persisted, with delays such as January 19 (tendered January 29, 10 days late), May 25 (tendered June 4, 10 days late), and November 23 (tendered over one month late on January 5, 2019—note: the document lists this as January 5, 2018, likely a typographical error).
Furthermore, entire payments were allegedly withheld on dates like April 14, 2017; March 30, 2018; and July 6, 2018. The motion argues that these actions constituted willful non-compliance, exacerbated by the plaintiff’s involvement of minor children in payment exchanges, mailing delays, and public embarrassments at sporting events. Despite these violations, DuPage County judges reportedly held Montgomery in contempt for related financial matters, while ignoring his motions to compel financial disclosures, including subpoenas to the plaintiff’s employer for W-2s, 1099s, and stock options.
The email also references a protective order shielding the plaintiff’s true earnings, fraudulent financial submissions (e.g., an hourly/monthly rate listed as $56,140 but with manipulated totals), and a UPS receipt for unreturned subpoenas. Montgomery alleges that the court accounted for only one-fifth of the plaintiff’s earnings, enabling fraud and extortion under judicial protection.
Broader Implications of RICO and Judicial Collusion
Montgomery frames these issues within federal RICO statutes, asserting that DuPage County officials have repeatedly committed offenses such as obstruction of justice, denial of due process, witness tampering, and money laundering over more than five years. Supporting elements include:
- An inappropriate relationship between the plaintiff, DuPage County Board President Dan Cronin, and former Judge Demling, exposed via social media in June 2018, leading to Demling’s resignation in July 2018.
- Judicial restrictions on Montgomery’s First Amendment rights, even as a pro se litigant, and false imprisonment denying access to legal resources.
- Custody harassment, attempted child exploitation, and organized stalking allegedly facilitated by court officials and guardian ad litem firms.
- A 2018 order of protection hearing without cause, including misleading court documents and the unauthorized inclusion of an adult child.
The communication notes a prior ruling by a DuPage judge striking down mandatory college payments as unconstitutional (citing a 2018 Cook County Record article), yet anticipates enforcement in this case to further the alleged scheme. Montgomery’s unemployment, participation in a mental health diversion program, and poverty-level living conditions are cited as consequences of this retaliation, contrasting with the plaintiff’s high earnings and unshared assets.
Evidence of collusion under Chief Justice Popejoy includes the sudden reassignment of judges, ignored filings, and deference to the plaintiff’s attorney, Brian Nigohosian—a former DuPage State’s Attorney allegedly hired for “setups” in the RICO framework. Montgomery claims judges mitigate liability by deferring decisions, while federal authorities have received extensive data, including audio/video recordings and tampered filings.
Call for Accountability and Reform
This case exemplifies broader concerns in DuPage County’s family courts, where alleged judicial collusion under Chief Justice Kenneth Popejoy may prioritize protection of influential parties over equitable adjudication. By refusing to address evident fraud—such as concealed assets, manipulated payments, and procedural violations—such practices undermine public trust in the judiciary and infringe on constitutional rights.
BDM, LLC urges stakeholders, including legal professionals and policymakers, to scrutinize these patterns and advocate for reforms ensuring impartiality and transparency. Individuals facing similar challenges are encouraged to document proceedings meticulously and seek federal oversight when local remedies fail. For further inquiries or consultations, contact BDM, LLC.
Disclaimer: This post is based on publicly available correspondence and allegations; it does not constitute legal advice. All claims should be verified through official channels.