Part II of II Blue Print on how White Nationalist in the Democratic Party have been able to undermine Federal Officials for years keeping Chicago, Illinois courts under Terrorist Control enforcing Jim Crow laws.
This document shows how some of the oldest Federal judges in the Court of Appeals put their careers and reputations on the line trying to hang on to a part of history that has been over years ago.
Judges William J. Bauer, David Hamilton, Diane S. Sykes now Michael S. Kanne these judges were probably once regarded as prominent judges but not anymore because they took a chance on this case violating their oath and became "Private Citizens" by "Trespassing upon the Laws" and denied the original Motion to Reinstate case due to Judge Fredrenna Lyle & Numerous Judges Trespassing upon the Laws Committing Treason et al.
Democratic hatred towards persons of color and women is so blatant it is construed in their ruling because the judges had no legal bearing to deny the aforementioned Motion filed Jan. 3, 2018, they created a document captioned "Petition for Extraordinary Writ" which is not at all what was filed and denied what they created.
This is what the Irish has been doing against people of color for years ever since they took over the city, courts etc. enforcing Jim Crow laws making excuses falsifying reasons within the laws making persons feel inadequate or incompetent when in fact it is them as in this case these judges.
The Seventh Circuit was correct identifying Cook County as a Criminal Enterprise but unbeknownst to other judges in the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit the brethren of Cook County had members in the 7th Circuit in position to help them if Federal Officials had properly indicted any of them or if a complaint motion of any sort is drafted against them.
The judges lost subject matter jurisdiction over this entire case, due to them acting in concert corroborating their role in an "Organized Conspiracy" making them "Private Citizens"; whereby court order a "Nullity" "Void" pursuant to the laws of the United States Supreme Court.
White Nationalist within the Democratic Party as Domestic Terrorist have manufactured all type of ways destroying ethnic groups that challenges their position on Terrorism when an individual challenges them in court or files a complaint alleging wrongdoing nobody in the Democratic party in Chicago will open their mouths and admonish the Treason offenses that they commit because of the control they have over the city.
Under the Democratic leadership and control in Chicago, Illinois elderly women retired from the Police department and Chicago Board of Education are not supposed to enjoy the fruits of their labor with their home; in that said terrorist have found a way to steal their home by recruiting attorneys who falsified documents and presented them to a corrupt judge who does what they are told and not what the laws of their oath or United States Constitution.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control in Chicago, Illinois racist white men within the laws and inferior Niggers or Negroes will stoop to any lows in any Demonic capacity will undermine any person of color complaints by denying any and all of their claims by either deeming them frivolous or fanciful simply because they lacked the necessary intellectual academics afforded for whatever positions they may be undeserving in.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control in Chicago, Illinois ignorant black women and men praise white men in the Democratic Party who have not in any way demonstrated any equitable representation towards persons of color within the laws or courts, in that Chicago is still segregated and divided racially.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control in Chicago, Illinois a Republican Governor Ryan issued a moratorium prohibiting the death penalty of African American and Brown men incarcerated on death row.
What is worse so many innocent men of color have languished between 20-30 years behind bars for crimes they did not commit before they are released from prison.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control @redbilla Lee Oties Love, Jr. have spent almost $80,000.00 who had 4 or 5 attorney not one of them helped him to have any visitations with his daughter simply just to be in his daughters life where Judge Loza colluded with his child's mother criminalizing him for crimes he did not commit fabricating warrants against him for complaining about her to Federal authorities.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control @Joelouis had been fighting since 1988 but the case was dismissed September 17, 1987, he was locked up 5 times for allegedly owing child support to a Police woman who had an incestuous sexual relationship with her natural biological father conceived his child and framed him to keep her father from going to jail because he had impregnated another sister of hers as a minor but was arrested and reinstated back to the police department. He is now deceased.
This Blog is a descriptive depiction on the levels of injustice he and so many have experienced living in Chicago, Illinois.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control women like Mrs. Carlen Colbert and Ms. April Readux had their children abducted and the other woman ex husband kept her son across to keep from paying child support.
Under the Democratic Leadership and control @Joelouis had a Section 8 voucher because he was non white and did not pay $1000.00 for his voucher to live in opportunity areas with credit scores of 716 the buildings did not allow him to move in section 8 officials under Democratic control knew of the discriminatory acts as well as Rahm Emanuel Mayor got their trained puppet Democratic Associate judge Franklin U. Valderrama to "Trespass upon the Laws" to dismiss his case when he had no authority because case was assigned to another judge.
WHY WOULD ANYONE OF MERIT AND COLOR VOTE FOR ANYONE DEMOCRATIC IN CHICAGO AFTER READING THIS?
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
18-1051
U.S. BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED
TRUST MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2006-NC3; UBS REAL ESTATE
SECURITIES INC.; MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC.; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM,
DUTTON & DUTTON, PC,
POSTESTIVO & ASSC.
Plaintiffs,
MONZELLA JOHNSON AND MARCIA
JOHNSON
Defendants. |
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Civil
Action No. ______________________
Hon.Samuel
Der-Yeghiayan
Magistrate M.
David
Weisman
16-cv- 08628
|
MOTION TO VACATE (JANUARY 12, 2018) ORDER DUE TO ERROR/FRAUD “TRESPASSING
UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A NULLITY
w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980
To the Honorable Justices
of the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals and Judicial Council:
Complainant a United States Citizen, Monzella
Y. Johnson, hereby respectfully represents as Pro Se shows this court with
corroboration/admissions and affidavit the noted reasons why this matter should
be within this Court’s Jurisdiction; {Pursuant
to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure and LR40.1 (b) (d) (e3)} with and
transferred to another circuit with Affidavit.
The request
for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to
the Judicial Conference under Rule 20
(b) (1) (C) or 20 (b) (2) or a Petition for Review is filed under Rule 22:
Rule 26, it implements the Breyer Committee’s
recommended use of transfers. Breyer
Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15.
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a
complaint proceeding to another judicial council selected by the Chief Justice.
Such transfers may be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious
complaint where there are multiple disqualifications among the original
council, where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken
public confidence in the process, where internal tensions arising in the
council as a result of the complaint render disposition by a less involved
council appropriate, or where a complaint calls into question policies or
governance of the home court of appeals et al.
Now
comes Monzella Y. Johnson. Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 144,
to show that the Samuel Der-Yeghian,
William J. Bauer, David Hamilton and Diane S. Sykes has a personal bias with
compelling evidence demonstrating said judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” against me because of my skin color and
where legally sufficient Complaint stating a cause how and why this court has
jurisdiction; motions corroborating judicial corruption “fraud” “perjury” and a
plethora of “Terrorist Civil Rights Acts” put before the court that the
District Court and Court of Appeals judges ignored the criminal acts of the
Democratic judges and described them as moot upholding Racism, Terrorism and
“Treason as judges Trespassed upon the Laws” in the criminal enterprise known
as Cook County courts.
That said judges are demonstrating
unequivocally this is how traditional Democrats and racist Republicans of the
Political Machine in this era and beyond feels towards persons of color and the
necessary steps they and their brethren are willing to sacrifice and enforce
keeping persons of color like the Appellant oppressed and treated as a criminal
non United States Citizen; and is attempting to cover up the systemic legal
applications of racism judicial terrorism that Appellant has diligently put
before the courts, where judges and lawyers have participated in said
conspiracies and have admitted it pursuant to all laws recorded.
Based thereon, Plaintiff-Appellant
respectfully moves that the “Private
Citizen” judges recorded within proceed no further herein and that this
Honorable Seventh Circuit invoke jurisdiction assign this matter to the
Judicial Council so as to exhaust proper protocol in transferring this ,matter
to another judicial circuit to judges that will honor the laws of the United
States Constitution and it’s rules; due to members of the Democratic Political
Machine seizing control over all courts and certain judges politically
appointed because of their racist hatred of ethnic groups they deem inferior to
them so as to enforce the laws pursuant
to the United States Constitution who is not Bias and understands how to
enforce the laws in accordance to the United States Constitution and according
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to hear this proceeding who is not
intimidated or fear reprisals from these individuals.
Now comes Monzella Y. Johnson. Pro Se
Appellant in this cause files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, attesting the veracity and
accuracy of all statements recorded within.
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
219 South Dearborn
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
AFFIDAVIT
In support of Motion Vacate et al.
In support of Motion
To Vacate Samuel Der-Yeghian, Diane Sykes, William J. Bauer, David Hamilton and various judges subject to an active
Complaint Case # 07-16-90074
Judge of the Northern District of
Illinois for Personal Bias or Prejudice “FRAUD” “Trespassing upon the Laws”
pursuant to 28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1) & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980
I am Monzella
Y. Johnson. being duly sworn on oath states:
{Pursuant to the Rules of Federal
Civil Procedure & U.S. Constitution}
Section 1983 of U.S.C.S., S.H.A. Criminal Ch.
38, 33-3, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Canon 3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct,
3D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct;
The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S.
v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).
The United States Supreme
Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it
stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and
convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of
judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley,
case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since
judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become
principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since
no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been
convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.
A
court exercises its law-declaring power when a ruling has an effect on “primary
conduct”. See id. (Citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 475 (1965) (Harlan,
J., concurring) (classifying rules affecting “primary decisions respecting
human conduct”) as substantive for purposes of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304
U.S. 64 (1938).
The
criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook
County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge
Timothy C. Evans (Chief Judge). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains
a criminal enterprise.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Judges
have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges
have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving
with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist
for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid
and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages
sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with,
aiding and abetting, another judge's criminal activity.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
The
Illinois Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such
jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his
process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson,
57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is
applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is
"without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.
They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought,
even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no
justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or
sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot
v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held
that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper
presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority,
- it, had no authority to make that finding." The People v.
Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no
legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them.
They acted without any jurisdiction.
When judges act when they do not
have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a
judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are
engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates
v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill.
1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his
judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an
intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
When a judge acts as a trespasser
of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses
subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no
legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that
"when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the
Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority
of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or
representative character and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him
any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United
States." [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a judge is a state
officer or federal officer.
The judge then acts not as a
judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
1.)
That
said judges erred and violated the oath of their duties ruled on a document
that Appellant did not file before them “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” (A court order done
by appellate
court to remedy a situation in the lower courts.)
A. That said judges realizing Appellant
met her burden within the preponderance of the evidence legal standards, Sufficient for
Removal, conduct which does not constitute a criminal offense may be sufficiently
violative of the Judicial Canons to warrant removal for cause. Napolitano v
Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied,
409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972).
B.
2.)
In
that she filed a proper motion to Reinstate Case Due to Judge Freddrenna Lyle
& Numerous judges Trespassing Upon the Laws et al. and not recognizing she
had no jurisdiction as she “Trespassed upon the Laws” denying said
Motion in spite of the foregoing statements validating the verity of Lyle engaging
in “Treason” becoming a “Private
Citizen”Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and
form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to
them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing
such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers."
Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
3.)
In
that said judges operating in concert acted outside their jurisdiction and
created a caption so as to justify and Induce Reliance upon other parties
dismissing what was supposed to be the proper motion put before the court.
4.)
The
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals mailed to the Appellant, hereto
attached, Jan. 3, 2018 Notice of Case Opening captioned Petition for
Extraordinary Writ- Deadline Fee Due 01/17/2018 $500.00.
A-
Appellant went to pay the $500.00 Jan 16, 2018 and learned the case
was closed.
B-
That said caption is contradicting
within itself, in that said motion on its face states Page 2, “MOTION TO REINSTATE
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE –PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)
VACATE ORDERS OF November 9, 2016 & November 2, Pursuant to Rule 60 Due to
FRAUD/ERROR and CORRUPTION DUE JUDGES TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS CORROBORATING
THEIR ROLES ENGAGING IN TREASON (07-16-90079) & TRANSFER THIS MATTER TO
ANOTHER CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO RULE 26”
C-
Appellant is due-diligently seeking another Circuit pursuant to
the aforementioned but said Democrats is operating outside of the parameters of
their jurisdiction warring against the United States Constitution trying to
protect those judges acting as Terrorist in the Criminal Enterprise of Cook
County.
The
U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687
(1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a
manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with
the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of
his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him
any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United
States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state
officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual
(in his person).
5.)
A-
Pursuant to {28 USCA 144, 455 (B) (1)} Sufficient for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a
criminal offense may be sufficiently violative of the Judicial Canons to
warrant removal for cause. Napolitano v Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied,
409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972), that said judges noted within unequivocally met this burden
wholeheartedly
Implementation of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:
The Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act Study Committee
Pursuant to Appendix D 352
(Chapter 16, Title 28, United States Code)
6.) §
352. Review of complaint by chief judge (a) Expeditious Review; Limited
Inquiry.—The chief judge shall expeditiously review any complaint received
under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b). In determining what
action to take, the chief judge may conduct a limited inquiry for the purpose
of determining— (1) whether appropriate corrective action has been or can be
taken without the necessity for a formal investigation; and (2) whether the
facts stated in the complaint are either plainly untrue or are incapable of
being established through investigation. For this purpose, the chief judge may
request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a written response to
the complaint. Such response shall not be made available to the complainant
unless authorized by the judge filing the response. The chief judge or his or
her designee may also communicate orally or in writing with the complainant,
the judge whose conduct is complained of, and any other person who may have knowledge
of the matter, and may review any transcripts or other relevant documents.
7.) The
chief judge shall not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that
is reasonably in dispute. Hereto attached Ex
A Court Order of Jan. 12, 2018,
A-
That said Chief Judge Diane P. Wood by “Trespassing upon the Laws” by
violating her oath and obstructed justice by falsifying admissions why said
motion as to why it was denied became a “Private
Citizen”
B-
That “Private
Citizen” judges violated the provisions of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 and all laws of the United States Constitution
further corroborates her role and participation in trying to cover-up all
“Treason Offenses.
C-
That said judges are making it clear to the Appellant,
FBI and everyone reading this document as Terrorist likened to Bin Laden
imitators, they are going to continue warring against the United States
Constitution and “Trespass upon the
Laws” demonstrating said Judges are going to continuously enforce Jim Crow Laws outlawed by the United
States Supreme Court until the government eradicates all of them from the
bench.
D-
That there is not a Black or Brown person in prominent
authority who will open their mouths and denounce the terrorist racist acts
perpetrated on men of color or any Heterosexual man or woman because many of
the Black and Brown judges or States attorneys are the alleged (puppets) foot
soldiers for the white men and women engaged in said “Organized Conspiracy” protecting them keeping “White
Nationalist” in power.
8.) Section
351(a) authorizes “[a]ny person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties
of office by reason of mental or physical disability” to “file with the clerk
of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief
statement of the facts constituting such conduct.”
Section 351(c) directs the clerk to transmit the complaint
to the chief circuit judge (or, if the chief judge is the object of the
complaint, to the active judge on the court of appeals who is senior in
service) and to the judge complained against. (Complaints against International
Trade Court or Federal Claims Court judges are handled by those courts’ chief
judges.) Section 351(b) authorizes the chief judge, by written order, to
“identify” a complaint (begin the process) on the basis of “information
available to the chief judge” and “thereby dispense with filing of a written
complaint.”
Disqualification (a) General Rule. Any judge is
disqualified from participating in any proceeding under these Rules if the
judge, in his or her discretion, concludes that circumstances warrant
disqualification. If a complaint is filed by a judge, that judge is
disqualified from participating in any consideration of the complaint except to
the extent that these Rules provide for a complainant’s participation. A chief
judge who has identified a complaint under Rule 5 is not automatically
disqualified from considering the complaint. (b) Subject Judge. A subject judge
is disqualified from considering a complaint except to the extent that these
Rules provide for participation by a subject judge. (c) Chief Judge
Disqualified from Considering Petition for Review of Chief Judge’s Order. If a
petition for review of the chief judge’s order entered under Rule 11(c), (d),
or (e) is filed with the judicial council in accordance with Rule 18, the chief
judge is disqualified from participating in the council’s consideration of the
petition. (d) Member of Special Committee Not Disqualified. A member of the
judicial council who serves on a special committee, including the chief judge,
is not disqualified from participating in council consideration of the
committee’s report. (e) Subject Judge’s Disqualification After Appointment of
Special Committee. Upon appointment of a special committee, the subject judge
is disqualified from participating in the identification or consideration of
any complaint, related or unrelated to the pending matter, under the Act or
these Rules. The disqualification continues Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2E,
Ch. 3 Page 52 until all proceedings on the complaint against the subject judge
are finally terminated with no further right of review. (f) Substitute for
Disqualified Chief Judge. If the chief judge is disqualified from performing
duties that the Act and these Rules assign to a chief judge, those duties must
be assigned to the most-senior active circuit judge not disqualified. If all
circuit judges in regular active service are disqualified, the judicial council
may determine whether to request a transfer under Rule 26, or, in the interest
of sound judicial administration, to permit the chief judge to dispose of the complaint
on the merits. Members of the judicial council who are named in the complaint
may participate in this determination if necessary to obtain a quorum of the
council. (g) Judicial-Council Action When Multiple Judges Disqualified.
Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules to the contrary, (1) a
member of the judicial council who is a subject judge may participate in its
disposition if: (A) participation by one or more subject judges is necessary to
obtain a quorum of the judicial council; (B) the judicial council finds that
the lack of a quorum is due to the naming of one or more judges in the
complaint for the purpose of disqualifying that judge or those judges, or to
the naming of one or more judges based on their participation in a decision excluded
from the definition of misconduct under Rule 3(h)(3); and (C) the judicial
council votes that it is necessary, appropriate, and in the interest of sound
judicial administration that one or more subject judges be eligible to act.
9.) That said “Private Citizens” operating as judges
have demonstrated they are a threat to National Security and actions are now
likened to “War Crimes” pursuant to C-7 of Ch 4 Complaint
against a district judge inadequately investigated and improperly dismissed by
chief judge, review petition improperly dismissed by judicial council---- is GERMANE
in this unprecedented manner of terrorist corruption conspiracy.
a.
To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish
that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process,
either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was
perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d
421,424 (9th Cir. 1989);
b.
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
10.)
In the unlikely event that a quorum of the
judicial council cannot be obtained to consider the report of a special
committee, it would normally be necessary to request a transfer under Rule 26.
Rule 25(h) recognizes that the jurisdictional statement of the Committee on
Judicial Conduct and Disability contemplates consultation between members of
the Committee and judicial participants in proceedings under the Act and these
Rules. Such consultation should not automatically preclude participation by a
member in that proceeding. 26. Transfer to Another Judicial Council In
exceptional circumstances, a chief judge or a judicial council may ask the
Chief Justice to transfer a proceeding based on a complaint identified under
Rule 5 or filed under Rule 6 to the judicial council of another circuit. The
request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a
reference to the Judicial Conference under Rule 20(b)(1)(C) or 20(b)(2) or a
petition for review is filed under Rule 22. Upon receiving such a request, the
Chief Justice may refuse the request or select the transferee judicial council,
which may then exercise the powers of a judicial council under these Rules.
Initial analysis of the
complaint we turn now to describe how the circuit’s process complaints once
filed. These descriptions are based on staff interviews and follow-up inquiries
in the spring of 2006.
In two regional circuits, the
complaint goes directly to the chief judge’s chambers.
In the other ten circuits, a
staff person outside the chief judge’s chambers is responsible for at least
some initial review of the complaint and, in most cases, preparation of a draft
order or a memorandum analyzing the complaint, or both. That task falls to the
• circuit executive’s office in five circuits; • clerk’s office in three
circuits; • staff attorney’s office in one circuit; and • appellate conference
attorney’s office in one circuit.
Implementation of the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act ~ September 2006 At least four circuits provide for
some review of this staff-prepared material before it goes to the chief judge,
usually by another staff person in the same office. Submission to the chief
judge In five of the ten circuits in which the complaint does not go directly
to the chief judge’s chambers, the chief judge receives, along with the
complaint, a draft order and supporting memoranda. In the other five, the chief
judge receives the complaint, the draft order and analysis, and, if
appropriate, supporting material that the staff finds relevant and readily
available in the public record, such as docket sheets. Chief judges’ told us
that the staff typically alerts them to unusual complaints. One said in an
interview, for example, that the chief deputy “might alert me that there’s
something tricky,” giving as an example one of the high-visibility complaints
we discuss in Chapter 4. “In such cases,” the chief judge continued, “we may
want an answer from the respondent judge.”
11.)
That all judges in the Seventh Circuit do not recognize or uphold
the doctrines of the U.S. Supreme Courts. Precedent already established.
Operation
Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly by
the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the IRS Criminal
Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, the Chicago Police Department Internal Affairs Division and the Illinois State Police into corruption in
the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago jurisdiction). The
FBI named the investigation "Operation Greylord" after a local
racehorse, judges have learned how to undermine the foregoing legal entities by
engaging in Diabolical Treason Offenses.
A-
That
said judge (s) in the Seventh Circuit
closed their eyes to the legal issues put before them on appeal in
affidavits validating the verity of judges committing Treason Trespassing upon
the laws of the United States Constitution engaging in “WAR” against the United States Constitution making every order
rendered against the Petitioner a Nullity, Void. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his
orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he or she is without jurisdiction,
and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason;
Citing Canon 2A the court
noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for
and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the
laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
12.)
The Court of Appeals actions can be gleaned as
acts of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said
Defendant’s named in Suit, In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169
(Ga. 1994), And Deception by falsifying reasons for preventing a legally
sufficient Complaint and Motion from being served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara,
582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998),In re Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re
Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial
Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983).
a.
Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the
depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law
by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A)
372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where
an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S.
1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the
conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States
Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the
depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA
5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th
ed. 1992);
b.
That said “Private Citizens” acting as judges
prematurely and unlawfully dismissed said original motion in an attempt to
cover-up the admissions recorded in the attached motion filed separately,
motion to supplement et al. court transcript corroborates judge Lyle and other
powerfully connected judges intertwined “fixing” said case trying to steal the
home of retired police officer and retired Board of Education Teacher as many
“Trespassed upon the Laws” thereby invoking the authority of Federal Officials
due to active criminal acts of now Federal judges.
c.
That
the Judge erred considerably when it received notice and knowledge of other
Judges complicit in a Criminal Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics
Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges Ethical Duty
to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its effect on Judicial
Independence.
d.
That because many white nationalist have infiltrated the
Democratic party and has methodically overturned the legal tribunal recruiting
the necessary persons who will keep their mouths shut and continue the
terrorist mayhem on innocent citizens fighting injustice in the courts;
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
HAS ROOTS IN VIOLENCE, RACISM AND BIGOTRY
History can be an annoying, pernicious thing. Especially for those
who try to hide it.
When I read this morning that a high school in the South was going
to drop its racist, confederate name, I immediately thought of Democrats Strom
Thurmond or Robert Byrd, who were Klan members and staunch segregationists.
But no … the school is Nathan B. Forrest High School in
Jacksonville, Fla. Forrest was a Confederate General and a leader of the Ku
Klux Klan.
I decided to research a little bit into General Forrest and it
turns out he was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. In fact,
the KKK was founded by Democrats to terrorize blacks and white Republicans.
The history of the Democratic Party is rooted in racism, violence,
lynchings and bigotry. The National Review published an article detailing the racist history of the Democratic Party:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party’s birth, U.S.
Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats.
Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating
Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his
duties for three years.
July 30, 1866: New Orleans’s Democratic government ordered police
to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed
nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper
editor.
October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats’ national slogan:
“This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”
April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act,
banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.
October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched
federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.
September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana’s
statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg’s racially integrated
administration; 27 are killed.
August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a
former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.
February 2005: The Democrats’ Klan-coddling today is embodied by
KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia’s logorrhea U.S. senator and, having
served since January 3, 1959, that body’s dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd
wrote this to the KKK’s Imperial Wizard: “The Klan is needed today as never
before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd led
Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox
News’s Tony Snow:
“There are white niggers.
I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”
National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise
pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman
David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP
officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin
Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker
pleaded: “Vote for the crook: It’s important!”
Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks,
often against intense Democratic headwinds:
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th
Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of
senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House
members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal
protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”
February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act,
giving black voters federal protection.
February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a
Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters
federal protection.
January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R.,
Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats
killed the measure.
May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl
Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation of government
schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department
argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who
lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924,
defended “separate but equal” classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division
to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance
of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).
May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act
after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil
Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes
of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to
scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP
senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage.
According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of
Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.
True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the
very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater
supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating
Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military.
Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in
the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection
rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Republican Party also is the home of numerous “firsts.” Among
them:
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican.
America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and
our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill
in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart
“P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.
August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but
America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James
Rapier (R., Ala.).
October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the
White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T.
Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that
consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall
wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought
reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential
nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white
bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982
promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air
Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black
American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black
national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our
first black secretary of state.
President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black
female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just
last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled
Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and
Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a
State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.
By the way, if we’re going to strip schools of the names of
racists, Strom Thurmond High School in South Carolina and Robert C Byrd high
school in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.
Civil
Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That
all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any
previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same
right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce
contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit
of the laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is
enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and
penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinances, regulation, or
custom, to the contrary notwithstanding, Act of April 9, 1866, Ch. 31, 1, 14
Stat. 27, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 (a).
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In
Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll
to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially
in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States
and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best
of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a
second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The
several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the
duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm,
as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States,
and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my
ability.'"
Further, if the judge had
enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10
U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent
part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; ...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper
v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply
with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not
three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation
of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply
with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in
an act or acts of treason.
TREASON
Whenever
a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is
engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will,
449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens
v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason?
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing
allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is
guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than
five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L.
103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016 (2) (J), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Attorney General Sessions: Actions
“from racial bigotry and hatred….cannot be tolerated an innocent 32 year
old Caucasian woman was killed as white nationalist banded together seeking
white supremacy in Charlottesville Virginia. In Chicago any nonwhite person who
closes their eyes and jurisdiction to a person of color seeking jurisdiction
and protection to the very mayhem of racial hatred is a colored version of the
very hate groups that is being denounced in that city is all the reasons why
“Jim Crow laws” are still being enforced in the courts of Chicago, Illinois
Negroe blacks and certain Hispanic judges as Democrats keep their mouths shut
and go along with racial injustice.
FEDERAL
JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found
Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City
to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the
law breaker, it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a
law unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”
The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page
1, Illinois Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press
writer Deanna Bellandi states, “Illinois is apparently a Petri dish for
corruption. It is a real breeding ground”.
That Chicago is the most Corrupt City in America,
Huffington Post, Internet Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois
Professor Dick Simpson, “The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the
governor’s mansion…..and the City Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a
former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no other State can match us.”
Wherefore the foregoing
stated within Appellant Respectfully Prays for the Relief:
1.) That
this court vacate Jan. 12, 2018 court order, due to judges not having jurisdiction reinstate motion and transfer
this matter to another circuit Instanter.
2.) That
every judge named in the complaint and has “Trespassed
upon the Laws” in the aforementioned manner be recused and that
military/special forces be deployed to ascertain and eradicate all judges
(Terrorists) warring against the United States Constitution.
3.) That
said members responsible for “Trespassing
upon the laws” and who have closed their eyes to these crimes likened to
War Crimes be replaced by qualified Republicans and independents not affiliated
to this regime temporarily because no Democrat has or will dispensate the laws
equitably as noted within.
4.) That this
Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this courts deems just;
5.) That
any DENIAL of this Motion Corroborates and validates the verity of Federal
Bureau of Investigations authority be invoked Instanter because said “Organized
Conspirators” within the Democratic Party are not going to adhere to any
laws where their members are subject to Terrorist Acts.
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
Monzella
Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago,
Il 60615
773 835-5849
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
18-1051
U.S. BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED
TRUST MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2006-NC3; UBS REAL ESTATE
SECURITIES INC.; MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC.; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM,
DUTTON & DUTTON, PC,
POSTESTIVO & ASSC.
Plaintiffs,
MONZELLA JOHNSON AND MARCIA
JOHNSON
Defendants. |
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Civil
Action No. ______________________
Hon.Samuel
Der-Yeghiayan
Magistrate M.
David
Weisman
16-cv- 08628
|
MOTION TO VACATE (JANUARY 12, 2018) ORDER DUE TO ERROR/FRAUD
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAKING THE ORDER VOID A
NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT & REINSTATE MOTION PURSUNT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Monzella Y.
Johnson, certify that I have on this day filed said Notice of Motion to
Reinstate Motion for Disqualification of judge et al. Before the Seventh
Circuit United States Court of Appeals and noted parties.
To:
Dir. Chris Wray FBI 601 4th Street Washington D.C. 20535
US Attorney, John
R. Lausch, Jr. 219 S. Dearborn, Suite
500
Clerk of Circuit
Court, Dorothy Brown, Daley Center Chg. IL. 60601, Suite 1001
Locke & Locke
Attn: Simon Feng, 111 South Wacker Drive, Chg. IL 60606
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial and Disability
Attn: Office of
General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
Cook County State’s
Attorney Chief
Judge Timothy C. Evans
Kim
Foxx 50 West Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 500 Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on January 22, 2018, a Motion to Vacate et al. has been filed before the United
States Court of Appeals.
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
Dated
Jan. 22, 2018
