Part 1 of 2 Petition for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative Supervisory Order filed before the Illinois Supreme Court July 23, 2024.
Because the document is 40 Pages, the first 20 Pages are posted separately, the Clerk of the Supreme Court FILE STAMPED Page 21 the Motion for Leave et al.
Parties served were First District Appellate Court Judges Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr, Margaret Stanton McBride, David W. Ellis, via email nwatson@IllinoisCourts.gov, Potestivo & Associates, Bryan Gerald. Thompson, Poulami Mal, Lord & Locke Law Firm, Phillip Russell Perdew.
This case amplifies the Hate the Democrats have for Black or Colored People who fight back against tyranny and injustices not one person of Color in the Democratic Party opened their mouths and denounced any of these atrocious criminal acts perpetrated by US Bank attorneys trying to illegally steal a home in the guise of FORECLOSURE, as a matter of fact, Black Democrats are PROMOTED and sponsored to judgeships on how well they fuck over Black and Brown people for members of the Political Machine.
Judge Freddrenna Lyle who don't know the rules of law and was a former Alderwoman was PROMOTED to the APPELLATE COURT for a job well done violating every law recorded in the books using her ethnicity covering up for the racist corrupt attorneys working for US Bank.
Judge James T. Derico was appointed as a Judge and followed the same suit as Lyle in DENYING every Motion presented to him showing that US Bank attorneys was committing FRAUD on the Courts, he was fucking onery as Hell and was more like a Stephen of Django portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson.
IT IS A FACT: READ THIS DOCUMENT BLACK DEMOCRATS DO NOT HELP FREE MEN OR WOMEN WHO STANDS UP TO RACISM, CORRUPTION WHERE CAUCASIANS ARE CONCERNED, MANY OF THEM GO ALONG WITH RACISM SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE VERY ONES WHO DON'T LIKE OR RESPECT THEM
________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling and
Servicing Agreement Dated as of )
December 1, 2006
Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust 2006-NC3
Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 1-2024-0568
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3 )
Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Cook
County
) Chancery Division
Plaintiff-Appellees ) Gen No. 2008-33616
)
) Hon James T. Derico
)
Monzella Y.
Johnson, A/K/A Monzella
)
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems, Inc. As
Nominee for New Century )
Mortgage
Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson
)
( C ) Cestui Que
Trust; Discover Bank;
)
Unknown Owners and
Non-Record Claimants
)
)
V. )
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
________________________________________________________________________
PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER HOW DOES THE APPELLATE COURT WHO HAD JURISDICTION IN
2011 (JUDGES NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., CAUCASIAN JOSEPH GORDON, JAMES R. EPSTEIN)
AFFIRMING CIRCUIT COURTS DECISION VACATING FORECLOSURE AND SALE SAME PARTIES
APPELLEES NEVER APPEALED THE ORDER NEVER FILED AN APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENT
MATTER APPELLATE COURT BUT SAME JUDGE (NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., MARGARET S. MCBRIDE,
DAVID W. ELLIS) NOW CHANGES HIS MIND AND COLLUDE WITH OTHER CAUCASIAN JUDGES AND
RULE THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN THE APPELLEES ADMITTED TO ALL PLEADINGS OF
MORTGAGE FRAUD VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON”
OFFENSES IN THIS ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE
w/AFFIDAVIT
_______________________________________________________________________
Now comes Defendant-Appellant, Monzella
Y. Johnson., a United States Citizen by and through herself Pro se respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to enter an Order for a Petition for Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order,
How does the Appellate Court who had
Jurisdiction in 2011, (Judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasian Judges Joseph
Gordon, James R. Epstein) Affirming Circuit Courts Decision Vacating
Foreclosure and Sale Same Parties, Appellees never Appealed the Order never
filed an Appearance in the Present Matter Appellate Court but Same Judge
(Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasians Margaret S. McBride, David W. Ellis) now change
his mind and collude with other Caucasian Judges and Rule they Don’t Have
Jurisdiction when the Appellees Admitted to all Pleadings of Mortgage Fraud via
Summary Judgment, “Trespassing Upon the Laws” “Treason Offenses” in this
Illegal Foreclosure w/Affidavit
Reasons in
support of this motion are set forth in the attached affidavit.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: ____________________________
Monzella Y. Johnson.
Pro Se /Appellant
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
I Monzella Y. Johnson, being first duly sworn on
oath depose and states as follows:
1.) Appellant filed (June 17th,
2024) for a MOTION STRIKING/OBJECTING APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION DUE TO CORROBORATION AND COMPLICITY ENGAGING IN MORTGAGE
FRAUD, ORGANIZED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RPC ETHICS VIOLATIONS, FAILURE TO FILE AN
APPEARANCE, COLLUDING WITH JUDGES CLERK AND STATE APPELLATE CLERK, MAIL FRAUD,
ADMITTING TO ALL PLEADINGS VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVERY COURT ORDER BEING VOID/A
NULLITY) DUE TO JUDGE LYLE & OTHER
ATTORNEYS/JUDGES COMPLICIT IN A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF MORGTAGE FRAUD
CORROBORATING THEIR INVOLVEMENT TRYING TO STEAL HOME APPELLANT NEVER HAD A
MORTGAGE WITH WARRANTING A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALL PARTIES INSTANTER
INTO CUSTODY W/BODY ATTACHMENT INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION & DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION, ILLINOIS COURTS COMMISSION, STATE
POLICE DISQUALIFYING JUDGE NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR. AND THE 2ND DIV INSTANTER DUE TO MOTION TO CERTIFY COURT
ORDER OF MAY 8, 2024, PARTICULARIZED JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND INTERNAL FRAUD
WITHIN THE APPELLATE CLERKS DIVISION PURSUANT TO Fed Rule
Civ P. 8 and 9, Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary
judgment must include a "statement of material facts as to which the
moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving
party to a judgment as a matter of law."
& VACATE THE JUNE 13TH COURT ORDER DUE TO JUDGE NATHANIEL HOWSE,
JR. AND ALL APPELLEES ADMITTING VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALL PLEADINGS ARE TRUE as Gr Ex A
2.)
That Appellees never filed an Appearance but emailed to the
Appellants Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction et al. (June 13th,
2014), Gr Ex B
3.) That the Appellees never
Objected or Denied nor did they present a Counter-Affidavit impeaching the
veracity of all pleadings recorded in Appellant’s Motions.
A-
That the
signed Court Order as of June 2, 2010, by Cook County Judge Gillespie “THIS
COURT ON IT’S OWN MOTION VACATES THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF A
PROPER AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT”
B- The
Affidavit that the Appellees presented to the Court of Cook County was an AFFIDAVIT
CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA accompanied with the Motion
Vacating the Court Order of June 20, 2024 et al.
C-
That the Appellate
Court AFFIRMED, Judge Gillespie’s Ruling “That Defendant filed
an Appeal with due-diligence trying emphatically to save their family home and
was before another group of judges and the APPELLATE COURT- AFFIRMED
Judge Gillespie’s Court Order, hereto attached, Gr Ex B August 30, 2012,
Judges Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr., Joseph Gordon, James R. Epstein”.
D-
Plaintiff-Appellees NEVER
OBJECTED, STRUCK OR DENIED TO ANY PLEADINGS put before
the courts accompanied with affidavits; thereby, admitting to the veracity of
all pleadings put before the courts in spite of the Judges acting as a “Private
Citizens” De facto attorney for the Appellees.
5.) That Appellant filed (June 24,
2024) MOTION
VACATING THE COURT ORDER OF JUNE 20, 2024 DUE TO IT BEING VOID A NULLITY &
REINSTATE MOTION STRIKING/OBJECTING APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION DUE TO CORROBORATION AND COMPLICITY ENGAGING IN MORTGAGE FRAUD,
ORGANIZED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RPC ETHICS VIOLATIONS, FAILURE TO FILE AN
APPEARANCE, COLLUDING WITH JUDGES CLERK AND STATE APPELLATE CLERK, MAIL FRAUD,
ADMITTING TO ALL PLEADINGS VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVERY COURT ORDER BEING VOID/A
NULLITY) DUE TO JUDGE LYLE & OTHER
ATTORNEYS/JUDGES COMPLICIT IN A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF MORGTAGE FRAUD
CORROBORATING THEIR INVOLVEMENT TRYING TO STEAL HOME APPELLANT NEVER HAD A
MORTGAGE WITH WARRANTING A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALL PARTIES INSTANTER
INTO CUSTODY W/BODY ATTACHMENT INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION & DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION, ILLINOIS COURTS COMMISSION, STATE
POLICE DISQUALIFYING JUDGE NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR. AND THE 2ND DIV INSTANTER DUE TO MOTION TO CERTIFY COURT
ORDER OF MAY 8, 2024, PARTICULARIZED JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND INTERNAL FRAUD
WITHIN THE APPELLATE CLERKS DIVISION PURSUANT TO Fed Rule Civ P. 8 and 9, Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary
judgment must include a "statement of material facts as to which the
moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving
party to a judgment as a matter of law." & VACATE THE JUNE 13TH COURT
ORDER DUE TO JUDGE NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR. AND ALL APPELLEES ADMITTING VIA SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ALL PLEADINGS ARE TRUE Gr Ex D
A- That Judge Nathaniel using his ethnicity as
a Negroe upholding Jim Crow Laws and Racial Hate at his own ethnic group and resentment
at the senior citizens for speaking up diligently in the courts, Denied the
Motion trying to protect the Appellees as Ex E.
6.)
Pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 71, Sufficient for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a
criminal offense maybe sufficiently violative of the Judicial Canons to warrant
removal for cause. Napolitano v. Ward,
457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir)
7.)
The 7th Cir. Held that the Cook
County Courts were a Criminal enterprise. U.S.
v. Murphy, 768 F. 2d 1518, 1531 where precedent was enacted by Judges Frank H.
Easterbrook, Richard D. Cudahy and former Chief judge Luther Merritt Swygert;
8.)
. ILL. App. (1st
Dist. 2000). A “VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court
lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the
inherent power to enter the particular order of judgment, or where the order
was procured by FRAUD- in re Adoption of E.L., 248 ILL. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d
846, 315 ILL. App. 3d 137- Judgm 7, 16, 375.
Properly alleged facts
within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as
true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse party’s pleadings. Professional
Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d
1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129
et al.
9.) That
pursuant to the aforementioned pleadings hereto attached Gr Ex F, RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE MARITZA
MARTINEZ INSTANTER FOR “CAUSE” HATE BIAS PREJUDICE PURSUANT to S.H.A.
735 ILCS 5/2 ---1001 (a) (2,3)
AS A “PRIVATE CITIZEN” SHE IS ENGAGING IN PRIMAE FACIE SHOWING
OF AN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
“FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES MAKING HER
ORDER VOID/NULLITY DUE TO PETITIONER
& ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS ADMITTING/CORROBORATING THEIR ROLES IN SAID
CONSPIRACY AND JUDGE CHAVIRA BEING A FORMER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY USED HER
UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY WITH FORMER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY THOMAS KANTAS IN
COVERING-UP CRIMES OF OTHER ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEYS UNLAWFUL INVOLVEMENT IN
MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS CAUSING AN EMANCIPATED ADULT TYCEE HIGHTOWER TO APPEAR
AS A MINOR SO AS TO EXTORT MONEY FROM THE RESPONDENT JUDGE NEVER HAD
JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO PRESIDE OVER CASE TO DISQUALIFY CHAVIRA AND THE
ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY IS SHOWING AS A CAUCASIAN SHE CAN VIOLATE ANY LAWS
WHERE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED AND ADMITTED REPRESENTING CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER
DUE TO BLACK DEMOCRATS HAVING NO AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN CAUCASIANS & VACATE
ALL ORDERS AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALL PARTIES INTO CUSTODY INSTANTER
W /BODY ATTACHEMENT w/AFFIDAVIT (Filed
July 12, 2024)
10.)
That
all parties Francoise Hightower, Police Officer, States Attorneys and Circuit Court
Judges all have admitted acting as “Private Citizens” via Summary Judgment (filed
Dec 4, 2023) Gr Ex G MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
ILLINOIS/FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALL
PARTIES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” COMPLICIT IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT SCAM OF
ILLINOIS CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE FRAUDULENTLY FALSIFYING COURT DOCUMENTS CAUSING
RESPONDENT TO BE REMANDED INTO CUSTODY 5 TIMES FOR ALLEGEDLY OWING CHILD
SUPPORT AND THE CTA NOT REINSTATING HIM BACK TO WORK BECAUSE THEY DESTROYED HIS
EMPLOYMENT RECORDS TRYING TO COVER-UP JUDGES ALLOWING EXTORTION OF HIS WAGES TO
POLICE OFFICER & JUDGE MANUFACTURING AN UNLAWFUL WARRANT IN THIS CONSPIRACY
AND IS SEEKING $50 MILLION DOLLARS w/AFFIDAVIT (Re Noticed July 15, 2024)
11.)
Defendant (has filed July 15, 2024) Gr Ex H his Re Notice Default et al. and Re
Notice MOTION TO RECUSE THE ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR PURSUANT TO THE CASE OF 2 EX-COOK COUNTY ASSISTANT STATE’S
ATTORNEY’S (NICHOLAS TRUTENKO, ANDREW HORVAT) DUE TO FORMER ASSISTANT’S STATES
ATTORNEY IRIS Y. CHIVIRA ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN THE FALSIFICATION OF BACKDATING
RECORDS MAKING HER A MINOR FOR POLICE OFFICER FRANCOISER HIGHTOWER FOR HER
EMANCIPATED DAUGHTER TYCEE LAQITA HIGHTOWER CAUSING RESPONDENT TO BE REMANDED
INTO CUSTODY FOR ALLEGEDLY OWING CHILD SUPPORT 5 TIMES THAT WAS NEVER OWED AND
NOT HIS CHILD AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO THE VERACITY OF THIS VIA SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/DEFAULT BUT COOK COUNTY JUDGES ARE TRYING TO CONTINUOUSLY COVER-UP THE
MAYHEM & EGREGIOUS INJUSTICES BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR COVERING UP A
PLETHORA OF CRIMES ASSOCIATED IN THIS MATTER WHERE THE MAY 29TH
EMAIL WAS SENT TO PRESIDING JUDGE REGINA SCANNICCHIO TO VACATE COURT ORDER
BEING VOID/A NULLITY (MARCH 27, 2024) DUE TO JUDGE MARITZA MARTINEZ NOT HAVING
JURISDICTION AND INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE POLICE/JUDICIAL
COMMISSION TO FORCIBLY REMOVE JUDGE (S) INSTANTER FROM THEIR POSITIONS DUE TO
ADMISSIONS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FILED DEC 4, 2023) Local Rule 56.1 The rule is very clear that
"all material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving
party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the
opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
WITH AFFIDAVIT
A-
That the MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER BEING VOID/A NULLITY (MARCH 27,
2024) DUE TO JUDGE MARITZA MARTINEZ NOT HAVING JURISDICTION AND INVOKING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE POLICE/JUDICIAL COMMISSION TO FORCIBLY REMOVE JUDGE
(S) INSTANTER FROM THEIR POSITIONS DUE TO ADMISSIONS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FILED
DEC 4, 2023) Local Rule 56.1 The rule is very clear that "all material facts
set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed admitted
unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
WITH AFFIDAVIT (is accompanied
with Par 10 of Gr Ex G as an Exhibit.)
12.)
That the above documents
unequivocally corroborates the
hate and Terrorists Acts perpetrated on the Appellants as Senior Citizens and
Retired First Responders as a Retired Police Officer and Board of Education
Educator (Teacher) and Innocent Defendant who have been Criminalized as a HETEROSEXUAL
FREEMAN by members of the Democratic Political Machine as they covered up for
each other violating every rule of law legal precedents and U.S. Supreme Court
Rulings affording Equal Protection of the Laws to Citizens of the United
States..
That because of the above; Fraud admissibility great latitude is permitted in proving fraud C.J.S. Fraud
104 ET Seg. Fraud 51-57. where a question of fraud and deceit is the issue
involved in a case, great latitude is
ordinarily permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the
greatest liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of inquiry Vigus
V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL.
App. 512.
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action for
fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E.
2d 1236, 96
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme
Court has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are:
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the
party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the
other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the
other party resulting from such reliance.
13.)
That many Judges in the Democratic Party are
collectively acting outside of their jurisdiction and is undermining the very
laws installed to make the jurisprudence of the courts operate with integrity
and in an unbiased manner, justice seems to lie in the court of the beholder
not in accordance to any rules or civil procedure when litigants present
themselves before the courts as Pro se representatives.
14.)
That the Cook
County Judges and all Officers of the Courts validated the verity of all
Pleadings properly plead that the courts under the present authority of “Private
Citizens” do not Honor any laws of Equal Protection to any Person of Color or
Black Citizens and the necessary steps exhausted making sure the 14th
Amendment is not afforded to any of them as demonstrated in this matter.
U. S Sup Court Digest 24(1)
General Conspiracy
U.S. 2003. Essence of a conspiracy is
an agreement to commit an unlawful act.—U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 SCt. 819,
537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on remand 371F.3d 1093
Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which
constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be
punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public over
and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime, both
because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality.-Id.
A-
U.S 2003.
Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.-U.S. v.
Jimenez Recio; 123 SCt. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154, L. Ed.2d 744, on remand 371
F.3d 1093;
Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which
constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be
punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues,-id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public over
and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime, both
because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality-id;
B-
Conspirators
to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or
have taken part in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108. Requisite
mens rea elements of conspiracy are
satisfied upon showings of agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in
furtherance of agreement People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63.
C-
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 maybe
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).
Finally, this document is best closed by a jurist who has stated”;
Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated
rules breed 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”)
Most recently stated in
Federal Court 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.”
FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NOT
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5/1
-109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this
instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on
information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as
aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
NOTARY
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Bank National
Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of )
December 1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through ) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates, Series 2006-NC3 ) Appeal from the Circuit
Court
) of Cook
County
) Chancery
Division
Plaintiff-Appellees ) Gen No. 2008-33616
)
) Hon James T.
Derico
)
Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella )
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson
A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems, Inc. As Nominee for New Century )
Mortgage Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson )
( C ) Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank; )
Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants )
)
V.
)
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER HOW DOES
THE APPELLATE COURT WHO HAD JURISDICTION IN 2011 (JUDGES NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., CAUCASIAN
JOSEPH GORDON, JAMES R. EPSTEIN) AFFIRMING CIRCUIT COURTS DECISION VACATING FORECLOSURE
AND SALE SAME PARTIES APPELLEES NEVER APPEALED THE ORDER NEVER FILED AN
APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENT MATTER APPELLATE COURT BUT SAME JUDGE (NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR., MARGARET S. MCBRIDE, DAVID W. ELLIS) NOW CHANGES HIS MIND AND
COLLUDE WITH OTHER CAUCASIAN JUDGES AND RULE THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN
THE APPELLEES ADMITTED TO ALL PLEADINGS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ”
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” OFFENSES IN THIS ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE w/AFFIDAVIT
_______________________________________________________________________
To the
Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
Now comes Defendant –Appellant, Monzella Y. Johnson, a
United States Citizen through herself
Pro se your Petitioner, the people of the State of Illinois, a citizen,
a resident and an Elector of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
Illinois, respectfully represents and shows to your Honors the following:
1.)
That said Appellant have provided Notice or Knowledge
that Appellant had been fighting a Criminal Enterprise in the Illinois Court
system via a Judicial Complaint to the Judicial Inquiry Board and a host of
other Law Enforcement Agencies everyone closed their eyes to the plethora
criminal allegations noted and admitted to throughout all pleadings with no
Agency warranting any investigation.
A-
That the Judicial Inquiry Board received a Blue Print
particularizing diabolical criminal conspiracy, Judicial
Complaint naming Circuit Court Judges and Appellate Court Judges.
B-
That on September 8, 2022, Michael Deno, Executive
Director, & General Counsel acknowledged receipt.
C-
That on Oct 14, 2022, Michael Deno, CLOSED the
case, further using his ethnicity and position to continuously cover-up the “Organized
Criminal Enterprise” of Judges using their robes as “Private
Citizens” aiding and assisting their kinds in the Political Machine.
D-
That on Nov. 21, 2022, Michael
Deno of the Judicial Inquiry Board, CLOSED the case closing their
eyes and authority to a plethora of criminal acts of judges acting as
“Private Citizens” Domestic Terrorists trying to steal a home which has
languished in the courts for over 16 years.
E-
That upon communicating with Natosha Cuyler Toller,
(Deputy Director) Jan. 23, 2023 and learned that said matter had been closed
but never received the letter.
2.) That it is evident from the
aforementioned Exhibits, Michael Deno, (Former Cook County
Prosecutor) of the Judicial Inquiry Board used a legal standard not applicable
in this case as a means to justify covering up CONCERTED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES Closed the complaint because the allegations
did not constitute incapacity and/or misconduct under the law and standards of
judicial conduct in Illinois. Most often these complaints concern a losing
litigant's subjective perception that justice was not obtained in his or her
cause. By closing the complaint, the Board does not pass judgment on the merits
of the case. This is the sole responsibility of the Appellate Court. A letter
is sent to the complainant informing him or her that the complaint has been
closed.
3.) That not one member of the
Judicial Inquiry Board was able to ascertain from a competent legally prepared
complaint that a Summary Judgment was attached and never at any time did an
attorney ever DENY or OBJECT to any of the properly plead
assertions.
4.) The Local Rules provide detailed
instructions as to how litigants should approach their summary judgment motions
and responses. Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary must
include a "statement of material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a
judgment as a matter of law."
This statement of material facts
"shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific
references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting
materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph."
Part (b) of Local Rule 56.1 requires a party opposing summary for judgment to
file a concise response to the movant's statement of material facts. That
statement is required to include a response to each numbered paragraph in the
moving party's statement, including in the case of any disagreement,
"specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other
supporting materials relied upon." The rule is very clear that
"all material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving
party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the
opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
In the matter
of Raymond, 442 F. 3d at 606. (7th Cir. 2013) ) The Court, nevertheless, is concerned and
considers the prejudice to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure,
particularly because cases should be decided on their merits. Certainly, the
failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion can be fatal. See,
e.g., id at 611.
5.) That
what the Republicans could not accomplish seizing and overthrowing the
Whitehouse during the Insurrection of Jan 6, the Democrats have accomplished
successfully seizing all legal venues and State Agencies acting as Domestic
Terrorists/”Private Citizens.
6.) That
said Plaintiff-Appellees have engaged in an elaborate “Organized Conspiracy”
so as to steal Defendants home taking advantage of the fact, they are elderly
and control the Political Rulings in all Courts; thereby, Corroborating with
veracity Black Authority is not recognized, Black Lives don’t matter in
Illinois Courts, Pro se litigants are treated as outcasts because they have
accepted being INFERIOR and or for not CONFORMING to the Political Machines
doctrines.
7.)
That no judge or attorney whom these matters have been
before seems to have a legal definition or understanding of any laws that
relates to any laws relating to Canon Ethics or Ethics involving Lawyers yet so
many have instituted rulings based upon Laws of Jim Crow which have been
outlawed by the United States Supreme Court but is still being ENFORCED in all
ILLINOIS COURTS.
A-
Appellees having admitted to the veracity of all the
aforementioned pleadings Page 13 Par B That
Judge Lyle used her skin color as a Negro woman to aid and assist in all
Terrorist Conspiracies in helping out all racist parties including other judges
associated with U.S. Bank in helping them try and steal said home because said
women were elderly and non-white; said judge acted as if because she had no
jurisdiction to enter orders against the Respondent, one can easily infer that
all racist personnel would assist her if an investigation was had dismissing
any wrong doing on her part because she was helping them.
B-
Appellees
having admitted to the veracity of all the aforementioned pleadings Page 12 Par 8 That Black Democrats as judges or responsible persons in alleged
authority are emulating the same hate and injustices People of Color have been
fighting for many years trying to keep or properties or fight against the
Unequal Applications in the laws, in that Judge Lyle has been the defacto
attorney for US Bank ever since this case was before her.
i.
Plaintiff’s
having already admitted to all Pleadings have never COMPLIED with any LAWS,
COURT ORDERS and it is evident thus far, they have no RESPECT for BLACK JUDGES
and it is indicative in this matter and in so many cases similar to this, as
reflected egregiously in Gr Ex 1.
C-
Appellees
having admitted to the veracity of all the aforementioned pleadings Page 18
Par F That same HATE is still being practiced and ENFORCED even
with Black Judges or Mayors they are IMPOTENT in authority as many can see the
violence and racism has not changed with Colored People in authority it is
still worse in this era Hateful White and Black Judges are working against any
person color seeking justice in this RACIST CITY.
9.)
That Black or Colored Judges are now working with
racist Political Machine Operatives for favor or appointments within the
Democratic Party where the laws prohibit such behavior many have used their
ethnicities to cover-up and protect said parties if they were of the Ku Klux
Klan or Nazi Fraternal Orders, unequivocally corroborating Jim Crow Laws are
still being enforced in spite of the United States Supreme Court outlawing this
Terrorist Group and all of its illegal rulings.
PREAMBLE & SCOPE
[1] An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is
indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based
upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary,
composed of judges with integrity, will interpret and apply the law. Thus, the
judiciary plays a central role in preserving justice and the rule of law.
Inherent in the Rules contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) are the
precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the
judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence
in the legal system.
[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office and
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional
and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the
greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality,
integrity, and competence.
[3] The Code establishes standards for the ethical conduct of
judges and judicial candidates. The Code is intended to guide and assist judges
in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct and to
provide a basis for regulating their conduct through the Illinois Judicial
Inquiry Board and the Illinois Courts Commission.
[4] The Code governs a judge’s personal and judicial activities
conducted in person, on paper, and by telephone or other electronic means. A
violation of the Code may occur when a judge uses the Internet, including
social networking sites, to post comments or other materials such as links to
websites, articles, or comments authored by others, photographs, cartoons,
jokes, or any other words or images that convey information or opinion.
Violations may occur even if a judge’s distribution of a communication is
restricted to family and friends and is not accessible to the public. Judges
must carefully monitor their social media accounts to ensure that no
communication can be reasonably interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice;
an ex parte communication;
the misuse of judicial power or prestige; a violation of restrictions on
charitable, financial, or political activities; a comment on a pending or
impending case; a basis for disqualification; or an absence of judicial
independence, impartiality, integrity, or competence.
[5] The Code consists of four Canons, numbered Rules under each
Canon, and Comments that generally follow and explain each Rule. The Policy and
Scope and Terminology sections provide additional guidance in interpreting and
applying the Code. The numbering of the Code is patterned on the American Bar
Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (rev. 2010), reserving numbers for
provisions not incorporated in Illinois.
[6] The Canons state principles of judicial ethics that all
judges must observe. Although a judge may be disciplined only for violating a
Rule, the Canons provide important guidance in interpreting the Rules. Where a
Rule contains a permissive term, such as “may” or “should,” the conduct being
addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion of the judge
or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for action
or inaction within the bounds of such discretion.
[7] The Comments that accompany the Rules serve two functions.
First, they provide guidance regarding the purpose, meaning, and proper
application of the Rules. They contain explanatory material and, in some
instances, provide examples of permitted or prohibited conduct. Comments
neither add to nor subtract from the binding obligations set forth in the
Rules. Therefore, when a Comment contains the terms “must” or “shall,” it does
not mean that the Comment itself is binding or enforceable; it signifies that the
Rule in question, properly understood, is obligatory as to the conduct at
issues.
[8] Second, the Canons combined with the Comments identify
aspirational goals for judges. To implement fully the principles of this Code
as articulated in the Canons, judges should strive to exceed the standards of
conduct established by the Rules, holding themselves to the highest ethical
standards and seeking to achieve those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing
the dignity of the judicial office.
[9] The Rules of the Code are rules of reason that should be
applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court
rules, and decisional law and with due regard for all relevant circumstances.
The Rules should not be interpreted to impinge upon the essential independence
of judges in making judicial decisions.
[10] Although the black letter of the Rules is binding and
enforceable, it is not contemplated that every transgression will result in the
imposition of discipline. Whether discipline is imposed should be determined
through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rules and should depend
upon factors such as the seriousness of the conduct, the facts and
circumstances that existed at the time of the conduct, the extent of any
pattern of improper conduct, whether there have been previous violations, and the
effect of the conduct upon the judicial system or others.
[11] The Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil
or criminal liability. Nor is it intended to be the basis for litigants to seek
collateral remedies against each other or to obtain tactical advantages in
proceedings before a court.
Effective January 1, 2023.
10.)
That Black and certain Hispanic Judges and the Judicial Inquiry Board of the
Democratic Party systematically demonstrates how all of the attorneys all have
violated Ethics
All
RPC
3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal,” sets forth the
standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle.” Section (a) of
that rule states:
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a
lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of
material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a
tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to
avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to
be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel;
(4) Offer evidence that the
lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes
to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation
or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the
evidence is false ;
(6) counsel or assist the
client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal of fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal
conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(8) fail to disclose the
identities of the clients represented and of the persons who employed the
lawyer unless such information is privileged or irrelevant;
(9) intentionally degrade a
witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning
that person which are not relevant to the case;
(10) in trial, allude to any
matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not
be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in
issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to
the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a
civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of and accused, but a lawyer may
argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to
the matter stated herein;
11.) That
said judges and attorneys have satisfied the legal standard Preponderance of
the Evidence have exhausted a plethora of unlawful acts using their robes
upholding criminal acts being a part of an “Organized
Conspiracy” trying to steal Defendant’s home;
12.)
That due to “Fraud” Systemic Racism and alleged Political
Terrorist Intimidation, Supreme Court Rule 383 is necessary because the
Affidavits and Exhibits attached demonstrates the need for this court to tear
down the walls of Injustice, Corruption and Racism in that those Judges and
lawyers who cannot uphold the integrity of their duties and oath as an attorney
and judge need to seek employment in another profession; alternatively, be
remanded into custody.
13.)Where
applicable judges and lawyers who ignore the laws and act outside of the laws
don’t belong in the profession Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218,
220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985)
(Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt
power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court
Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be
characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct
constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute).
Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which
warrant discipline.
Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (
14.)In
the wake of extensive investigations by Federal Law enforcement authorities
revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois court system (“Operation
Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that significant professional
misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement to report misconduct was
frequently ignored, particularly in the cases of judges with regard to the
conduct of other judges.
Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the
ABA,
Judicial
Code 24-25 (1992)
15.) Furthermore,
when testing for the “appearance of impropriety” the Court has a criteria that must be met, Commentary
Canon 2, 2A 2C, this Commentary
in Canon 2C clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the Court’s posture towards
the membership no judge in any of the lower courts were able to lawfully
Dismiss or Deny any of the, Motions presented in a Legally upright manner, in
that, they had to act outside of judicial discretion, and outside of the
judicial immunity provisions afforded to them denying the Defendants claims;
WHEREAS,
your Petitioner Prays that this Honorable Court to enter an Order on the Writ
of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory for
a Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order, How does the Appellate
Court who had Jurisdiction in 2011, (Judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasian
Judges Joseph Gordon, James R. Epstein) Affirming Circuit Courts Decision
Vacating Foreclosure and Sale Same Parties, Appellees never Appealed the Order
never filed an Appearance in the Present Matter Appellate Court but Same Judge
(Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasians Margaret S. McBride, David W. Ellis) now change
his mind and collude with other Caucasian Judges and Rule they Don’t Have
Jurisdiction when the Appellees Admitted to all Pleadings of Mortgage Fraud via
Summary Judgment, “Trespassing Upon the Laws” “Treason Offenses” in this
Illegal Foreclosure w/Affidavit
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
No comments:
Post a Comment