PART 3 OF 3 HOW RACIST JUDGES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CLOSE THEIR EYES TO CORRUPTION PERPETRATED ON PERSONS OF COLOR:
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND INDEPENDENT WHITES DO NOT RECEIVE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN CHICAGO COURTS OR IN ILLINOIS:
TAKE A LOOK AT HOW JUDGES SUPPORT CORRUPTION AND UPHOLD #JIMCROW LAWS PROVING PERSONS OF COLOR ARE SECOND CLASS OR 3RD CLASS CITIZENS.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
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
) Petitioner
)
)
V.
)
)
)
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, )
)
Respondents
)
RESPONDENT’S
RESPONSE MOTION STRIKING & OBJECTING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT DUE TO “FRAUD” AND
BARRED BY 5 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION 735 ILCS 5/13-205 w/AFFIDAVIT
Now
comes Petitioner, Monzella Y. Johnson et al. being represented Pro Se in this
cause respectfully represents to this court the reasons and files herewith her
Affidavit in support of Respondent’s Response Motion Striking & Objecting
Plaintiff’s Complaint et al.
1.
That on June 7, 2010, Judge
Gillespie entered an Order “The court
on its own motion vacates the judgment of foreclosure for lack of a proper
affidavit in support et al”.
2.
That Plaintiff’s Motion states Par. 1, Complaint was filed on
September 11, 2008 and the First Amended Complaint was filed June 7, 2016”.
A-
That on the face of Plaintiff’s legal instrument demonstrates 735
ILCS 5/13-205 is applicable to the aforementioned matter;
The purpose of a statute of
limitation is to require any necessary litigation to be brought within such
time as the particular facts may be proved with the utmost certainty and before
adequate proof has become stale or entirely lost. Horn v City of Chicago, 1949,
87 N. E. 2d 642, 403 Ill. 549, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 70 S. Ct.
429, 338 U.S. 940, 94 L. Ed. 580.
13-205. Five year limitation. Except
as provided in Section 2-725 of the “Uniform Commercial Code”, approved July
31, 1961, as amended, and Section 11-13 of “The Illinois Public Aid Code”,
approved April 11, 1967, as amended. Actions on unwritten contracts, expressed
or implied, or on awards of arbitration, or to recover damages for an injury
done to property, real or personal, or to recover the possession of personal
property or damages for the detention or conversion thereof, and all civil
actions not otherwise provided for, shall be commenced within 5 years next
after the cause of action accrued.
Statute of limitations and doctrine of
laches have common purpose: to prevent prejudice to defendant caused by
plaintiff’s undue delay in filing suit. Lincoln-Way Community High School Dist.
210 v. Village of Frankfort, App. 3 Dist. 1977, 9Ill. Dec. 884, 51 Ill. App. 3d
602, 367 N.E. 2d 318.
Under
Illinois law, all claims as to personal property, including claims for damage
to or recover possession of such property, are governed by five-year statute of
limitations. In re March First, Inc., Bkrtcy. N. D. Ill. 2007, 378 B.R. 563
affirmed 2008.
3.
Plaintiffs never challenged or attempted to vacate the courts
order vacating the June 7, 2010 Foreclosure judgment, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2
1301 an untimely motion to vacate judgment will ordinarily be construed as
petition for relief from final judgment under Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Lodolce v. Central Du Page Hosp., App. 2 Dist. 1991, 159 Ill. Dec. 789, 216
Ill. App. 3d 902, 576 N. E. 2d 458, appeal denied 164 Ill. Dec. 918 et al.
4.
That the Plaintiffs had a number of attorneys to appear before the
court inducing reliance without filing appearances in an attempt to bully and
intimidate the defendant’s accepted the aforementioned order which is deemed a
judgment of June 7, 2010---where judgment was entered in trial court at time
when plaintiff was represented by counsel and defendant was in court in person,
and judgment order was okayed by defendant in person and by plaintiff through
his attorney, judgment was not void. Nicholson v. Lowenstein, App. 1966, 77
Ill. App. 2d 97, 222 N. E. 2d 157, certiorari denied 88 S. Ct. 62, 389 U.S. 825
et al.
5.
That the Plaintiffs are expecting this court to ignore the
Defendants legal affidavits and meritorious defenses and deny anything they
submit due to their skin color being African American and the fact they are Pro
se and continue to abuse discretion of the court and enter orders void in
nature assisting the Plaintiffs;
Section 2-1401 also
codifies the common law that a void order can be attacked at any time. The
petitioner does not have to allege facts to support a meritorious defense or
the exercise of due diligence to vacate a void order. Since a void order is a
nullity from its inception, the order will have no legal effect. The most
common example of a void order is one where the court lacked personal or
subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties. A court will
not set aside a judgment lightly. Courts are mindful that collaterally
attacking judgments could have disastrous consequences in an orderly
administration of justice. Thus a court will only void an order if there is no
other alternative. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 214 Ill. 2d 371, 827 N.E.
2d 422, 292 Ill. Dec 893 (2005).
6.
That the Plaintiffs have
exhausted every method unimaginable trying to steal Defendant’s home in the
disguise of “Foreclosure” in spite of the laws demonstrating “Fraud” and that
the Defendants are entitled to Equal of Protection of the Laws in Illinois,
pursuant to Federal statutes;
In order to determine whether trial court
has abused its discretion in deciding motion for leave to file amended
complaint, Appellate Court looks at the following four factors: 1) whether proposed
amendment would cure defective pleading; 2.) whether other parties would
sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of proposed amendment; 3.) whether
proposed amendment is timely; and 4.) whether previous opportunities to amend
pleading could be identified. McHale v. W. D.
Trucking, Inc., App 1 Dist. 2015, 396 Ill. Dec 46, 39 N. E. 3d 595,
appeal denied et al.
A-
Hereto attached, Ex A
Computer Printout from the database where it states Page 3, Appearance Filed (Oct. 31, 2008);
B-
That attorney Dutton, Barbara never at any time filed a timely
appearance pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures every appearance
shall be filed within the time fixed by the rule of the Supreme Court;
C-
That because the attorneys as demonstrated in this manner have been
able to mislead the court successfully the court never had jurisdiction on the original complaint; thereby,
nullifying any legal action in this matter due to diabolical acts of “Fraud”
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. Pursuant to this precedent, hereto attached, Gr Ex B, Motion for
Reconsideration & Vacate June 1, 2016 et al., Supreme Court case #120724, hereto
attached, attorneys committing “Fraud” and admitted it and did not object to
any of the pleadings in any court or Supreme Court of Illinois;
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 ILL Dec. 776, 142 ILL App 3d 354,
Appeal Denied.
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.
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 S. Ct. 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.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of,
individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation,
intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally
all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford
Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
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
Supreme Court Rule [137]
provides in pertinent part:
If a pleading, motion, or
other paper is signed in violation of this Rule, the court, upon motion or upon
its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented
party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to
the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because
of the filling of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney fee. Not only will the courts consider an award of sanctions for
active false statements: failures to disclose material facts to the court can
also justify an award of sanctions.
BRUBAKKEN v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992 Ill App. LEXIS 2144 (1st Dist. Dec. 30, 1992).
Additionally, the fact that a false statement or omission is the result of an
honest mistake is no defense to entry of a sanction. ID. To the extent that an
individual lawyer has engaged in sanctionable conduct, that lawyer’s firm can
also be jointly and severally liable with the lawyer.
In that every attorney has properly
admitted to every assertion Counsel has properly presented in all Affidavits
Complaints and Motions but some judges are still operating and practicing under
Jim Crow Laws.
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.”
In
Accordance to all of The Cook County Circuit Court Rules
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE
RELIEF REQUESTED
The
canons of ethic in the Rules of Professional Conduct constitute a safe guide
for professional conduct, and attorneys may be disciplined for not observing
them. In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531,
533 N.E.2d 790, 127 Ill. Ill. App.
3d 999, 697 N.E.2d 820, 232 Ill. Ill. App.3d 485, 654 N.E.2d 232, 210 Ill. Dec. 933 (2d Dist.), appeal denied, 164 Ill.
Ethics
All Illinois
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;
Acts constituting direct, criminal
contempt
A wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal
contempt. And act may be criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable
crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. Ill. Ill.
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38
33-3.
False statements
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which she knew or reasonably should have known
to be false, and failed to disclose to tribunal a material fact known to her
when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting criminal or fraudulent at by
client, given that attorney’s misconduct was not result of dishonest or corrupt
motive, but of misguided attempt to accommodate clients. 99 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH11
Three-year suspension was
recommended sanction for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty
and fraud, made statement of material fact to tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known was false, and offered evidence that he knew to be
false and failed to take reasonable remedial measures. 96 Ill.Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. SH 358.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made false statements
of material fact or law to tribunal which she knew were false and engaged in
conduct which tended to defeat administration of justice. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 877.
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who made statements of material fact or law known was false, and
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 95
Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 504
One-year suspension was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact which he knew was false in appearing in professional
capacity before tribunal, made a statement of material fact which he knew to be
false in course of representing client, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. CH 191.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in serious misconduct by making misrepresentation
during his divorce proceedings and who was a recidivist. 94 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH469
Fraud on court
Two-year suspension, retroactive to beginning of interim
suspension, was recommended sanction for attorney who made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which lawyer knew or reasonably should have
known to be false, instituted criminal charges as prosecutor when he knew or
reasonably should have known that charges were not supported by probable cause,
committed criminal act that reflected adversely upon lawyer ‘s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to
administration of justice, and engaged in conduct which tended to bring courts
or legal profession into disrepute. 96 Ill.
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,
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
Chicago, Il 60615
WHEREFORE the aforementioned
reasons Defendant respectfully Prays for the Relief
1.
For an Order Striking the Complaint with Prejudice
2.
For an Order Vacating the May 25, 2016, July 26, 2016 Court
Orders where court never had jurisdiction;
3.
For the entry of an Order awarding to your Defendant for
such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which
this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
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,
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
Chicago,
Il 60615
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
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
)
Petitioner
)
)
V.
)
)
)
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, )
)
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF
RESPONDENT’S
RESPONSE MOTION STRIKING & OBJECTING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT DUE TO “FRAUD” AND
BARRED BY 5 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION 735 ILCS 5/13-205 w/AFFIDAVIT
Please be
advised that on August 10, 2016, Defendant
has filed before this Circuit Court, Motion Striking Plaintiff’s Complaint et
al; and will present said legally sufficient instrument before Judge Myerson or
any Judge in her stead August 12, at am in room 2808.
Potestivo & Ass., PC F.B.I. Dir. Michael J. Anderson
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite
610 2111 West Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL. 60606 Chicago, Il. 60612
Chicago, IL. 60606 Chicago, Il. 60612
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above notice and all attachments were
caused to be personally delivered, to the above parties at the addresses
provided before 5:00 pm on August 10, 2016.
________________________
Respectfully Submitted, Monzella Y. Johnson
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
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
)
Petitioner
)
)
V.
)
)
)
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, )
)
Respondents
)
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
I Monzella Y. Johnson Pro Se being duly sworn
on oath states the aforementioned pleadings enumerated within said motion
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
Notary
____________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
Chicago, Il 60615
No comments:
Post a Comment