HOW ILLINOIS COURTS CIRCUMVENT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ENFORCE JIM CROW LAWS BY RECRUITING INFERIOR NEGROES WHO DON'T MIND SELLING OUT THEIR ETHNIC GROUP AND MAINTAINING THE NECESSARY WHITES IN POWER AND POSITION FRATERNALLY KEEPING PERSONS OF COLOR AND INDEPENDENT WHITES WHO OPPOSES THEM OPPRESSED BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY USING THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

BLACK DEMOCRATS ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO MAY JUDGES ETC ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADMONISH WHITE MEN IN AUTHORITY CERTAIN HISPANICS ARE FOLLOWING SUIT BUT THE SAD REALITY IS THAT BOTH GROUPS WILL THROW THE BOOK AT THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUP SO AS TO PROVE AND BE ACCEPTED BY THE VERY WHITES IN POWER CONTROLLING THEIR POSITIONS.

CHICAGO IS RACIST VIOLENT AND STILL SEGREGATED BECAUSE IF YOU READ UP ON THE HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THIS IS HOW THEY RULED "LYNCHING" BURNING CROSSES MASS MURDERING ETC. THEIR IS NOT ONE BLACK JUDGE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO WILL DENOUNCE THE INJUSTICES INFLICTED ON THEIR ETHNIC GROUP THAT IS WHY MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AND RECRUITED BECAUSE OF THEIR INFERIOR DISPOSITION THEY GO ALONG WITH WRONG SO AS TO GET ALONG WITH THE WRONG DOERS.

THIS CASE IS BEFORE FORMER ALDERMAN JUDGE FREDDRENNA LYLES THIS FRIDAY POLITICALLY CONNECTED WHITES DO NOT RESPECT OR FEAR ANY BLACK OR HISPANIC JUDGE IN ILLINOIS BECAUSE IN THEIR MINDS THEY ARE SUPERIOR OVER THEM.

STAY TUNE FOR THE UPDATE ON LEE OTIES LOVE, JR. CASE ON HOW SO MANY BLACK JUDGES AS WELL AS OTHERS HAVE BENEFITED EITHER ON THE MISFORTUNES OF DISENFRANCHISED BLACKS OR THEIR DEATHS BY CLOSING THEIR EYES TO RACISM PERPETRATED BY OTHER JUDGES OR POLICE.

           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.                                                                              )                                                                                                                                                                          )     Judge Freddrenna Lyles

                                                                                 )

Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella                  )     Room 2808                              

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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO “FRAUD” ON THE COURT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 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 Motion for Summary Judgment due to “Fraud” et al.

                                                                                                                                         

1.               That pursuant to a court order entered on July 18, 2017 by judge Lyles ordering said Plaintiff to respond to said Respondent’s Response Motion Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of Default Order Granting Summary Judgment et al. by August 8, 2017.

A-    Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-610 where allegations of complaint are not denied, there is admission of all facts well-pleaded by adversary, and such admission, drawn from failure to plead, may be considered as evidence. Hecht v. Hecht, App. 1 Dist. 1977, 7 Ill. Dec. 169, 49 Ill. App. 3d 334, 364 N.E. 2d 330.

B-    Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-612 Counsel never Objected to the sufficiency of Petitioners pleadings, Objections to sufficiency of pleadings either in form or substance must be made In trial court, and if not so made, they will be considered waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. People ex rel. Deynes v. Harris, App. 1948, 77 N.E. 2d 439, 333 Ill. App. 280.

2.           That said Plaintiffs are expecting this Honorable court to ignore the merits of the laws and “Trespass upon the Laws” and continue the mayhem upon the Defendants in an attempt to wear them down financially trying to steal their home.

A-  That said Plaintiff’s having properly plead to all facts demonstrating the necessary tactics used to steal Defendant’s home in an attempt trying to take advantage of their elderly status and that they are African American women.  

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 (1^st 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.

  

3.           That Bank officials and apparently all attorneys involved in this matter, one can presume because said women are elderly retired African American women bullying them and violating their Civil Rights would be easy;

4.           That every attorney associated in this matter past and present should be Sanctioned with Remands, reimbursements for any and all damages and fees incurred for the enforcement of this matter;       

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant or fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby     

               Entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005;

               Progressive Universal Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121.

               The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact, but simply to                  

                Determine whether one exists, Jackson v. TLC Assoc., Inc. 185 Ill. 2d 418, 423

                (1998). A trial court is required to construe the record against the moving party 

                And may only grant summary judgment if the record shows that the movant’s   

                Right to relief is clear and free from doubt .Id. If disputes as to material facts  

                Exist or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the inferences drawn

                From the evidence, summary judgment may not be granted. Assoc.

                Underwriters of Am. Agency, Inc. v. McCarthy, 356 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1016-17 

                 (1^st Dist. 2005).

 The Law is CLEAR: 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.

      

               When the party moving for summary judgment supplies evidentiary facts which,

               If not contradicted, would entitle him to judgment, the opposing party cannot

               Rely upon his complaint or answer alone to raise issues of material fact. Smith v

               St. Therese Hospital, 106 Ill. App. 3d 268, 270 (2d Dist. 1982). A counter

               Affidavit is necessary to refute evidentiary facts properly asserted by affidavit

               Supporting the motion or else the facts are deemed admitted. Barber-Colman Co

               A and K Midwest Insulation Co. 236 Ill. App 3d 1065, 1078 (5^th Dist. 1992).

                     

    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

      

                           FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT

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

                                                                                         5217 S. Ingleside Ave

                                                                                        Chicago, Il 60615

                                                                                           773 835-5849

                                                              

                                                                                                                       

WHEREFORE the aforementioned reasons Defendant respectfully Prays for the Relief

1.    For an Order Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632 (1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here, where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983} of $3 Million Dollars;

2.    For an Order reimbursing all fees and costs to the Defendant for the enforcement of this matter;

3.    For Sanctions Remands and Disbarments of all attorneys involved in this matter;   

4.    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

                                                                                         5217 S. Ingleside Ave

                                                                                        Chicago, Il 60615

                                                                                           773 835-5849

                                                             

          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  )

                                                               ORDER

This case is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff’s US Bank National Association et al., pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005.

Defendants are retired tax paying Civil Servants and United States Citizens alleges that the Plaintiffs failed to respond to any document or affidavits, they have failed to comply and respond to this court order replying to Plaintiffs Motion Objecting et al., thereby defaulting on their obligation to respond.

Plaintiffs have not raised any affirmative defenses.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant or fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby    

Entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005;

Progressive Universal Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121.

The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact, but simply to                 

Determine whether one exists, Jackson v. TLC Assoc., Inc. 185 Ill. 2d 418, 423

(1998).

When the party moving for summary judgment supplies evidentiary facts which,

 If not contradicted, would entitle him to judgment, the opposing party cannot

 Rely upon his complaint or answer alone to raise issues of material fact. Smith v

 St. Therese Hospital, 106 Ill. App. 3d 268, 270 (2d Dist. 1982). A counter

 Affidavit is necessary to refute evidentiary facts properly asserted by affidavit

 Supporting the motion or else the facts are deemed admitted. Barber-Colman Co

 A and K Midwest Insulation Co. 236 Ill. App 3d 1065, 1078 (5^th Dist. 1992).

Here, Defendant has supplied affidavits and other evidentiary material that establishes all of the elements necessary to entitle it to recovery under the parties’ agreements, including the amount of damages. Plaintiffs have failed to submit any evidence in opposition to the Motion or Order to raise any genuine issues of material fact. Thus summary judgment is proper.

 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:

1.)    Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants for $3 Million Dollars Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629 75 L Ed 632 (1983) that because of the noted depraved acts of the parties involved pay damages, of $3 Million Dollars.

2.)    For an Order Imposing Sanctions on all attorneys and parties complicit in these unlawful acts pursuant to Sup Ct Rule 137.

                                                                                   ______________________________

                                                                                       ENTERED

                                                                                  _______________________________

                                                                                       JUDGE   

          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.                                                                              )                                                                                                                                                                          )    Judge Freddrenna Lyles 

                                                                                 )

Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella                  )    Room 2808                               

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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE TO “FRAUD” ON THE COURT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 w/AFFIDAVIT

Please be advised that on August 23, 2017, Defendant has filed before this Circuit Court, Motion Summary judgment et al; and will present said legally sufficient instrument before Judge Lyles or any Judge in her stead September 1, at 10:30 am in room 2808.                                                                

Potestivo & Ass., PC                         F.B.I. Dir.  

223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite 610   2111 West Roosevelt Road
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 23, 2017.

                                                                ________________________

                                                                  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

5217 S. Ingleside. Ave

Chicago, Il 60615

773 835-5849