QUENTIN TARATINO 'S MOVIE DJANGO UNCHAINED DEMONSTRATED HOW LIFE WAS DURING SLAVERY BUT HERE IT DEPICTS THE SECRET LIFESTYLE OF NEGROE BLACKS IN POWER IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS
THE SURPRISING REALITY MANY FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT WHILE MANY WHITES ARE COMING OUT DEMONSTRATING THEIR RACIST HATE TOWARDS NOT SHARING THEIR SKIN COLOR ----THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER THEIR ARE SO MANY BLACKS IN THE CLOSET SUPPORTING WHITE NATIONALIST RACIST BY SELLING OUT THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS AS UNCLE TOMS OR AUNT JANE'S.
THESE BLACKS WANT TO BE OPPRESSED AND INFERIOR TO THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE AND HAS ACCEPTED THIS ROLE BY DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES UNDERMINING EVERY PERSON OF COLOR WHO BRINGS CHARGES OF ANY TYPE VIOLATIONS AGAINST ANY WHITE ESTABLISHMENT OR DEMOCRATIC MACHINE OPERATIVE BY DENYING THEIR CLAIMS OR COMPLAINTS PUT BEFORE THEM.
THIS IS A SECRET NO BLACK OR HISPANIC POLITICIAN EVER WANT THE PUBLIC TO READ ABOUT OR TO KNOW BECAUSE IT WILL BRING SHAME AND EMBARRASSMENT TO THEIR CAREERS.
THE SAD REALITY SO MANY MEN AND WOMEN ARE SO BUSY TRYING TO BE SOMETHING ELSE BUT NOBODY IS AT ALL WHO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE!
SAMUEL L. JACKSON AS STEPHEN IN THE MOVIE IS AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE BLACK JUDGES IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS COURTS, AND IN MANY INSTANCES GOING BEFORE A BLACK OR BROWN JUDGE IS THE WORSE JUDGE A PERSON OF COLOR CAN GO BEFORE.
IN CHICAGO (CANDYLAND) WHITE NATIONALISTS CONTROLLING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RECRUIT INFERIOR BLACKS OR HISPANICS WHO ARE WILLING TO SAVE THEM BY COMMITTING TREASON TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS SO AS TO KEEP JIM CROW LAWS IN EFFECT.
NOT ONE PERSON IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DENOUNCED ANY OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS PERPETRATED IN THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE THIS IS HOW THEY ARE PROMOTED
A BLACK WOMAN JUDGE FREDRENNA LYLES STATED, In fact, much to the banks chagrin, I give them a lot of additional time so that they can protect their cases” SHE IS ON RECORD VIOLATING HER OATH TRYING TO HELP CORRUPT WHITE MEN STEAL THE HOME OF A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER AND RETIRED TEACHER FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
EVERYBODY KNOWS BLACK JUDGES RECRUITED OR APPOINTED WEAR THEIR ROBES LIKE A HALLOWEEN COSTUME ONLY TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUP AND NOT AGAINST WHITE MEN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY .
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
) ) Room 2808
)
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
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE (September
1st 2017) ORDER DUE TO ERROR “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS
MAKING THE ORDER A NULLITY 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 for Reconsideration et al;
1.
That Plaintiffs having admitted to all facts recorded in said
Respondent’s Response Motion Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Motion filed
July 7, 2017 et al. via affidavit;
A-
Court having no jurisdiction ignored Defendants valid Summary
Judgment demonstrating Prejudice and Bias behavior pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS
5/2-----1001 (a) (3); Sup. Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1).
B-
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);
C-
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
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
2.
Chronology of
Facts: That on July 28, 2017
Defendant’s appeared before Judge Fredrenna Lyles where Postestivo & Assoc.
were represented by Shawn Beshant a female attorney;
A- Pursuant
to Group Ex A, (July 18, 2017 Notarized
Transcript) Page 3, Lines 12-13, Judge Lyles stated, “Counsel, I have a response filed by the
defendants. And do you need time to reply?”
B- Pursuant
to Page 3, Line 14 Counsel asked, “Yes can we have 21 days?”
C- Pursuant
to Lines 15-21 Judge Lyles stated, “They filed a motion and you filed a
response, and because they were the ones who filed the motion, they get a
chance to reply to the things that you rased in your response. And so that’s
what we are doing this morning. August 8th would be the date that the
reply would be due.”
D-
Pursuant to Page
4, Lines 3-4 Judge Lyles stated,
“This will be the last pleading…..et al.”
E-
Pursuant to Page
4, Lines 16-17 Defendant Marcia Johnson stated, “For the record we object to their motion for the record”
F-
Pursuant to Page
4, Lines 18-20, Judge Lyles stated, “I
certainly anticipated that, because I did have a chance to briefly look at your
response.”
G-
Pursuant to Page 4, Line 22-23, Judge Lyles stated,
“But they need to file a written reply”
H- That
judge Lyles gave specific reasons for said written reply, Page 5, Lines 1-6, she
stated, “For 2 reasons. One is because we
want to make sure we have a good record in case it goes up; and secondly,
because I have over 3,000 cases in total, and I can’t possibly be expected to remember
everything. So I have to read it. Let’s have it in writing. Okay?”
3.
That the Plaintiffs failed to comply to the Judges
court order never requested leave to answer or respond later; thereby
DEFAULTING and Summary Judgment was properly filed and served upon the
Plaintiffs in a proper timely manner;
4.
That the Defendant’s properly filed said Notice of
Motion for Summary Judgment due to “Fraud” on the Court pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 137 on August 23, 2017 and served upon Bryan at 12:50pm on Aug. 23,
2017 at the Law firm of Postestivo & Assoc., by Joe Louis Lawrence;
5.
That Page 2, of
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment et al.. is clear within the
Preponderance of evidence legal standard demonstrating how attorneys are trying
to steal the Defendants homes in the guise of “Foreclosure” hereto attached;
6.
That Page 3,
Par 6 of Respondent’s Response Motion Striking & Objecting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default judgment et al. states, That the Plaintiffs are expecting this court
to ignore the Defendant’s 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;
A- Motions
for Reconsideration are designed to bring to the court’s attention newly
discovered evidence that was unavailable at time of original hearing, changes
in existing law, or errors in court’s application of law. Continental Cas. Co. v. Security Ins. Co.
of Hartford, App. 1 Dist. 1996, 216 Ill. Dec. 314, 279 Ill. App. 3d 815, 665
N.E. 2d 374, appeal dismissed, et al.;
B-
The purpose of a Motion to Vacate is to alert
the trial court to errors it has made and to afford an opportunity for their
correction. In re Marriage of King, App.
1 Dist. 2002, 270 Ill. Dec. 540, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83, 783 N.E. 2d 115,
rehearing denied pending appeal; et al.
C-
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.
7.
That
said Defendants as Pro Se litigants retired Police Officer and retired educator
from the Board of education followed all rules of Illinois Civil Procedure,
Supreme Court Rules with greater
integrity and adherence to the laws;
8. 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.
A- Pursuant to this precedent, hereto attached Gr Ex
B Brief Memorandum before the Seventh Circuit where a Federal judge
tried to assist Defendant Judges who had
“Trespassed upon the Laws” criminalizing him because as an African American man
Pro Se litigant who fought back seeking custody of his daughter;
B- Pursuant to Respondent’s Response Motion
Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Motion et al. that Plaintiff’s failed
to reply to on Page 4 Gr Ex B in the matter of Elena Fedorova
v. Chicago Community Management et al. a veteran being wrongfully “Foreclosed”
C- That Page 3, Par 6 and 7of Gr Ex B is
germane and applicable in this matter and demonstrates said judge acted as a
private individual;
D-
That Page 4,
Par 9 states, “In addition, 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.”
E- That
hereto attached, Gr Ex C, Motion
Moving for Default & Summary Judgment w/Affidavit, (Filed March 23, 2015) seeking $25 Million
Dollars Pro Se litigant presented a valid complaint and was homeless due to the
aforementioned, Judge Valderrama Trespassed upon the laws denied every document
Plaintiff filed before him documents demonstrating he was discriminated from
moving into units with a Section 8 voucher (#9727767) with great credit scores
management took his money when they learned of his skin color refused to let
him move into their units;
F- That
not one attorney guilty and cognizant of the aforementioned acts feared any
reprisals from the judge because all of them knew the type of judge he
was.
G-
That the aforementioned judge stated referencing unlawful1.blogspot.com
April 21, 2015 Post, Page 2, Par 2
Judge Valderrama stated, “No the clerk’s
office doesn’t serve anybody by certified mail. Let me back up. “When I say
service, I don’t mean mailing anything. When I say service I mean providing a
copy of the complaint and summons on the entity that you have names in your
complaint”
H- That
because of the prominent attorneys chagrin in being out maneuvered by a Pro Se
litigant Judge Valderrama acted as a private person acted outside of his oath
colluded with the Defendants Trespassing upon the laws engaging in Treason
Offenses, in that judge Lyles has mirrored his every act as she committed the same
criminal acts.
I-
That Page 2
Par 5 further validate the verity of said judge acting outside of his
jurisdiction as a Trespasser the law states, “Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-105 “service of summons, summons issued in
any action to review the final administrative decision of any administrative
agency shall be served by registered or certified mail on the administrative
agency and on each of the other defendants….et al”
J- That
said Pro Se litigant defended himself against City attorneys, CHA attorneys, at
least 12 of them named in the record not one person denied or objected to any
of the assertions recorded in his complaint noted in unlawful1.blogspot.com
Dec. 1, 2015 Posted in 3 parts.
- Chronology of Facts validating
Judge Fredrenna Lyles Trespassing upon the Laws engaging in “Fraudulent
Acts”
A- Pursuant
to Gr Ex D, (Notarized Court
transcript of September 1, 2017) Lines
7-17 Page 3 Mitchell Shanks
Counsel for US Bank stated, “Mitchell
Shanks on behalf of US Bank. This matter was set today for a hearing on our
motion for summary judgment”
B- “In the
original order, there was an indication that a response was already filed. So
then would leave that we only needed time to reply, but we didn’t received—a
response not filed. We didn’t receive their response until August 23rd.
So essentially, we are just asking for time to reply to the response and then
reset for hearing”;
- That
Defendant Monzella Johnson stated, Lines
19-22 Page 3, “I object. He is
saying our response, but they were the ones that were supposed to respond,
according to the ruling pursuant to the Court’s order entered”
A-
Judge Lyles stated Line
23, “Yes ma’am. I know”
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.
B- That
Pursuant to Gr Ex B, Page 6 states “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.
- That said Judge demonstrated cognizance
of her premeditated acts of Treason condoning said attorney to commit
perjury never admonishing him for inconsistent perjured remarks made in
court
- That
said judge demonstrated Bias and collusion stated, Lines 2-6, Page 4 “Now, what he said was he didn’t get a
copy of your response to which he going to reply. So he needs additional
time so that they can file a reply. That’s what he was basically saying.”
D- Judge
Lyles used her robe and unlawful authority in the same identical manner as
Judge Valderrama in ignoring said Summary Judgment due to Plaintiffs Defaulting
735 ILCS
5/2—1001(a)(3) (West 2006). Although the statute does not define “cause”, Illinois courts
have held that in such circumstances, actual prejudice has been required to
FORCE REMOVAL of a judge from a case, that is, either prejudicial trial conduct
or personal bias. Rosewood Corp. n Transamerica Insurance Co., 57 Ill 2d
247, 311 N.E. 2d 673 (1974; In re Marriage of Kozloff, 101 Ill 2d 526, 532, 79
Ill. Dec 165 463 N.E. 2d 719 (1984); see also People v. Vance, 76 Ill. 2d 171,
181, 28 Ill. Dec. 508, 390 N.E. 2d 867 (1979).
E- That
Judge Lyles is expecting the same body of racist judges and politicians that
embraced Valderrama for his Treason Offenses against a Pro Se litigant who
shared his ethnicity to save her in the same like manner, in that judges like
the aforementioned are willing to do whatever it takes to destroy their own so
as to be accepted by those who hate persons of color and is controlling the
Democratic Party;
F- In
that African American judges ignorant of the laws are just as worse as racist
judges, in that, many of them closes their eyes and commit the same acts as
racist judges, due to them selling out their ethnicity for whatever alleged fee
they can receive;
- 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.
- That
to further amplify the veracity of the above, Pursuant to Page 5, Lines 15-24, Page 6, Lines 1-2
Judge Lyles stated, “I know it may seem rather unusual, but
it happens all the time in courts, things are—people are in offices and
maybe they get misplaced. So it’s not unusual for me to give persons
standing on your side additional time. In fact, much to the banks chagrin,
I give them a lot of additional time so that they can protect their cases”
“And so when
the plaintiff asks for additional time, it’s only fair and equitable that. I
give them additional time. So that’s what I’m doing”
- That
Defendant Marcia Johnson stated, Page
6, Lines 3-4 “I just want to get
the record straight”
- Judge Lyle stated unequivocally, Page 6, Lines 5-8 “Okay. That’s what I’m doing today. And
regarding the record, you have a young lady over here who’s taking down
verbatim what we say”
- That Chagrin is defined as
disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, disappointment or
failure
- That
because of the bank being allegedly embarrassed at being defeated
litigiously by the Defendants Judge Lyles violated her oath assumed
jurisdiction on a matter she did not have and became complicit in an “Organized
Conspiracy” signing her name to a court order described as a Nullity Void entirely;
A-
That Judge Lyles with Brazen disregard for the
laws openly articulated her unlawful reasons granting the Plaintiff’s more time
in an attempt for them to try and defeat said retired Defendants That due to the judges
Bias and or Prejudice conduct
pursuant to Sup Ct Rule 71, 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).
7.
That judge Lyles has demonstrated an unknown interest in this
matter which has blinded her objectivity in adjudicating the merits of this
matter, due to the aforementioned; Sup Ct. Rule 63 (c) (1) (d) mandates
disqualification where the judge has an interest in the proceeding. (eff. April
16, 2007).
A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates
disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating
court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to
accommodate witnesses’ schedules; 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”)
A-
Fraud upon the court is a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v.
United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v.
C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question
that a court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the
procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328
U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447. The power of the court to unearth
such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v.
Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto)
61, 25 L. Ed. 93.
B-
“A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A
judge is a judicial officer, paid by the Government to act impartially and
lawfully”. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626. “A void judgment is regarded as a
nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no
judgment. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place….It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Judgments 43, 44,
45. Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d
227-232
C-
“A Void Judgment from
its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in
any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment, order or decree may be attacked
at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v.
Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill. App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st
Dist. 1964)
- That under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C.
1985 (3) (b). A judge does not have the discretion on whether or not
to follow Supreme Ct. Rules, but a duty to follow. People v. Gersh, 135
Ill. 2d 384 (1990).
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 Vacating the September 1, 2017 Void Court Order;
2.
For an Order Substituting said
Judge due to Prejudice & Bias;
3.
For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for
such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which
this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
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
)
)
) Room 2808
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 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION VACATE (September 1st 2017) ORDER
DUE TO ERROR “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS MAKING THE ORDER A NULLITY
w/AFFIDAVIT
Please be
advised that on September 22, 2017, Defendant has filed before this Circuit
Court, Motion for Reconsideration et al; and will present said legally
sufficient instrument before Judge Lyles or any Judge in her stead September,
at 10:30 am in room 2808.
U.S.
Attorney
Joel R. Levin
219 South Dearborn Suite
500
Chicago, Ill 60605
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
Potestivo & Ass., PC
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite
610
Chicago, IL. 60606
Chicago, IL. 60606
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 September 22, 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.
) Judge Freddrenna Lyles
)
)
) Room
2808
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
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
I Joe
Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se being duly sworn on oath states.
1.)
That on July 13th at 1:20 a copy of Respondent’s
Response Motion Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of
Default et al. was served on Bryan a Caucasian male in mid 40’s at 223 West
Jackson, Blvd Suite 610, Chicago, Ill.
2.)
That on August 23rd at 12:50 a copy of
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment Due to “Fraud” on the court et al. was
served upon Bryan at the noted aforementioned address.
3.)
That in order to get close to Bryan you have to be buzzed
in which is how service was effective.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
Respectfully Submitted
Notary
____________________
Joe Louis Lawrence
P. O. Box 490075
Chicago, Il. 60649-0075
Twitter @joelouis7
Email joelouislaw@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment