UPDATE PER FEBRUARY 11TH RE NOTICE OF THIS MOTION BEFORE JUDGE DARRYL SIMKO ON THE 9:30 CALL

THE JOHNSON SISTERS WERE IN COURT, I APPROACHED THE JUDGES CLERK TO INFORM THE CLERK THAT THE JOHNSON'S WERE HERE ON A RE NOTICE DISQUALIFYING JUDGE LYLE FOR CAUSE, SO THE CLERK REQUESTED A PRIOR COURT ORDER OF THE CASE.

WHILE SHE WAS GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTER AN ATTORNEY APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE SIMKO ON A UNRELATED CASE AND THE JUDGE GRANTED HIM EVERYTHING HE REQUESTED---ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS ATTORNEY LOWERED HIS VOICE AND SAID YOUR HONOR, "WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE JOHNSON'S MOTION" 

I SNAPPED! MY REPLY WAS THAT THE JOHNSON'S WERE SITTING IN THE BACK AT THIS POINT THE ATTORNEY APPEARED SHELL SHOCKED TOTALLY STUNNED SO THE JUDGE CALLED THE JOHNSON SISTERS WALKED TO THE BENCH, TO MY SURPRISE THE STATES ATTORNEY APPEARED LETTING THE JUDGE KNOW THAT THEY HAD BEEN NOTICED ON THIS MATTER.

THE ATTORNEY PROVIDED THE JUDGE A COPY OF THIS MOTION, JUDGE SIMKO LITERATELY READ ABOUT 3-5 PAGES THE LOOK ON THIS JUDGES FACE WAS CLASSIC, HE SAID TO THE ATTORNEY YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THIS RIGHT? COUNSEL SAID YES YOUR HONOR THE JUDGE SAID 14 DAYS AND COUNSEL AGREED AND THE JUDGE TOLD THE ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE THE JOHNSON SISTERS TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO THE JOHNSON SISTERS AND ASKED THEM IF THEY NEEDED MORE TIME AND IF THEY UNDERSTOOD?

MONZELLA WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT JUDGE SIMKO WAS ONLY HANDLING THE DISQUALIFICATION ASPECT OF THE CASE AND WAS NOT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE CASE TO HELP POSTESTIVO LAW FIRM STEAL THEIR HOME, THE JUDGE ASSURED HER HE WAS ONLY ON THE CASE FOR CAUSE AND EXPLAINED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD 14 DAYS FEB 25, 2019 TO RESPOND TO THIS MOTION AND THEY HAD TO RESPOND TO THEIR REPLY IN 14 DAYS MARCH 11, 2019 AND THE HEARING WAS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 25, 2019.

MY OPINION POTESTIVO LAWYERS WAS NOT ABLE TO HAVE THEIR WAY WITH THE JUDGE BECAUSE THE STATES ATTORNEY WAS IN COURT.

AFTERWARDS, I STOOD OUTSIDE OF THE COURT TALKING TO A DEPUTY JUDGE SIMKO CAME OUT OF THE FRONT DOOR LOOKING TOTALLY DEJECTED TAKING HIS ROBE OFF AS THE DEPUTY ASKED HIM IF HE WAS IN RECESS, IT SOUNDED LIKE HE SAID HE WAS TAKING A WALK.

I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW SINCE 1989 NEVER EVER HAVE, I SEEN A JUDGE WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR ALWAYS FROM THE BACK AND SIDE ENTRANCES PERHAPS THE PLEADINGS OR THE FACT A STATES ATTORNEY IS IN HIS COURT MAKES JUDGE SIMKO REALIZE OR SHALL I SAY THE LAWYERS FOR POTESTIVO LAW FIRM IS BEGINNING TO REALIZE "THE GOOD OL BOY TACTICS WON'T BE WORKING IN THIS COURT.  /



SEE HOW FORMER ALDERWOMAN APPOINTED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE HELPING STEAL RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS HOME (POLICE OFFICER & SCHOOL TEACHER)

SEE HOW BLACK OFFICIALS AND CERTAIN HISPANICS ARE ONLY APPOINTED TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO UPHOLD THE DOCTRINES OF RACIAL OPPRESSION AND MAKING SURE JIM CROW LAWS OUTLAWED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS CIRCUMVENTED AS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS VERY DOCUMENT.

FREDRENNA LYLE INHER ATTEMPT TO COVER UP HER CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY IS TRYING TO KEEP ANOTHER JUDGE FROM WITNESSING WHAT SHE DID ARBITRARILY BECAME A LAW UNTO HERSELF UNLAWFULLY STRUCK THE CASE FROM THE MANAGEMENT CALL NOV 28, 2018.

TWO PROBLEMS 1.) THE CASE WAS NOT ON ANY MANAGEMENT CALL; 2.) LYLE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO RULE ON THE CASE SEEING THAT A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HER FOR "CAUSE" HAS BEEN FILED.

NOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID SHE ALLEGEDLY RECEIVE TO TRY AND "FIX" THIS CASE WHICH NOW QUALIFIES HER FOR AN IMMEDIATE RESIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL PENNITENTIARY.

                 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 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR “CAUSE” USING HER ROBE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY  & RECONSIDERATION VACATE (October 29^th 2018) ORDER DUE TO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “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 Motion for Disqualification 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).

2.      That Judge Lyle realizing she would not be admonished or ridiculed for violating her oath against women of color continuously demonstrated her role as that of a “Thug” in a robe allowed a politically connected racist law firm Potestivo & Assoc. to unlawfully corroborate with certain attorneys with U.S. Bank and others to try and steal Defendant’s home disguised as an unlawful foreclosure.

3.      That the Appellate Court Fifth Division, judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr. now an Illinois Sup. Ct. justice, Joseph Gordon and Epstein  affirmed a decision (Nov 30, 2011) judge Gillispie entered vacating the foreclosure 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.

4.      That Fredrenna Lyles became a law unto herself a “Private Citizen” corroborated and demonstrated her role as an active Terrorist aiding and abetting in the stealing of a Retired Police Officer’s and Retired Chicago Board of Education, Educator’s home by accommodating and ruling in favor of every unlawful document they have filed, in that she signed an Oct. 29, 2018 Court Order Vacating a Judgment  Dec. 6, 2018.

5.      That Blacks in Chicago in the Democratic Party closes their eyes to the unlawful mayhem many innocent or elderly men or women disenfranchised by whatever means experienced in the legal system because they are now the new colored Ku Klux Klan or puppets in the Democratic Machine. 

6.      That the Defendants filed the proper Motion Objecting Respondent’s Motion et al. Lyle did not have a Hearing and even when there was a Hearing she ruled any way she felt not in accordance to any laws in the books or rules.  

7.      That the Defendants have spent the last 10 years as elderly women depleting their savings fighting corruption Niggercism, racism trying to keep their home that they respectfully earned laboring in the work place by putting her life on the line protecting citizens of Chicago and educating children preparing them for the future and this is what many can expect and look forward to living in Democratic Corrupt City.      

A-    To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d 421,424 (9^th Cir. 1989);

B-    A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.

  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

8.      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 8^th 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?”  

9.      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;

10.  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;

   

11.  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;

12.  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.

13.               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;

14.  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 17-cv-05482 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 Par. 19, Page 4 from the aforementioned Motion Objecting Respondent’s Motion, Motion to Supplement Motion that Corroborates Democratic Judges engaging in an Active “Organized Conspiracy” “Fraud” & “Corruption” in Cook County Courts w/ Affidavit, before Fed Judge Charles Norgle unequivocally demonstrate how a Black judge William S. Boyd deceived and misrepresented his client Joe Louis in the Hightower v. Lawrence matter and earned an Associate judges position.

E-     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.”  

F-     That hereto attached, Gr Ex C, Motion Moving for Default & Summary 2015 CH 01670 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;

G-    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 and what to expect. 

H-    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”

I-       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, in that African American or certain Hispanic Democratic judges due to self-hatred do not rule in favor of their ethnic groups or laws in accordance to the United States Constitution they embrace and condone racism.

J-      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” 

K-    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.

                         

15. 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 23^rd. So essentially, we are just asking for time to reply to the response and then reset for hearing”;

16. 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 lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trail lawyers must be particularly familiar with the rules that apply specially to them.

            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. App 651, 1889 WL 2373 (1^st Dist. 1889). As is making false representations to the court. People v. Katelhut, 322 Ill. App. 693, 54 N.E.2d 590 (1^st Dist. 1944). Misconduct of an officer of the court is punishable as contempt. People ex rel. Rusch v. Levin, 305 Ill. App. 142, 26 N.E. 2d 895 (1^st Dist. 1939).

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.

17.  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   

18. 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;

  

19. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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”

3. That Defendant Marcia Johnson stated, Page 6, Lines 3-4 “I just want to get the record straight”

4.  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”

5. That Chagrin is defined as disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, disappointment or failure

6. 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 (7^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9^th 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, (1^st Dist. 1964)           

8.  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 October 29, 2018 Void Court Order;

2.    For an Order Substituting and transferring this matter to a Judge from another venue due to Corruption and Fraud;

3.    For an Order issuing an Injunction prohibiting this judge or any judge named from foreclosing on any homes pending a thorough investigation.

4.    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 being amended to $10 Million Dollars covering the number of years Defendants being in court;

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

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

7.    For an Order amending the Summary Judgment from $3 Million Dollars to $10 Million Dollars

8.    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 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR “CAUSE” USING HER ROBE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY  & RECONSIDERATION VACATE (October 29^th 2018) ORDER DUE TO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS MAKING THE ORDER A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT

Please be advised that on November  , 2018, 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 November  , at 10:30 am in room 2808.       

                                             U.S. Attorney

                                                  John R. Laush, Jr.

                                          219 South Dearborn Suite 500

                                                   Chicago, Ill 60605

                                             FBI  Dir.  Jeffrey S. Sallet

                                            2111 West Roosevelt Road

                                               Chicago, IL. 60612

            

        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      

                     

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 November 21, 2018.

                                                                ________________________

                                                                  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

CHICAGO'S LEGAL SYSTEM IS IN THE HANDS OF DOMESTIC TERRORIST CONTROLLING THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IN COOK COUNTY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BLACK CHIEF JUDGE TIMOTHY CALVIN EVANS WHO KEEPS HIS EYES, EARS AND MOUTH SHUT AT THE MAYHEM AND GENOCIDAL TREATMENT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE OF COLOR AND INDEPENDENT WHITES EXPERIENCING IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

                 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 Cor     poration; Monzella Y. Johnson         )                                         

( C ) Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank;                  )

Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants,      )

                                                                                 )

                                                           Respondents  )

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

       RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR “CAUSE” USING HER ROBE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY  & RECONSIDERATION VACATE (October 29^th 2018) ORDER DUE TO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “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 Motion for Disqualification 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).

2.      That Judge Lyle realizing she would not be admonished or ridiculed for violating her oath against women of color continuously demonstrated her role as that of a “Thug” in a robe allowed a politically connected racist law firm Potestivo & Assoc. to unlawfully corroborate with certain attorneys with U.S. Bank and others to try and steal Defendant’s home disguised as an unlawful foreclosure.

3.      That the Appellate Court Fifth Division, judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr. now an Illinois Sup. Ct. justice, Joseph Gordon and Epstein  affirmed a decision (Nov 30, 2011) judge Gillispie entered vacating the foreclosure 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.

4.      That Fredrenna Lyles became a law unto herself a “Private Citizen” corroborated and demonstrated her role as an active Terrorist aiding and abetting in the stealing of a Retired Police Officer’s and Retired Chicago Board of Education, Educator’s home by accommodating and ruling in favor of every unlawful document they have filed, in that she signed an Oct. 29, 2018 Court Order Vacating a Judgment  Dec. 6, 2018.

5.      That Blacks in Chicago in the Democratic Party closes their eyes to the unlawful mayhem many innocent or elderly men or women disenfranchised by whatever means experienced in the legal system because they are now the new colored Ku Klux Klan or puppets in the Democratic Machine. 

6.      That the Defendants filed the proper Motion Objecting Respondent’s Motion et al. Lyle did not have a Hearing and even when there was a Hearing she ruled any way she felt not in accordance to any laws in the books or rules.  

7.      That the Defendants have spent the last 10 years as elderly women depleting their savings fighting corruption Niggercism, racism trying to keep their home that they respectfully earned laboring in the work place by putting her life on the line protecting citizens of Chicago and educating children preparing them for the future and this is what many can expect and look forward to living in Democratic Corrupt City.      

A-    To show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d 421,424 (9^th Cir. 1989);

B-    A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.

  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

8.      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 8^th 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?”  

9.      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;

10.  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;

   

11.  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;

12.  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.

13.               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;

14.  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 17-cv-05482 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 Par. 19, Page 4 from the aforementioned Motion Objecting Respondent’s Motion, Motion to Supplement Motion that Corroborates Democratic Judges engaging in an Active “Organized Conspiracy” “Fraud” & “Corruption” in Cook County Courts w/ Affidavit, before Fed Judge Charles Norgle unequivocally demonstrate how a Black judge William S. Boyd deceived and misrepresented his client Joe Louis in the Hightower v. Lawrence matter and earned an Associate judges position.

E-     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.”  

F-     That hereto attached, Gr Ex C, Motion Moving for Default & Summary 2015 CH 01670 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;

G-    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 and what to expect. 

H-    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”

I-       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, in that African American or certain Hispanic Democratic judges due to self-hatred do not rule in favor of their ethnic groups or laws in accordance to the United States Constitution they embrace and condone racism.

J-      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” 

K-    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.

                         

15. 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 23^rd. So essentially, we are just asking for time to reply to the response and then reset for hearing”;

16. 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 lawyers must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and trail lawyers must be particularly familiar with the rules that apply specially to them.

            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. App 651, 1889 WL 2373 (1^st Dist. 1889). As is making false representations to the court. People v. Katelhut, 322 Ill. App. 693, 54 N.E.2d 590 (1^st Dist. 1944). Misconduct of an officer of the court is punishable as contempt. People ex rel. Rusch v. Levin, 305 Ill. App. 142, 26 N.E. 2d 895 (1^st Dist. 1939).

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.

17.  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   

18. 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;

  

19. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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”

3. That Defendant Marcia Johnson stated, Page 6, Lines 3-4 “I just want to get the record straight”

4.  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”

5. That Chagrin is defined as disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, disappointment or failure

6. 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 (7^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9^th 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, (1^st Dist. 1964)           

8.  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

                                                                                           

     

                                                           

                                                                                

WHEREFORE the aforementioned reasons Defendant respectfully Prays for the Relief

  

1.    For an Order Vacating  the October 29, 2018 Void Court Order;

2.    For an Order Substituting and transferring this matter to a Judge from another venue due to Corruption and Fraud;

3.    For an Order issuing an Injunction prohibiting this judge or any judge named from foreclosing on any homes pending a thorough investigation.

4.    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 being amended to $10 Million Dollars covering the number of years Defendants being in court;

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

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

7.    For an Order amending the Summary Judgment from $3 Million Dollars to $10 Million Dollars

8.    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 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR “CAUSE” USING HER ROBE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY  & RECONSIDERATION VACATE (October 29^th 2018) ORDER DUE TO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS MAKING THE ORDER A NULLITY w/AFFIDAVIT

Please be advised that on November  27 , 2018, 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 Jan 8, at 10:30 am in room 2808.       

                                             U.S. Attorney

                                                  John R. Laush, Jr.

                                          219 South Dearborn Suite 500

                                                   Chicago, Ill 60605

                                             FBI  Dir.  Jeffrey S. Sallet

                                            2111 West Roosevelt Road

                                               Chicago, IL. 60612

            

        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      

                     

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 November 27, 2018.

                                                                ________________________

                                                                  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