HOW ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE AND HIS COLORED WATER BOYS AND GIRLS RAN A SUCCESSFUL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE NOT FEARING THE FBI STEALING HOMES IN THE GUISE OF FORECLOSURE
THEIR HAS NOT BEEN A BLACK NEGROE OR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CALL THEMSELVES OR A HISPANIC MALE OR MAN WITH ANY TESTICLES TO STAND FOR WHAT WAS RIGHT WHERE PEOPLE OF COLOR WAS VICTIMIZED BY THE "CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE" CONTROLLED BY THE DEMOCRATS UNDER ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE.
FINALLY, THE MEDIA AND THE FBI SEE THE HOW COOK COUNTY AND CERTAIN FEDERAL JUDGES ARE A PART OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE AS CORRUPT ANGLO SAXON JUDGES TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING UPHOLDING THE CRIMINAL ACTS MENTIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN
DIVISION
NOTICE OF APPEAL
To: Cook
County States Attorney Chief
Judge Timothy C. Evans
Kim Foxx
50 West Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 500 Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Clerk of the
Circuit Court Attorney General
Dorothy
Brown Kwame
Raoul
50 West Washington,
Suite 1001 100 West Randolph, Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill.
60601 Chicago, Ill. 60601
.US
Attorney FBI
Dir. Chris Wray
John
R. Lausch, Jr. 2111
West Roosevelt Road
219 S.
Dearborn, 5th floor
Chicago,
Ill. 60612
Postestivo & Assoc. Hinshaw
& Culbertson, LLP
223 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 610 151 N. Franklin Street, #2500
Chicago, Illinois 60606 Chicago, Illinois
60606
COURTESY COPIES
TO THE FOLLOWING:
Hon Mayor Lori Lightfoot
City Hall 7th floor
Chicago, IL.
60601
Said case
demonstrates within the parameter of the laws how the Illinois legal system is
under siege, as stated in earlier affidavits, the Ku Klux Klan, pursuant to the
act of 1871 Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) Remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats
belong or can belong to these societies”)
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on May
30, 2019, A Notice of Appeal has been
filed before the Northern District of Illinois .
Respectfully Submitted
______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
5217
S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL. 60615
Dated
May 30, 2019
|
U.S. BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED
TRUST MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2006-NC3; UBS REAL ESTATE
SECURITIES INC.; MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC.; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AKA “MERS”
Plaintiffs,
MONZELLA
JOHNSON
Defendant. |
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
______________________
H. Gary
Feinerman
Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez
Civil
Action No.
16-cv-
08628
|
Jurisdictional Statement
Order entered: May 1, 2019
Notice of Appeal filed: May 30, 2019
Statutes: Democratic Judges violating
United States Supreme Court Rulings Enforcing “Jim Crow Laws” “Trespassing upon
the Laws” “No Jurisdiction on the Appellant” Committing Fraud, Engaging in
Treason Like Offenses, Judges Committing Perjury, Judges aiding and abetting in
a Criminal Conspiracy, Judge committing Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations,
Judge acting outside of the Immunity provisions of his Oath, as “Private
Citizens” outlawed by the United States Supreme Court as they used their robes and jurisdiction to
aid and assist Terrorist Democratic Judges and Public Officials in covering-up
Criminal Civil Rights Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws,
Racial Hate Crimes, Slander and Defamation of Character, Civil Rights
Violations, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Public, Political, Fraternal
Corruption Conspiracies by Democrats, and other Un-Constitutional Lawless
Violations.
Plaintiff is appealing
to the Court of Appeals, for a Reversal
Sanctions and Remand with instructions notifying Federal authorities based on
the foregoing stated above:
Appellant has Due-Diligently been fighting to
keep their home from unlawfully being stolen from them in the disguise as
foreclosure before the Supreme Court of Illinois, District Court and Court of Appeals for over 11 years racist
political judges appointed by Alderman Edward Burke have systematically “Trespassed upon the Laws” entering Orders
that are “VOID” a “NULLITY” pursuant to the laws of the United States Supreme
Court as judges used their robes and unlawful authority to maintain a
Democratic “Lynching” of the laws on the Appellants as senior citizens in that
every Black and Brown person in the Democratic Party kept their mouths shut
because they are powerless over Anglo Saxon men in the Democratic Party and they
are only figureheads.
Appellant is appealing
to the Court of Appeals, because Anglo Saxon
judges in the Democratic party have systematically ignored that they were
the victims of an “Organized Conspiracy” perpetrated by Democratic judges
acting as “Private Citizens” controlling the Criminal Enterprise in all of the
courts controlled by Democrats, in that Judge Feinerman closed his eyes to all
Terrorist Treason offenses accompanied by an affidavit unimpeached by every
attorney.
“Grounds
warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Brumark Case
1:07-cv-00644-WDM-KLM Document 158 Filed 08/25/2009 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6 1
Although the Tenth Circuit does not allow citation to unpublished opinions for
precedential value, unpublished opinions may be cited for persuasive value.
10th Cir. R. 32.1. 3 Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th
Cir. 1995)).
1.) That pursuant to
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration filed November 4, 2016 judge Yeghiayan
became complicit in an “Organized Conspiracy” by “Trespassing upon
the Laws” using his robe and judicial authority to cover-up the “Treason
Offenses” engaged upon by other Democratic judges and operatives in the
Terrorist Criminal Enterprise in Cook County.
2.) That judge Yeghiayan had his law clerk to
call the Defendant’s on Oct. 24, 2016 at 9:00am telling them to be in court
Nov. 3, 2016 at 9:00am.
3.) That Defendant’s appeared in court
pursuant to the judge’s directive and learned he had dismissed the case Nov. 2,
2016 remanding the matter back to the Criminal Enterprise of Cook County.
TO FURTHER AMPLIFY DEMOCRATIC JUDGE
YEGHIAYAN’S participation in what is now described as
a Hate Crime corroborating his role in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy”
aiding and assisting the Plaintiff’s in trying to steal their home
4.)
That Defendant’s filed the proper Motion Objecting Plaintiff’ Motion
for Remand due to Fraud & Misrepresentations to the Court, in that Pars 1-6 articulates well pleaded-facts
that corroborates Democratic Operatives engaging in an “Organized Criminal
Conspiracy” trying to steal the Defendant’s home it is now in its eleventh
year and every Democratic judge has closed their eyes to judges Trespassing
upon the laws in this matter.
5.) Pursuant
to Par 7 of the aforementioned
Motion, hereto attached, Gr Ex A, B, C
and D, Corroborate the veracity that
Democratic judges has taken seize of the courts in a Terrorist manner and is
systematically engaging in “Treason Offenses” enforcing Jim Crow Laws
in the courts;
A- Pursuant to Gr Ex A Defendant’s Original Petition Notice of Removal from
State Jurisdiction, filed April 19, 2019 Judge Robert W. Gettleman, 19 CV 02668, that every Racist Anglo
Saxon judge in the Democratic Party unlawfully “Trespassed upon the Laws”
ignored every Affidavit Motions Defendant properly plead before the courts and
Denied every document that corroborated his innocence, that no court had
jurisdiction on him for 31 years. Said woman was allegedly impregnated by her
biological father framed the Plaintiff to keep her father from going back to
jail and losing his Police Officers position.
B- In furtherance to the above, Page 9 of the document Par 10 A, B Page 8 Line 1 Joseph V.
Roddy asked Plaintiff, Did you also file answer interrogatories’ which were
sworn to under oath by you, on April 1986?” Line 2 Francoise’s reply “Yes I did.”
Lines
4-6 And that indicated, exactly, the time you lived with Mr. Hightower and
had intercourse with defendant, is that correct, Line 7 “Yes, it did”.
C- Pursuant to Gr Ex B Motion to Reinstate case due to
Democratic Judges/Attorneys Trespassing upon the Laws Committing Treason Acting
as Private Citizens Making the District Court Order “Void a Nullity” filed
September 19, 2018, Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. case 93 CV 01609, Page 6 Par 5C
“Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Patrick McGann and appeared
before Judge Michael j. Hogan, or William Maddux (March 10, 1994) who stated, “Plaintiff was a very bright kid in that everything
he has said in his Complaint is in fact true but up here we do things
differently, he was not supposed to be bringing these issues up here on his own,
he needed his union or a sponsor.”
D- Said judges admitted “Treason
and Trespassing upon the Laws” were in fact a normal practice in Cook
County and implied his skin color was the prohibiting factor granting him any
relief, in that Par E validates the
verity of this assertion.
6.)
Pursuant to Gr Ex C Motion to
Supplement Motion that Corroborates Democratic Judges Engaging in an Active “Organized
Conspiracy” “Fraud” “Corruption” In Cook County Courts
w/Affidavits, Page 3 Par 5 states unequivocally, “That it is clear no Hispanic or Black
person described as a Democrat in Cook County have any real authority where it
matters especially as demonstrated in this cause, “Jim Crow” laws are being
enforced by spineless men of color and racist men hiding behind men of color
using them as the Enforcers using the laws as weapons to Terrorize, Bully or
“Lynch” anyone that challenges said Democrats in these unlawful proceedings as
articulated throughout all pleadings and affidavits”
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).
A-
That the court
became
a law unto
themselves
denied
said
motion
and
became “Private Citizens” not having any jurisdiction over the Defendant making
all Orders a “Nullity”.
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.
Appellant is appealing to the Court
of Appeals, because Anglo Saxon judges in the Democratic party have
systematically ignored the legal issues that has been unimpeached by any and
all States Attorneys, Attorney Generals or Corporation Council Attorneys, General
Counsels or Private Attorneys of multi-million-dollar revenues in every venue where
this case was in litigation before.
In furtherance
to the above, Anglo Saxon Democrats obstructed the aforementioned Petition for
Review to further corroborate their involvement in an “Organized Criminal
Conspiracy” protecting said Democrats but from the same Motion for
Reconsideration.
11. “That said judge is living up to the
doctrines of the Democratic Parties creed in that it was more important for the
Plaintiff’s to try and steal their home, but said senior citizen women of color
had to explain how their Removal was timely; sic He ignored the following properly plead
assertions 10-20 taken from the Motion Objecting Remand et al. corroborating Democratic judges and other
Terrorist Operatives engaging in an active “Organized Criminal Conspiracy”
trying to steal Defendant’s home”.
12.
“That it is unfathomable to see
where a Black man murdered his wife stabbing her 40 times in the mouth solicit
the services of Edward Burke and he assigns the case to the right Democratic
Irish judge and Herbert Cammon gets’ away with murder with the assistance of
his gay lover for the life insurance of $250,000.00 corroborating the fact
Democrats have Terrorist control over the legal tribunals in Chicago, Illinois”.
The request for
a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the
Judicial Conference under Rule 20 (b)
(1) (C) or 20 (b) (2) or a Petition for Review is filed under Rule 22:
Rule 26 is new; it implements the Breyer Committee’s
recommended use of transfers. Breyer
Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15.
Rule 26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding
to another judicial council selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may
be appropriate, for example, in the case of a serious complaint where there are
multiple disqualifications among the original council, where the issues are
highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the
process, where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the
complaint render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a
complaint calls into question policies or governance of the home court of
appeals et al.
That the present judges in the Seventh Circuit read evidence of Cook
County judges violating the RICO ACT,
the 7th Cir. Held that
the Cook County Courts were a Criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F. 2d 1518, 1531 where precedent was enacted by
Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard D. Cudahy and former Chief judge Luther
Merritt Swygert;
JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL AND DISABILITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES
ONE COLUMBUS
CIRCLE, NE
WASHINGTON D. C. 20544
Monzella Johnson,
Petitioner 07-16-90079
v
Diane P.
Wood, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Pamela Myerson Timothy C. Evans
Anne M.
Burke, Robert R. Thomas, Charles Freeman, Thomas L. Kilbride,
Lloyd A.
Karmeier, Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis et al.
Respondents
PETITION FOR REVIEW & PETITION TO TRANSFER
THIS CASE TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL COUNCIL
To the Honorable Judicial
Conference Committee et al. of the United States:
Complainant a United States Citizen,
Monzella Y. Johnson, hereby respectfully represents as Pro Se shows this
Judicial Conference Committee with corroboration/admissions and affidavit the
noted reasons why this matter should be reviewed and Transferred to another
Judicial Council within the United States.
Now comes Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se Appellant in this cause files herewith her affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 144,
to show that Judge Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, and a plethora of other judges
has Trespassed upon the Laws in an arrogant “Contemptuous manner” the Seventh
Circuit, Judicial Council has ignored all sufficient motions with affidavits,
stating a cause how and why this court has jurisdiction; motions corroborating
judicial corruption “fraud” “perjury” and a plethora of “Terrorist Civil Rights
Acts” put before the courts that the District Court ignored and holding Racism
Corruption in the courts.
STATUTES: Trespassers of the Laws, Treason, hereto attached, Group Ex. A, Judicial Complaint,
(filed Dec. 6, 2016) detailing just how said judges engaging in acts of Treason
likened to “Weapons of Mass Destruction” destroying innocent lives like
the Appellant;
Rule
26 authorizes the transfer of a complaint proceeding to another
judicial council selected by the Chief Justice. Such transfers may be appropriate,
for example, in the case of a serious complaint where there are multiple
disqualifications among the original council, where the issues are highly
visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process,
where internal tensions arising in the council as a result of the complaint
render disposition by a less involved council appropriate, or where a complaint
calls into question policies or governance of the home court of appeals et al.
Respectfully Submitted
Monzella Y. Johnson
5217
S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL. 60615
JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL AND DISABILITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES
ONE COLUMBUS
CIRCLE, NE
WASHINGTON D. C. 20544
1.)
That because the Seventh Circuit is comprised of
Democratic judges filled with hatred surpassing all laws of the United States
constitution have methodically and actively committing “Treason” and is “Trespassing
upon the laws” relying on any Democrat or Republican to continuously
overthrow the government enforcing laws outlawed by the United States
constitution; hereto attached, January 24, 2017 document not signed;
A- Said order was mailed so as to undermine
and demonstrate said Democrats within the Seventh Circuit were in fact
untouchable and is expecting President Elect Trump to close his eyes to the
injustices and Mayhem in Chicago courts and Federal courts as others have done
before his administration;
B-
That the aforementioned order further demonstrates no
Democrat in the judicial capacity have the legal integrity or knowledge to
dispensate the laws equitably in accordance to the United States Constitution,
in that all of them have closed their eyes to the pattern of corruption and
“Treason” by members of their party in that many of them have become
professional law breaking criminals;
2.) That
said Chief judge had evidence from Page
5, Par. 4, Motion to
Disqualify Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan et al. filed (Nov. 14, 2016) further
validating the verity within the “Preponderance
of the Evidence” that said judge and attorneys were acting in concert
in said “Organize Conspiracy”
engaging in TREASON and WAR on the United States Constitution.
A-
The court ignored the valid certified court order
demonstrating Cook County Circuit Court judge vacated the Foreclosure judgment
June 2, 2010;
B- In
that said, 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).
“Since
judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become
principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, 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”
Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation
of Civil Rights through the unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy
or otherwise. Mansell V. Saunders (CA 5 FLa) 372 F 2d 573, especially if the
conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived
of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under
42 USCS 1983 Lewis V. Brautigam (CA 5 Fla) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505
3.) That Page
4, Par. 5 (A) further validate the verity within the “Preponderance of the Evidence” that said judge and
attorneys were acting in concert in said “Organize Conspiracy”;
C-
The court ignored the valid certified court order
demonstrating Cook County Circuit Court judge vacated the Foreclosure judgment
June 2, 2010;
U. S Sup Court Digest 24(1) General Conspiracy
U.S. 2003. Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful
act.—U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S. Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L.Ed.2d 744, on
remand 371F.3d 1093
Agreement to commit an
unlawful act, which constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil
that exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to
the public over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant
substantive crime, both because the combination in crime makes more likely the
commission of other crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of
criminality.-Id.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of,
individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation,
intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally
all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford
Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
Conspirators
to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or
have taken part in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911
Dec. 162, 108. Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of agreement
of offense with intent that offense be committed;
Actus reas element is satisfied of act in
furtherance of agreement People V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL, Dec. 63
Vaughn 462 S. E. 2d 728
(Ga.1995), The Supreme Court of
Georgia removed a Judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional
rights; Hammel, 668 N. E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996) (Judge removed for
improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and make
restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendants basic
constitutional rights;
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 1, 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.
Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, 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.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
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).
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 (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
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).
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 (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
That
said judges have violated the oath of their offices in that no Circuit Court
judge ever had jurisdiction but the
Federal judges ignored the Treason Like offenses and continuously violated
their oath on the bench;
The U.S. Supreme Court has
stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war
against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support
it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
TREASON
Whenever
a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is
engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101
S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat)
264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
Any
judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required
by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section
2382.
4.) That the Judge ignored the Defendant’s Motions accompanied
with affidavits and clear attachments described as exhibits demonstrating a
plethora of Criminal Civil Rights violations with “Fraudulent Acts surpassing
human imagination became a “Trespasser of the Laws” signed and entered an order
stating, “This court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand “
A-
It further stated,
“Having remanded the instant action to
state court with a certified copy of the order, this court lacks jurisdiction
over the instant matter”
B- That because of the
judges intimate ability in colluding with said attorneys clearly and
convincingly violated all Canon Ethics and his jurisdiction by expeditiously having
a certified order to be mailed remanding said matter back to state court
claiming he had no jurisdiction;
Civil Rights
Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That all
persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any
previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same
right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce
contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit
of the laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is
enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and
penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinances, regulation, or
custom, to the contrary notwithstanding, Act of April 9, 1866, Ch. 31, 1, 14
Stat. 27, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 (a).
In the
20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on
constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the
court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court
in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in
interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce
clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities
were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy
v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This
landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart
v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs
v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County
School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington,
D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These
decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP
v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960),
slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
As the color line itself solidified at the
turn of the nineteenth century, Jim Crow imposed on black people clear tactical
disadvantages: restricted economic possibilities, narrow educational opportunities,
inadequate housing options, high rates of death and disablement, persistent
unemployment, and unrelenting poverty. Inasmuch as Jim Crow represented the
race problem described by Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987) in his 1944 treatise The American Dilemma,
it was Jim Crow that created the race quandary; whites constructed the
obstacles African Americans confronted, while also blaming them for their
conditions, denying them access to the resources of problem solving, and daring
them—under threat of violence—to complain, protest, or advance.
Finally, protests or challenges to Jim Crow
often proved futile, given law enforcement’s complicity in the structure. From emancipation to the turn of the
century, the Ku Klux Klan operated as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic
Party in the South. The Klan, nightriders, red shirts, and other white terrorists
intimidated African Americans with personal attacks, school burnings, and
lynchings. African Americans rarely served as policemen, sheriffs, or deputies
before the late 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the connections between
municipal and state governments, law enforcement, and racial violence were well
known by officials and citizens alike. White officers were known to harass
black people, disrupt black neighborhoods, and assault black women. Arrested
for inflated charges, denied satisfactory counsel, and serving harsh sentences,
African Americans were further disadvantaged in the courtroom. Rarely did they
receive good counsel, nor could they serve on juries. When black lawyers could
appear in the courtroom to argue cases, white judges and juries rarely
listened. All-white juries decided against black defendants, even in the most
obvious cases of innocence, but rarely convicted white defendants, despite evidence
of guilt. African Americans—including the innocent—suffered the harsher punishments of extended jail time, forced farm
labor, and peonage. Even women could be placed on the chain gangs working the
roads and tracks across the South.
The
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page 1, Illinois
Political Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press writer Deanna
Bellandi states, “Illinois is apparently a Petri dish for corruption. It
is a real breeding ground”.
That Chicago
is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet
Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The
two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and the City
Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no
other State can match us.”
Turner
24 F. Cas.
337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867) the “equal benefit” clause is cited in what
would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The
plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her
former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an
apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the
same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being
transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted
a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in
fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of
the “full and equal benefit of all laws.
5.) That The judge’s orders of Nov 22, 2016
citing 28 U.S.C. 352 (b)(1)(A)(ii)
and spews the racial hatred and disdain
said judges have against the Appellant as they willfully engaged in Treason, Trespassing upon the Laws
; See Gr Ex B, Petition to Transfer to Another Judicial Council, (filed
Dec 9, 2016)
6.) “Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the
Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in
acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts
of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three oaths of office to support
the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of
Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged
in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully comply with the
Constitution, then his orders are void, In
re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888) he/she is without jurisdiction , and
he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
7.) 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 can not
demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very
same laws”)
8.) Finally, “An Evaluation
of the United States District Court Judges in Chicago, by the Chicago Council
of Lawyers was had against Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, states Page 10, Par.2, While a minority of
lawyers commented positively on Judge Der-Yeghiayan, the vast majority of
lawyers interviewed gave him poor marks on virtually all areas relevant to the
Council’s evaluation, and these poor marks are consistent with the ratings
given to Judge Der-Yeghiayan by respondents to the Council’s written survey”
A- That
said report truly find him unqualified and stated, “he
lacks an adequate understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
suggested that the judge’s background had not prepared him to assume such an
important post.” 6
Wherefore the Foregoing
Reasons,
Appellant Prays for the
following relief:
1.) Appellant requests that
another Honorable Court of Appeals, Judicial Circuit accept Jurisdiction of
this matter and Invoke authority Instanter and reassign this matter accordingly
and or due to the unprecedented Terrorist Civil Rights said attorneys and
judges are complicit in, Order a Rule to
Show Cause for Remands and Indictments on all parties associated in said
Treason Offenses;
2.) Impose Sanctions/Remands against and all
parties for Contempt of the United States Constitution for their crimes against
the Defendant/Government
3.) Issue an Injunction on U
S Bank and all judges presiding in the matter trying to steal Defendants home
in the unlawful application of Foreclosure and relied on judges acting outside
their jurisdiction committing treason offenses;
4.) Issue an Order Nullifying
Voiding all orders and Chief Judge in the Court of Appeals absent a signature,
due to “Fraud” “Treason” Trespassing upon the Laws” and other Civil Rights
Violations;
5.) An order issuing a Moratorium on all Foreclosures in Cook
County Circuit courts, Appellate Court or Supreme Court of Illinois
where Wells Fargo and U. S. Bank are a party to foreclosures where “Fraud” and
treason is apparent and not being properly registered in the State of
Illinois;
Finally,
this Affidavit is best closed by a jurist who has stated”; Citing
Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules
breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government can
not demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those
very same laws”)
Federal
Court FEDERAL JUDGE GETTLEMAN:
stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found Superintendent of police Jody
Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City to Pay $100,000.00, “No
one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law breaker,
it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a law unto
himself. It invites Anarchy.”
The Chicago Daily
Law Bulletin, Wednesday April 26, 2006, Page 1, Illinois Political
Machines help breed corruption, Associated Press writer Deanna Bellandi states,
“Illinois is apparently a Petri dish for corruption. It is a real
breeding ground”.
That Chicago
is the most Corrupt City in America, Huffington Post, Internet
Newspaper, February 23, 2012; University of Illinois Professor Dick Simpson, “The
two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor’s mansion…..and the City
Council Chambers in Chicago.” Simpson a former Chicago Alderman told the AP “no
other State can match us.”
Respectfully Submitted
_____________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
5217 S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL. 60615
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL AND DISABILITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES
ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE, NE
WASHINGTON
D. C. 20544
Monzella Johnson,
Petitioner
07-16-90079
v
Diane P.
Wood, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Pamela Myerson Timothy C. Evans
Anne M.
Burke, Robert R. Thomas, Charles Freeman, Thomas L. Kilbride,
Lloyd A.
Karmeier, Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis et al.
Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Monzella Y. Johnson, certify that I have on
this day filed said Notice of Motion for Disqualification of judge et al. Before
the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals and noted parties.
To:
Dir. James Comey, FBI 601 4th Street Washington D.C. 20535
FBI Michael J. Anderson 2111 West
Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Ill. 60612
US Attorney, Zachary T. Fardon 219 S. Dearborn, Suite 500
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial and Disability
Attn: Office of
General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on February 9, 2017, A Petition for Review et al has been filed before the
Judicial Conference et al. Washington D.C.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________
5217 S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL. 60615
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
ON JUDICIAL AND DISABILITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES
ONE COLUMBUS
CIRCLE, NE
WASHINGTON D. C. 20544
Monzella Johnson,
Petitioner
07-16-90079
v
Diane P.
Wood, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Pamela Myerson Timothy C. Evans
Anne M.
Burke, Robert R. Thomas, Charles Freeman, Thomas L. Kilbride,
Lloyd A.
Karmeier, Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis et al.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I Monzella Y. Johnson, files herewith her
affidavit as required by Title 28, United States Code:
I Monzella Y. Johnson Pro Se being duly sworn
on oath states the aforementioned pleadings enumerated within said Petition for
Review et al, 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
That
it is apparent no judge in the Seventh
Circuit were aware they had become Trespassers of the laws and committed
Treason pursuant to the aforementioned acts and are the new “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
and a dangerous Threat to National Security due to their abuse of Power;
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state
officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution,
he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution,
and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and
is subjected in his person to the consequences of his
individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from
responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis
supplied in original].
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)
I affirm the
above as being true.
Respectfully
Submitted
_________________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
5217 S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL. 60615
No comments:
Post a Comment