THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN DETERMINES IF ALLEGATIONS OR COMPLAINTS LODGED IN COURT DETERMINES IF A JUDGE WILL HEAR THE MERITS IF POLITICALLY CONNECTED WHITE DEMOCRATS ARE INVOLVED

CHICAGO JUDGES ARE STILL ENFORCING JIM CROW LAWS OUTLAWED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

                                                          IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,        } Appeal from the United      

 As TRUSTEE for securitized Trust                     } States District Court for      

 2006-NC3, et al.                                                   } the Northern District of   

       Plaintiffs –Appellees                                      } Illinois, Eastern Division

                V                                                            }

No. 19-2040                                                          } No. 1:16-cv-08628

                                                                              }

 Monzella Y. Johnson                                           }

 Defendant-Appellee                                             }  Judge Gary Feinerman

                                  

June 17, 2019 

                                        JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Court of Appeals

FROM: Monzella Y. Johnson

CC:   All parties referenced in the Certificate of Service

SUBJECT:  Why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:                                                                           

 Cook County Judges have been Indicted and Convicted for Corruption and “Fixing” cases in Greylord but Federal Democratic Judges are ignoring the crimes due to Defendant being female African Americans complaining not Anglo-Saxon person, hereto attached, Gr Ex A Jurisdictional Brief Memorandum (filed June 5, 2019) detailing how Democrats under Alderman Burke “Fixed” cases where Supreme court Judge Anne burke coercing a judge as an attorney, Anne Burke also requested that the judge withdraw from the case saying, “My husband was the one who put you on the bench.”                                    

1.)   A federal court always has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A federal court has the authority to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a particular case. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v. Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 291 (1947)). • In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc., 411 F.3d 367, 374 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 292 (1947) (“‘[A] court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.’”).

See also Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805, 808 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)) (“‘[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.’”). In re Bunyan, 354 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)) (“A federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”). 13D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Richard D. Freer, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3536, p. 1 (“‘Jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction’ refers to the power of a court to determine whether it has authority over the parties to and the subject matter of a suit.”) [here in after 13D Wright & Miller]. 4 B. Unique Aspects of Jurisdiction in Practice The issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction “concerns the fundamental constitutional question of the allocation of judicial power between the federal and state governments.”

2.)   Wright & Miller § 3522, p. 125. Because of these weighty concerns, jurisdiction is a unique issue in the federal courts. Below, this outline notes five ways that adjudication of jurisdiction is different than adjudication of substantive issues. 1. A federal court must generally determine whether it has jurisdiction at the outset of litigation and must always make this determination before deciding the merits of a particular case. A court “generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) . . . .” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007) (declining to address jurisdiction and holding that district court had authority to dismiss action on forum non conveniens grounds before considering the merits) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93–102 (1998) (rejecting doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction” that would allow a court to rule on issues of law before adjudicating jurisdiction)). • Toeller v. Wis. Dep’t of Corrections, 461 F.3d 871, 873 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Before considering the merits of [the] appeal, we must resolve a preliminary question of appellate jurisdiction.”). Jurisdiction Upheld • Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008), aff’d 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (quoting Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157, 168 (2d Cir.2008)) (“‘Determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and a claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) (1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.’”). Jurisdiction Lacking Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As a threshold matter, we must decide whether we have jurisdiction . . . .”). • 13 Wright & Miller § 3522, p. 147. See also a. Exception: In some circumstances (lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens) a court can dismiss a case on non-merits grounds before deciding whether jurisdiction exists.

3.)   Although courts must generally decide a jurisdictional issue before deciding the merits of a case, “a federal court has leeway ‘to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to 5 a case on the merits.’” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (quoting Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585 (1999)). So, while a court cannot consider the merits of a case before deciding a jurisdictional issue, a court can decide a case on non-merits grounds before deciding whether jurisdiction exists. Id. The Supreme Court has recognized two “threshold grounds” on which a court can resolve a case without addressing subject matter jurisdiction: (1) personal jurisdiction and (2) forum non conveniens. Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (“Customarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter, but there are circumstances in which a district court appropriately accords priority to a personal jurisdiction inquiry.”); Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007) (applying exception to forum non conveniens).

   4.)  The Ninth Circuit has held that the personal-jurisdiction exception to the jurisdiction-first rule is limited to cases where deciding the personal jurisdiction issue would result in the end of the case. Special Invs., Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2004). In Special Investments, the court held that it was improper for the district court to dismiss an action against a defendant when other defendants remained without first deciding whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The D.C. Circuit has provided a test to determine when a court can decide an issue before adjudicating jurisdiction: a court can decide an issue before jurisdiction if the issue does not involve “an exercise of a court’s law-declaring power . . . .” See Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

    5.)  A court exercises its law-declaring power when a ruling has an effect on “primary conduct.” See id. (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 475 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) (classifying rules affecting “primary decisions respecting human conduct” as substantive for purposes of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).

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)   

D-    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);

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

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).

“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).

   6.)   That Democratic Judge Feinerman without rhyme or reason failed to READ and ascertain the legal merits put before the court establishing that, Defendant had met her burden within the preponderance of the evidence proving that Democratic judges in Cook County were “Trespassing upon the Laws” aiding and abetting in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy” trying to steal their home in the guise as an unlawful foreclosure. 

A-    That Democratic Judge appointed by former President Barack Obama corroborated his role in said “Organized Criminal Conspiracy” by upholding and closing his eyes to the plethora of Terrorist Civil Rights violations perpetrated in said motion for MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT VACATE ALL JUDGMENTS DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A “NULLITY” CASE BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS”   filed April 30, 2019 but DISMISSED May 1^st, 2019.

B-    That without reading the aforementioned Motion HE DENIED SAID MOTION, “THE MOTION PRESENTS NO MERITORIUS GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 5/21/2019 IS STRICKEN.

C-    That Democratic Judges from the Political Machine have circumvented every rule of law every legal precedent from the United States Supreme Court and every area of the United States Constitution by engaging in Hate Crimes upholding the “Criminal Enterprise” of Alderman Edward Burke “fixing” cases in Cook County.

        7.)  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.

         8.) 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.

         9.) 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

          10.)  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 it’s eleventh year and every Democratic judge has closed their eyes to judges Trespassing upon the laws in this matter.

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].

          11.)  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.

      12.)    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”

     13.)    That Judge Norgle still is deliberating on said matter and because so many judges are racist and filled with hate is all the reasons why so many lack the aptitude or understanding of Trespassing upon the Laws because Democratic Judges do not recognize this as a law where people of color are concerned because people of color will never be considered equal within the laws of the United States Constitution in Illinois Courts and has demonstrated this fact in every unlawful ruling against all Defendants standing up against the Terrorist in the Democratic Political Machine in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois.

     14.)    Pursuant to Gr Ex D, Motion for Reconsideration to Reinstate Case 88 D 079012 & Vacate all Judgments due to Orders Being Void A Nullity Case Being “Fraudulent” Judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” Engaging in “Treason Offenses Acting as “Private Citizens” Making Misrepresentations to the Court & Issuance of  a Rule to Show Cause for Sanctions and Remand Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137,

     A-   Ex 8  A letter from Karyn Mehringer, MA Forensic Psychology, Requests for Investigation of Justice Ann Burke, and Alderman Edward Burke, Jan 22, 2008, Page 1 Par 2 “I am co-founder of the non-profit organization known as Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) which was created to stop the public corruption in the family courts in Illinois that is hurting the children of Illinois families. 

Page 2 Par 3   I have read the book, When Corruption Was King, by Robert Cooley, and have been in contact with him. Mr. Cooley is the former criminal attorney who was responsible for the FBI investigation, Operation Gambat, which resulted in the successful prosecution and conviction of three judges, one alderman, several attorneys, and multiple other Circuit Court of Cook County and City of Chicago officials.  After reading Mr. Cooley’s book, I researched other sources regarding the professional and personal backgrounds of Justice Anne Burke and her husband, Edward, the longtime alderman from the 14th Ward, and the powerful and influential chairman of Chicago’s City Council's finance committee and chairman of the Democratic Party’s judicial slate-making subcommittee, the alleged “gatekeeper” of who becomes a judge in Chicago’s courts.

I respectfully call your attention to the information and allegations presented herein as well as to your Oath of Office, and to the absolute duty to report misconduct of judges and attorneys under Illinois Supreme Court Rules, which rules mandate an investigation of the allegations herein. [Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 63 (B)(3)(a) and/or Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.3(a)&(b); See Endnotes.]  Further, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District opinion entered on November 1, 2005 in Case No. 05 C 0283, Golden and Golden v. Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli, LLC, et al, stated in pertinent part, “The court notes that Illinois attorneys have an absolute duty to report misconduct of other attorneys. See Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill.2d 214, 226, 730 N.E.2d 4, 246 Ill. Dec. 324 (2000)”

In Mr. Cooley’s book, he specifically stated that Alderman Ed Burke contacted Judge Cieslak, recently deceased, regarding at least two murder cases and tried to influence his decision on those cases.  In his book, that was printed and distributed nationally, Mr. Cooley stated that Alderman Ed Burke and his wife, Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, were involved in a molestation case that he, himself, was asked to fix.  After these allegations were published, when Alderman Ed Burke and his wife, Justice Anne Burke, were asked to comment on the allegations, they stated, “No comment.”

He told me that within the past year, Judge Cieslak gave an interview to two members of the media in which Judge Cieslak verified that all the allegations made in Cooley’s book were true. After the judge gave the interview, the two separate reporters specifically told Mr. Cooley that they were “not allowed to do the story because it involves Ed Burke.”

Mr. Cooley told me that he has talked to a number of people and has provided information about Ed and Anne Burke similar to that which resulted in indictments and convictions in Operation Gambit.  He told me that major newspaper and television entities flat out told him that they could not do a substantive story on Ed Burke or Anne Burke.

Cammon and Remy Murder Cases

In his book, Mr. Cooley stated Ed Burke and Anne Burke along with Attorney Pat Tuite fixed a murder case before Judge Maloney.  Herbert Cammon’s case was a murder case in which it was alleged that Herbert Cammon, a gay black man, murdered his wife with the help of his gay lover by stabbing her over 40 times and leaving the knife sticking out of her mouth.  It was alleged that he murdered his wife to obtain the proceeds of a $250,000 life insurance policy. The case was originally assigned to Judge Arthur Ceilsik. After a mistrial because of a hung jury, Ed Burke approached Judge Cieslik and told him to withdraw from the case. When the judge refused to withdraw from the case, he told the judge, “What’s the big deal.  It’s only a fucking nigger.”[1] Ed Burke’s wife, Anne, had filed an appearance in the case as co-counsel with Pat Tuite.  Anne Burke also requested that the judge withdraw from the case saying, “My husband was the one who put you on the bench.”  [Judge Cieslek lived in the 14^th ward.]  When the judge finally withdrew from the case due to media pressure initiated by the attorneys, the case was assigned to Judge Tom Maloney.  Judge Maloney dismissed the case in a bench trial.  Cooley revealed that he was wearing a wire when the aforementioned events took place such that the FBI was fully informed.  Cooley revealed that he was in communication with Judge Cieslik and he tried to encourage the judge to not let the case go.  He also reported to the feds that the case would be assigned to Judge Maloney who would fix the case.

Mr. Cooley revealed that this was the second murder case that Ed Burke tried to fix before Judge Ceislak. Prior to the Cammon case, Cooley wrote about a murder case that Ed Burke tried to fix before Judge Cieslik as a favor to one of the mob bosses, Angelo “The Hook” LaPeitra. This was the Remy murder case in which some Chicago Police officers beat a black man to death for smoking on an “L” train. Cooley stated in the book that one of the police officers was a relative of LaPeitra.  He also reported that when Ed Burke was talking to Attorney Sam Banks, Ed Burke made similar racist statements as in the Cammon murder case, specifically, “It’s only a fucking nigger. I can’t see whey the judge is making such a big deal about it.”  

     15.)   The aforementioned allegations corroborated as being factual by Robert Cooley and Judge Cieslik demonstrate that the judicial system is under siege by Terrorist by members of the Democratic Political Machine, in that said judges in the party have found ways to systematically wear down any person paying for an attorney or individuals representing themselves Pro se as demonstrated in this matter.

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).

“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)”.

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.          

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it, had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.

     16.  That Judge Yeghiayan had evidence of the following pleadings noted in the Motion objecting Plaintiff’s motion but stated in his court order described as a “Nullity” “Defendant has filed a response to the instant motion, making various accusations against the Plaintiff, but Defendant has not shown the removal is timely.”

             A- That Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is being subpoenaed to appear at a hearing on appointment of special prosecutor in Jussie Smollet case Chicago Tribune April 27, 2019 for releasing Jussie Smollett.

                  Sheila O’Brian, a former appellate judge, also filed a notice to appear in “an attempt to get Smollett to attend the hearing Thursday as well, her petition said that Foxx’s actions created an appearance of impropriety, a perception that justice was not served here, that Mr. Smollett received special attention”    

             B-  That it is clear Racism has a lot to do with her being subpoenaed, in that Alderman Burke can hand pick racist judges or puppet black judges to steal Defendant’s home frame an innocent man by locking him up not one time but 5 times for allegedly owing child support on a case that was dismissed; and what is even  worse pursuant to Gr Ex C (Cazembe Oboi Kabir) Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration Vacate (August 27^th Order due to Error “Fraud” Trespassing upon the Laws Making the Order a Nullity “Void” with Affidavit, had this man unlawfully remanded into custody for not paying maintenance on a matter where the Defendant had defaulted, but allowed a white attorney to falsify every document necessary to extort money from his wages, Cook County Judges are not following the laws and do not fear any judge in the Federal venue and seems to be laughing at the FBI because so many judges in the Federal Court are just as Racist and Corrupt as Democratic judges in the County and State.

D-    That No judge or attorney has been indicted subpoenaed to any Hearings or suspended its business as usual because of the color of our skin, in that Black and Brown judges are profiting off the mayhem of destroying their own race supporting said Terrorist realizing they would not be admonished provided they continue genocide on their own ethnic groups.

      17.     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.

      18.  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.  

 DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS ROOTS IN VIOLENCE, RACISM AND BIGOTRY

DECEMBER 18, 2013| BY ROBERT GEHL

History can be an annoying, pernicious thing. Especially for those who try to hide it.

When I read this morning that a high school in the South was going to drop its racist, confederate name, I immediately thought of Democrats Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd, who were Klan members and staunch segregationists.

But no … the school is Nathan B. Forrest High School in Jacksonville, Fla. Forrest was a Confederate General and a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

I decided to research a little bit into General Forrest and it turns out he was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. In fact, the KKK was founded by Democrats to terrorize blacks and white Republicans.

The history of the Democratic Party is rooted in racism, violence, lynchings and bigotry. The National Review published an article detailing the racist history of the Democratic Party:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party’s birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

July 30, 1866: New Orleans’s Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats’ national slogan: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule.”

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana’s statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg’s racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats’ Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia’s logorrhea U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body’s dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK’s Imperial Wizard: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News’s Tony Snow:

 “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.” National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.

Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker pleaded: “Vote for the crook: It’s important!”

Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often against intense Democratic headwinds:

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”

February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended “separate but equal” classrooms.

September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Republican Party also is the home of numerous “firsts.” Among them:

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.

August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

By the way, if we’re going to strip schools of the names of racists, Strom Thurmond High School in South Carolina and Robert C Byrd high school in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.                      

        18.)    That a clerk in Dorothy Browns office altered government records in the data base at the Daley Center to reflect that Barbara Dutton was not the attorney who filed a Complaint without filing an Appearance representing (MERS) Mortgage Electronic Regis. Hereto attached, Page 1 of 31, dated 1-29-2010 printout.   

         19.)    That this Honorable Court made his ruling on a document deliberately altered so as to undermine this courts integrity so as to gain a favorable ruling, in that, said document names US Bank as a Trustee and attorney Robert Wutscher as the attorney who filed the initial complaint.

         20.)     Counsel is contending duplicity in the application of the laws in justifying their Criminal Civil Rights violations in misappropriating the laws as a basis why the case should have been Remanded back to State Court, stating, “Monzella Johnson removed this state-foreclosure case to this Court eight years after the case was filed”

         21.)    Counsel failed to mention that 1.) The court never had jurisdiction on the Defendant because Counsel failed to file the proper appearance making all orders VOID; 2.) That on June 3, 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 of et al.” Gr Ex D of the Petition for Removal, Page 1, Par 1;

         22.) That counsel failed to mention nobody objected or attempted to vacate said order entered six years ago;

       A-    That because the court never had jurisdiction on the Defendants in the first place, the clock did not start for the Petition for Removal until after the Politically Appointed Associate Judge (Pamela Gillespie) denied the admissions of Gr Ex A Respondent’s Response and Objection to the Order entered on May 25, 2016 w/Affidavit, Gr Ex   C, Respondent’s Response Motion Striking & Objecting Plaintiff’s Complaint due to “Fraud” and Barred by 5 year Statute of Limitation 735 ILCS 5/13-205 w/Affidavit, Gr Ex D, Respondent’s Response Motion to Impose Sanctions due to “Fraud” on the Court Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 w/Affidavit;

      B-     That the Associate Judge abused her discretion violated all Canon ethics and Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendants Civil Rights by denying the aforementioned Motions proving beyond the Preponderance of the Evidence that Associate Judges cannot and will not apply the laws in a just and fair manner, due to how they are appointed. In that Black and Brown judges are mere puppets and has demonstrated their willingness to go to jail risk losing everything to protect Alderman Burke or any Anglo-Saxon person in the Democratic Political Machine;

       C-    That the Defendants properly Petitioned the Federal Court for Removal because justice cannot be had in those courts engaging in what is clear and convincing “Kangaroo Rulings” better known as “Jim Crow” enforcement Laws outlawed by the United States Supreme Court but it is clear Illinois don’t honor those laws as demonstrated in this case;

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.

       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.;

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.

         23.)    Counsel is appealing to this court to ignore all of the racist Civil Rights diabolical Acts lodged at the Defendant and grant them anything they request on paper so as to prove because of Defendants skin color and the fact they are seniors African American persons do not receive Equal Protection of the Laws in the State of Illinois;

            A-   That lawyers are lying certain judges are obviously “Fixing” cases worse than in Grey Lord Indictments, from the Chicago Tribune article Dec. 19, 1985 the allegations ranged from fixing drunken-driving cases to more serious felony charges. One lawyer was caught on tape bragging that "even a murder case can be fixed if the judge is given something to hang his hat on." By the end of the decade, nearly 100 people had been indicted, and all but a handful were convicted. Of the 17 judges indicted, 15 were convicted. The tally of convictions included 50 lawyers, as well as court clerks, police officers and sheriff's deputies.

Greylord was not the first federal investigation of public corruption in Chicago, but it was a watershed in its use of eavesdropping devices and a mole to obtain evidence instead of relying on wrongdoers to become government informants.

           B-    That Defendants has had their home for more than 61 years longer than many have had careers and worked hard retiring to earn said property and a bunch of hoodlum attorneys are using their law degrees to steal from persons they thought they could intimidate and bully with the help of certain corrupt racist politically connected judges.  

  

ILL. App. (1^st Dist. 2000). A “VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order of judgment, or where the order was procured by FRAUD- in re Adoption of E.L., 248 ILL. Dec. 171, 733 N.E. 2d 846, 315 ILL. App. 3d 137- Judgm 7, 16, 375.

          24.)     That Counsel has admitted in their responses taking part in an “Organized Conspiracy” against the Defendants trying to steal their home using “Fraudulent Acts” surpassing human imagination, in that every judge in the State Courts whom this matter pended before closed their eyes to every unlawful act known to man because of their skin color 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.

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.

          25.)    That in spite of the aforementioned legal precedents recorded within, the Circuit Court politically appointed judges ignored all of Defendants pleadings arguments and affidavits and denied every Motion against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence demonstrating the courts are rigged against the innocent and the just, in spite of the laws,    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

         26.)    That the Defendants are retired Civil servants from respected positions within the City of Chicago and this is the methodology how these corrupt individuals use their influence and legal wit to take and steal from hard working individuals.

         27.)      That the Defendants have been forced to spend and deplete their savings and earnings to defend against the frivolous litigations lodged at them by said individuals “organized in this conspiracy” trying to steal their home in the guise as a foreclosure.

          28.)      That Ex 1, demonstrates how a Rigged Court system ruined an innocent man’s life of 29 years, innocent men have been incarcerated by this same type of rigged system for this many years and later been deemed innocent, he has yet to see justice and now we are unlawfully enduring the same injustice perpetrated in Ex 1, now it‘s 2016 beyond the statute of limitations depleting everything we have earned to finance corrupt white men’s lives at this rate, we would be homeless and broke demonstrating unequivocally Jim Crow laws still exist in Illinois and is not outlawed in accordance to the United States Supreme Court Laws;   

           29.)      That so many attorneys are arrogant and contemptuous violating the laws because it is such a norm in State Courts they don’t feel no judge will ever admonish any of them or impose any type of Sanction on them because persons of color are not deemed citizens of merit or equal in Illinois, in that Ex 1 validates this verity as a fact!

A-    To further validate the verity of the above, Defendant properly Noticed the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the filing of the Notice of Removal filed in Federal Court (September 2, 2016)

B-    Said Law Firm Postestivo & Assc. Along with a person(s) conspired with a Clerk in the Circuit Court, hereto attached, Ex 2 an unlawful publication of Defendant’s property placed in three Circuit Court envelopes from Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown Ref as Ex 3, 4;

C-     That it is clear from the aforementioned, that attorneys do not comply with judges directives they circumvent any and all laws to achieve any unlawful endeavor demonstrated in this matter and expects this Honorable Court to adhere to all unlawful acts and continuously deny the Defendants because of their skin color and age, one can infer because they are seniors, they

 will not be able to maintain the necessary resolve to fight and keep their home;

    30.)   Judge Yeghiayan is not the only Judge who was “Fixing” cases on behalf of brethren in the Democratic Political Machine, in the matter of Joe Louis Lawrence Robert M. Dow, Jr. who took over deceased Racist Judge John W. Darrah 16 CV 7434,

ON APRIL 24TH, PLAINTIFF FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE W/AFFIDAVIT AND SERVED IT ON ALL PARTIES AND NOTICED IT FOR MAY 2ND AT 9:15 AM, THE CLERKS CHECKED THE CASE 16 CV 7434 MAKING SURE THE CASE WAS ACTIVE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE MOTION IT WAS VERY ACTIVE AND ALL COPIES WERE FILE STAMPED.

JUDGE DOW'S CLERK PLACED THE MOTION ON THE 9:15 AM MOTION CALL SHEET FOR MAY 2, 2018.

That said judge colluded with a Federal Clerk, in that said clerk with initials K.S. improperly recorded the April 3, 2018 court order into the database when in fact said order was in fact tendered after Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment April 24, 2018.

That on December 18, 2017 Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. entered a “Minute Order” hereto attached, “Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case is taken under advisement. The court will issue a ruling by mail after it has taken an opportunity to review the motion and the prior history of the case, …..et al. Notice of motion date of 12/21/2017 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date.” Is the only court order Plaintiff ever received from the court.

Milchtein v. Chisholm, 880 F. 3d 895, 897-98 (7th Cir. 2018),  THIS CASE WAS FILED APRIL 24TH 2018.

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HOW THIS REPUBLICAN JUDGE WITH ALL OF THESE ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS  INCLUDE A LAW FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PUT IT IN A COURT ORDER FOR APRIL 3RD THAT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL APRIL 24TH? He has not been suspended indicted or admonished for this “Fraudulent Act”.

     31.   A Massachusetts District Court judge has been charged with obstruction of justice and suspended without pay for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid federal immigration agents by allowing him to sneak out the back entrance of the courthouse after a hearing last year.

The judge, Shelley Richmond Joseph, was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday, along with Wesley MacGregor, who retired last month after 26 years as a Massachusetts Trial Court officer.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling announced the indictment at a press conference alongside top officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Boston field office.

“This case is not about immigration,” Lelling insisted. “It is about the rule of law.”

     32.  In that here in Federal Court Cook County Courts or the Appellate Courts the Rule of Law does not apply to people of color now Judge Gary Feinerman obviously didn’t read anything Defendant’s filed it is clear Democrats don’t seem to be reading anything Defendants have presented before the courts if they did probably someone would have been man enough to try to stop this bullying tactics of Racial Hatred of trying to steal their home.

 33. That said Democrats are so Corrupt and Nefarious and deem themselves untouchable “Trespassing upon the Laws” engaging in “Treason Offenses” in that said Democratic Terrorist are now in violation of the following Act, Pursuant to Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: the law is clear, “Whenever in any State or part of a State………unlawful combinations…….shall be organized and armed, and so numerous and powerful et al…………and whenever, by reason of either or all of the causes aforesaid, the conviction of such offenders and the preservation of the public safety shall become…..Impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall be deemed a rebellion against the Government of the United States…..”   

WHEREFORE DEFENDANT PRAYS that this Court Reconsider this Motion in its entirety and keep this matter in the Federal Court and Invoke Jurisdiction on all parties complicit in this “Organized Conspiracy”:

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

3.) For an Order of Sanctions Remanding any and all parties complicit in this “Organized Conspiracy” stealing Defendants home;

4.)  For an Order allowing the Amendment of this document to satisfy this court’s requirement for jurisdiction.

5.)  For an Order having these allegations investigated by Federal Officials

6.)  For an Order alternatively transferring this matter out of Illinois away from this District to a State where judges follow and adhere to the Rules of Law and not in accordance to one’s ethnicity, gender or political affiliations.

7.)  For the entry of an Order awarding to your Defendant for such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which this court may deem overwhelmingly just;

Finally, this Motion 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 cannot 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.”   

                                  

In that it is an impossibility for any person of color to receive Equal Protection of the Laws when judges are acting as Gods, Tyrants dispensing laws that suits their racial disposition and not in accordance to the laws of the United States Constitution and laws of the United Supreme Court, the following Petition for Transfer was filed and ignored so as to keep the criminal allegations of the judges involved a secret.

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.            

  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. Respondent provided cases attached to the exhibits 18 D 3208 and Emergency Motion filed before Federal Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. regarding William Stewart Boyd, case 2015 CH 01670 Re Franklin Ulysses Valderrama, case 12-M-711552 Leonard Murray, case 2008 CH 33616 US Bank et al. v Monzella Y. Johnson et al.

    

Lightfoot said her administration will be rolling out more ethics proposals for the City Council to consider. But Lightfoot, who personally prosecuted corrupt Ald. Virgil Jones as part of Silver Shovel, acknowledged that change will need more than new ordinances.

“Fundamentally, if somebody wants to violate the law, and thinks that it’s their right to monetize their position, there’s not much that we can do, but that’s why we need the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office to be diligent,” Lightfoot said. “I don’t want the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s “I don’t want the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office to in effect be our HR manager, but there is a need for law enforcement, because people aren’t getting the message.”

Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court Laws and Ku Klux Klan Act Anglo Saxon men within the legal system of Illinois are just as racist and Hateful now as they were in the 30, 40’s and 50’s said judges are using the laws unlawfully to oppress and Lynch said Appellant for speaking up against the injustices perpetrated by Anglo Saxon men in the legal venues.  

B.     Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breed 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”)

C.      The District Court demonstrating an act of Improprieties in an attempt to aid and assist said Defendant’s  named in Suit, In Re Judge No. 93-154, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 1994), And Deception by falsifying reasons for preventing a legally sufficient Complaint and Motion from being served on Appellee’s, In re Ferrara, 582 N.W. 2d 817 (Mich. 1998),In re Renfer, 493 S.E. 2d 434 (N.C. 1997), In re Kroger, 702 A. 2d 64 (Vt. 1997), Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 657 P. 2d 372, 377, 188 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1983).

D.    Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992)

E.     That the Judge erred considerably when it received notice and knowledge of other Judges complicit in a Criminal Conspiracy failed to follow Canon Ethics Leslie W. Abramson, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751 (1997). The Judges Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its effect on Judicial Independence.

F.      That because many Anglo Saxons in the Democratic Party and certain Republicans have infiltrated the Democratic party and have methodically overturned the legal tribunal recruiting the necessary persons who will keep their mouths shut and continue the terrorist mayhem on innocent citizens fighting injustice in the courts but for the first time Chicago has a Female Mayor (Hon. Lori Lightfoot) of color not the typical Democrat who sits back like the others and let corrupt Anglo Saxon or puppet Negroes or Water boy males who goes along with the “Hate” and Racist Acts perpetrated by these hateful individuals who keeps their mouths shut so as to be accepted by them;

The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Timothy C. Evans (Chief Judge). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ 
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.

Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abetting, another judge's criminal activity.

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). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (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).

VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:

'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'"

In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:

'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"

Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".

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. 

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 7^th 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 (7^th 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;

I affirm the above as being true.

                                                                                        Respectfully Submitted

                                                                             

                                                                                       _____________________

                                                                                           Monzella Y. Johnson

                                                                                          5217 S. Ingleside Ave.

                                                                                             Chicago, IL. 60615

                                                                             

                                                                                           Defendant-Appellant

                                                          IN THE

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                         FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

                                                    Certificate of Service

  

I Joe Louis Lawrence, Defendant-Appellant, certify that I have on this day deposited said Jurisdictional Memorandum to all parties recorded in said Notice via regular mail/hand delivery.

To:   US Attorney                                    FBI  Dir. Chris Wray

John R. Lausch, Jr.                                2111 West Roosevelt Road

219 S. Dearborn, 5^th floor                         Chicago, Ill. 60612

                                      Hon Mayor Lori Lightfoot

                                           City Hall 7^th floor

                                           Chicago, IL. 60601

                                                                                

Circuit Court of Cook County, Dorothy Brown

50 West Washington,

Chicago, IL 60601 Suite 1001

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                           

 Postestivo & Assoc.                          Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP

 223 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 610     151 N. Franklin Street, #2500

Chicago, Illinois 60606                         Chicago, Illinois 60606

         

                PLEASE BE ADVISED that on June 17, 2019, A Jurisdictional Memorandum been filed before the United States Court of Appeals.  

                                                                             

                 

Dated June 17th, 2019

                                          

                                                                              Respectfully Submitted

                                                                            _______________________  

                                                                                     Monzella Y. Johnson

                                                                                    5217 S. Ingleside Ave.

                                                                                      Chicago, IL. 60615