JUDGE FREDRENNA LYLE LIKE SO MANY OTHER BLACK AND BROWN JUDGES SHARING HER ETHNICITY HAVE SOLD OUT TO THE MACHINE DESTROYING THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS ENGAGING IN JIM CROW APPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS ORCHESTRATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SO AS TO CONTINUE THE RACIST HATEFUL DOCTRINES BY BECOMING THE COLORED ENFORCERS COMMITTING GENOCIDE ON THEIR OWN RACE.
ALLEGEDLY US BANK GAVE JUDGE LYLE SOME TYPE OF ALLEGED KICKBACK AS AN INCENTIVE TO FIXED THIS CASE WHERE TWO RETIRED CITY CIVIL SERVANTS A POLICE OFFICER AND SCHOOL TEACHER BY HELPING THIS ALLEGED RACIST LAW FIRM POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES STEAL THEIR HOME IN THE GUISE AS A FORECLOSURE.
SELF HATE IS REAL HERE IS A JUDGE WHO IS DARING THE FBI TO COME AND APPREHEND HER IN THAT IN HER MIND LIKE SO MANY PUPPET NIGGER JUDGES AS LONG AS SHE IS PERPETRATING CRIMES ON PEOPLE OF COLOR HELPING CAUCASIANS STEAL THEIR HOMES NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO HER.
HAVE ANYONE EVER HEARD OF A PERSON IN DEFAULT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 30 DAYS?
WHEN CAUCASIANS ATTORNEYS PRESENT SUMMARY JUDGMENTS TAKING PEOPLE OF COLOR HOMES SHE SIGNS THEM RIGHT AWAY BUT WHEN THESE WOMEN OF COLOR PRESENTED THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE IGNORED THE LAWS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND GAVE THE ATTORNEYS ALMOST A MONTH TO RESPOND.
WHAT IS DEEP! THEY KNOW THE FBI AND US ATTORNEY IS BEING PROPERLY NOTICED BUT THE COLORED ENFORCERS (BETTER KNOWN AS TERRORIST) ARE GIVING THE FBI THE MIDDLE FINGER.
READ THE TYPE OF NIGGERS EDWARD BURKE APPOINTED TO THE BENCH
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank
National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling
and Servicing Agreement Dated as of
)
December
1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust
2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3
)
Petitioner
)
)
V.
) Judge Fredrenna Lyle
) ) Room 2808
)
Monzella
Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella
)
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems,
Inc. As Nominee for New Century
)
Mortgage
Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson
)
( C )
Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank; )
Unknown
Owners and Non-Record Claimants, )
)
Respondents
)
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
& RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING ALEXANDER B. POTESTIVO
& ASSOCIATES DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD ON THE COURT” ORDERING JUDGMENT BE
ENTERED $13 MILLION DOLLARS INSTANTER WARRANTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INVOKE JURISDICTION
INSTANTER PURSUANT TO SAID PARTIES ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTS OF AN “ORGANIZED
CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE” NULLIFYING COURT ORDER OF DEC. 9, 2019 & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING FREDRENNA LYLE
ACTING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS w/AFFIDAVIT
Now comes Respondent,
Monzella Y. Johnson et al. being represented Pro Se in this cause respectfully
represents to this court the reasons and files herewith her Affidavit in
support of Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions et al;
1.
That pursuant to Federal Laws of the United States and
Laws of the United States Constitution Various Cook County, State and Federal Judges
do not honor, respect or adhere to the aforementioned laws:
A- Respondent
filed a Jurisdictional Memorandum (June 10, 2019) in the Seventh Circuit, Court
of Appeals detailing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
Hereto attached as Gr Ex A.
“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.”
2. The Local Rules provide detailed
instructions as to how litigants should approach their summary judgment motions
and responses. Local Rule 56.1(a) provides that a motion for summary must
include a "statement of material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a
judgment as a matter of law."
This statement of material facts
"shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific
references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials
relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph." Part (b) of
Local Rule 56.1 requires a party opposing summary for judgment to file a
concise response to the movant's statement of material facts. That statement is
required to include a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's
statement, including in the case of any disagreement, "specific references
to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied
upon." The rule is very clear that "all material facts set forth
in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed admitted unless
controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
In the matter of
Raymond, 442 F. 3d at 606. (7th Cir. 2013) ) The Court, nevertheless, is concerned and
considers the prejudice to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure, particularly
because cases should be decided on their merits. Certainly, the failure to file
a response to a summary judgment motion can be fatal. See, e.g., id at 611.
- That
Pursuant to the aforementioned, Plaintiff has admitted and was served Gr
Ex A via receptionist Cassandra Summary Judgment July 18, 2019,
by Joe Louis Lawrence, hereto attached as Gr Ex B, Affidavit around
2:35 pm.
A-
Plaintiff’s admitted pursuant to Gr Ex A Pages
11, 12 demonstrates how Judge Lyle taking part in helping a bank steal the home
of a retired Chicago Board of Education teacher and Retired Police Officer and
other judges in the Domestic Relations Division unlawfully taking children from
mothers helping child rep attorneys accrue fees in this extortion operation.
- That
because Judge Lyle became a “Private Citizen” as she corroborated and used
her robe to aid and assist the Plaintiff in these diabolical crimes
admitted in open court not reading any of the Motions filed by the
Defendant or Plaintiff which is asinine and indefensible, she had a duty
and obligation within the laws to make sure that Plaintiff were in fact
compliant within the laws;
A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates
disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating
court rules and procedures. Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to
accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s
indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with
our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its
citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
A-
Fraud upon the court is a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v.
United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v.
C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question
that a court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the
procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328
U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447. The power of the court to unearth
such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v.
Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto)
61, 25 L. Ed. 93.
B-
“A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A
judge is a judicial officer, paid by the Government to act impartially and
lawfully”. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626. “A void judgment is regarded as a
nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no
judgment. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place….It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Judgments 43, 44,
45. Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d
227-232
C-
“A Void Judgment from
its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in
any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment, order or decree may be attacked
at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v. Peoples
Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill. App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st
Dist. 1964)
D-
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).
- That
Defendant Monzella Johnson repeatedly insisted that the judge look into
her computer, in that she read from her well-prepared pleaded argument.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION STRIKING & OBJECTING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S NAME, MOTION TO APPOINT SELLING OFFICER, CERTIFICATE OF
PROVE-UP OF FORECLOSURE FEES AND COSTS DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD” &
RESPONDENTS BEING VICTIMS OF AN “ORGANIZED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY” TRYING TO STEAL
THE SAID HOME WARRANTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INVOKE JURISDICTION INSTANTER
PURSUANT TO SAID PARTIES ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTS NULLIFYING ALL COURT ORDERS
w/AFFIDAVIT. Properly Re Noticed Nov. 26, 2019.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO AMEND PUNITIVE DAMAGES DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD” & RESPONDENTS BEING
VICTIMS OF AN “ORGANIZED TERRORIST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY” TRYING TO STEAL THE
SAID HOME WARRANTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INVOKE JURISDICTION INSTANTER PURSUANT TO SAID
PARTIES ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTS NULLIFYING ALL COURT ORDERS w/AFFIDAVIT.
Properly Filed and Noticed Nov. 19, 2019 with the attached Affidavit.
First
of all, I OBJECT to anything COUNSEL attempts to assert in this court due to
the admissions already made in the Seventh Circuit when they failed to respond
to the court’s order causing a summary judgment to be filed.
That Gr Ex A is the same document the
Seventh Circuit Judges ordered Postestivo, law firm, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Locke Lord, LLP all received Notice
and knowledge failed to respond to the court order; thereby, admitting to
every pleading once said Summary Judgment was filed June 24, 2019.
For
the record your Honor Plaintiff has not presented nothing before you timely or
defensive refuting our Summary Judgment.
For Example, Nov. 19, 2019 Plaintiff filed purportedly what they
thought was a Motion but it was a CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
if your Honor like have your Clerk to pull it up on the computer and see for yourself.
On
Nov. 26, 2019, we received our Notice from the Plaintiff mailed from Rochester
Michigan Friday or Saturday of that week where they filed a MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT et al.
Corrupt Judges
don’t follow the rules in any court or simply don’t know them because many are
not fit to be judges in the first place. The rule is very clear that
"all material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving
party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the
opposing party." Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).
In
the matter of Raymond, 442 F. 3d at 606. (7th Cir. 2013) ) The Court,
nevertheless, is concerned and considers the prejudice to Plaintiff for
Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure, particularly because cases should be decided on
their merits. Certainly, the failure to file a response to a summary judgment
motion can be fatal. See, e.g., id at 611.
A- That Judge Lyle ignored
Defendant’s argument as they denied receiving said documents, she said that Defendants
were entitled to their opinion about corrupt judges, in that Lyle repeated that,
“she never read anything and that she just received documents from Judge Simko’s
clerk this morning”
B- Initially it appeared she
only had the documents Plaintiff allegedly given to her until a woman handed
her male law clerk a thick document which turned out to be the Defendant’s
documents.
C-
- Plaintiff filed a Summary judgment as Exhibit
D and not a Motion pursuant to Civil Procedure Statutes 5/2 – 603
Form of Pleadings in addition where Exhibits are attached pursuant to 5/2-
606 no where in Plaintiffs pleadings it complies or the attorneys have a
remedial understanding of this particular statute.
- That
said law firm withdrew said “Fraudulent” Motion in Simko’s court but
refiled the defective “Fraudulent Motion” Nov 19, 2019, as a Motion but it
was actually a Certification of Service on Defendant’s never
did the Plaintiff file a Notice to the Defendants of any future court
dates and because of “Private Citizen Lyle” “Directed Evidence” of using
her robe to engage in Terrorist Acts in said Criminal Enterprise by
ignoring the laws and Defendants oral argument explaining the episodes of
the acts of “Fraud” perpetrated on the courts not one attorney objected to
anything Defendant argued.
Lyle
interjected flippantly told the Defendant she is talking apples and oranges
here is the papers right here they said they filed the motion and I believe
them here it is right here, Defendant Marcia looked back at Joe Louis who was
sitting in the back of the court quiet never saying anything, Lyle hollered at
his direction in a agitating tone “NO TALKING ACROSS THE COURT ROOM” it
was clear the judge was trying to deflect the Defendant in any way possible
trying to discourage her in her oral argument because she initially insisted
that the Defendant could not file a Summary judgment and Object and Strike the
Plaintiff’s Motion at the same time, Defendant Monzella snapped back and told
the judge by reading off her oral argument it was presented in Judge Simko’s
court and they withdrew their motion and when they mailed us something during
the week of that weekend of Nov 28 or 29, 2019, we filed a Re Notice of the
Motion Objecting and Striking et al. she became noticeably pissed and said she
was passing the case to the end of the call anticipating many of the attorneys
would be gone but they stayed.
Conspirators
to be guilty of offense need not have entered 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;
- When
the judge recalled the case, her tone changed, she then proceeded to say
that we filed a Motion to Strike their Prove-up Affidavit and their Summary
Judgment, but re asserted she had not read anything, hereto attached Ex
A Court Order;
A- Judge Lyle became a law
unto herself by aiding and abetting in said alleged Criminal Enterprise by
ignoring all rules or simply don’t know them by allowing the Plaintiff to
respond to a Summary judgment when they failed to object or respond to it in a
timely manner in the matter, Premier Electrical Construction Co. v.
American National Bank of Chicago, 276 Ill. App. 3d 816, 834 (1995), for the
proposition that local rules have the force of statute and are binding on the
trial court as well as the parties. It is well settled law in Illinois that the
circuit courts do not have the discretion to ignore their own rules.
- That
Pursuant to Par B Page 14, 15 of Gr Ex A, Plaintiff’s have
already admitted to all of the Pleadings “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”;
A- Lyle demonstrated the same
presumption that because her criminal acts were perpetrated on women of color
the Anglo-Saxon men controlling the Democratic Party and the Machine were going
to save and reward her for taking care of the “Niggers” a term Alderman Burke
loves to affectionately call people of color are not supposed to be intelligent
or have love for themselves, that is why Lyle was appointed and every other
colored person like her.
10. That judge Lyle has
demonstrated an unknown interest in this matter which encouraged unlawful motives
and opportunity in adjudicating the merits of this matter, due to the
aforementioned; Sup Ct. Rule 63 (c) (1) (d) mandates disqualification
where the judge has an interest in the proceeding. (eff. April 16, 2007).
A- That allegedly bank officials
paid the judge off or she received some type of an alleged kickback helping the
Plaintiffs steal their home with a plethora of false documents.
- That every person attorney judges and
States Attorneys receiving Notice and knowledge of the aforementioned
crimes keeping their mouths shut are participants in this Criminal
Enterprise, In the Matter of People v. Caraga, 2018 IL App. (1st)
170123 (12/4/18) Cook County, 2nd Div. Defendant Michael Caraga—along with co-defendants
Bogdan Bozic, Nicholas Prittis, Jimmy Pililimis, and Artan Kollcaku
1—participated in an organized scheme to commit mortgage fraud. In this
scheme, a straw buyer would obtain a mortgage to buy property sold by
Pililimis; the loan proceeds would be split primarily among the straw
buyer, Prittis, and Bozic; and the buyer would later default on the loan.
As part of the scheme, Caraga prepared the loan application for the straw
buyer, using fraudulent income documentation provided by the straw buyer
and Bozic. Unbeknownst to Caraga, Bozic, Prittis, and Kollcaku, the straw
buyer in the transaction involved in this case was an undercover federal
agent, and this transaction was part of a sting operation in which
Pililimis was a cooperating witness in the federal investigation.
¶2 Following a bench trial, the trial
court found Caraga guilty of (i) loan fraud (720 ILCS 5/17-10.6(d) (West
2012)), (ii) financial institution fraud (id. § 17-10.6(c)(2)), (iii) attempted
U. S Sup Court
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
12. Pursuant
to the Rules of Illinois Civil Procedures and Respondent’s Affidavits
Petitioner never filed a counter-affidavit to any of the pleadings presented to
the Illinois courts and really didn’t have to because of so many corrupt judges
at their disposal “Trespassing upon the Laws” without fear of reprisals to
Federal authorities.
- That said motion corroborates and
demonstrates a Prima Facie showing that the Cook County Courts and
participants colluding with one another as Terrorist Operatives in this
Criminal Enterprise as judges are likened to being “Weapons of Mass
Destructions” as they help advance the agendas of racist Anglo Saxons in
the Machine serving as Enforcers as inferior beings destroying their own
ethnic groups using the laws unlawfully to steal homes remand innocent
citizens in prisons or extort money from them in a plethora of unlawful
means.
14. That Pursuant to Gr Ex A Plaintiff has
already admitted to Page 7 Par. D “That
because many are aware Chief judge being a Negroe realized he had no real authority caused
many ethnic groups to come along and “Trespass
upon the Laws” destroy black and brown families, use the laws as Ropes
and Water hoses as they “Lynched” innocent men or women who stood
up to their Terrorist Acts of injustices in the courts;”
- Judge Lyle and a plethora of other judges
in the Machine has used their unlawful authority to commit criminal acts
engaging in now an Organized Criminal Conspiracy pursuant to 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,
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)
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.
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.
That because of the above and Summary Judgment Defendant has
produced cases similar where judges have engaged in Terrorist Acts egregiously
protecting one another; 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.
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action for
fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E.
2d 1236, 96 ILL
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme Court
has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are:
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the
party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the
other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the
other party resulting from such reliance.
16. FACT:
THE COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 9, 2019, CORROBORATES THE AFOREMENTIONED LAWS ALREADY
ENACTED but due to her ignorance and corrupt incompetence lacked the moral turpitude
to render justice in her court because it was never in her heart, an individual
is in their hearts what he or she thinks themselves to be and out of their
hearts flow the issues of life.
17. “No one is above the Law”, citing a 1928
decision by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928),
“We must subject government officials to the
same rules of conduct that we expect of the citizen. The very existence of the
government is imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. As
Brandeis puts it, "if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end
justifies the means—to declare that the government may commit crimes in order
to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible
retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set
its face."
- That Plaintiff’s having already admitted
this pleading but Lyle attempted to try and undermine the Defendants
anyway, That no Racist Corrupt Politically appointed judges in Cook
County or Puppet judges appointed by Alderman Edward Burke have the
JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY to sign any court orders seeking to STEAL the Respondent’s
home due to the aforementioned recorded within.
A-
To
show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the
alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either
because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was
perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d
421,424 (9th Cir. 1989);
B-
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
Properly alleged
facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are
taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse
party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional
Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v.
Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al, Plaintiff’s never filed a counter-affidavit to
any of Defendant’s Affidavit’s
- That every lawyer that came in contact with this case
violated the following Rules:
- All Illinois lawyers must be
familiar with the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct, and
trail lawyers must be particularly familiar with the rules that apply
specially to them.
RPC
3.3, entitled “Conduct Before a Tribunal,” sets forth the
standards to be followed by the trial lawyer during “battle.” Section (a) of
that rule states:
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a
lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of
material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a
tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to
avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the
tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to
be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing
counsel;
(4) Offer evidence that the
lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes
to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation
or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the
evidence is false ;
(6) counsel or assist the
client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal of fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal
conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(8) fail to disclose the
identities of the clients represented and of the persons who employed the
lawyer unless such information is privileged or irrelevant;
(9) intentionally degrade a
witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning that
person which are not relevant to the case;
(10) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not
reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible
evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as
a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the
credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or
innocence of and accused, but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for
any position or conclusion with respect to the matter stated herein;
Acts constituting direct, criminal
contempt
A wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal
contempt. And act may be criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable
crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. Ill. Ill.
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38
33-3.
21.
That
Pursuant to “The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit
Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d
1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985)”.
The United States
Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County,
when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges
exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal
investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v.
Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Under
penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5\1-109, the undersigned
certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief
and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same to be true.
Respectfully
submitted,
Monzella
Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il
60615
773 835-5849
WHEREFORE the aforementioned
reasons Respondent respectfully Prays for the Relief
22.
For an Order Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632
(1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages
for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here,
where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is
also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that
actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the
deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for
those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability
in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is no reason
to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983} Judgment of $13
Million Dollars for the number of years they have had to endure the Terrorist
Mayhem inflicted via stress and anxiety upon them by this Organized Terrorist
Criminal Enterprise;
- Plaintiffs have not raised any affirmative
defenses but has engaged in a plethora of illegal acts trying to undermine
the Defendants with the aid of judges.
1.
For an Order Imposing Sanctions on all attorneys and law Firms
for their “Fraudulent Acts” in this matter with Remands for Frauds on the
Court.
2.
For an Order Invoking the
Jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigations/United States Attorney
Instanter REMANDING FREDRENNA LYLE “Trespassing upon the Laws” in this “Organized
Criminal Enterprise” and Attorney Alexander Potestivo into custody for their
roles in this Criminal Enterprise;
3.
For and Order staying any and all Foreclosures until an investigation
is had ascertaining all judges culpable in these egregious crimes of stealing
citizens homes.
4.
For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for
such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which
this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
COUNTY DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of )
December 1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through ) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates, Series 2006-NC3 )
Petitioner )
)
V.
) Judge Fredrenna
Lyle
)
)
) Room 2808
Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella )
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson
A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems, Inc. As Nominee for New Century )
Mortgage Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson )
( C ) Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank; )
Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants, )
)
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS & RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE REMANDING ALEXANDER B. POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD
ON THE COURT” ORDERING JUDGMENT BE ENTERED $13 MILLION DOLLARS INSTANTER WARRANTING
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS AND UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY INVOKE JURISDICTION INSTANTER PURSUANT TO SAID PARTIES ENGAGING IN
TERRORIST ACTS OF AN “ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE” NULLIFYING COURT ORDER OF
DEC. 9, 2019 & RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING FREDRENNA LYLE ACTING AS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS w/AFFIDAVIT
Please be
advised that on Dec. 14, 2019, Respondent
has filed before this Circuit Court, Motion for Sanctions et al; and will
present said legally sufficient instrument before Judge Lyle or any Judge in her
stead Jan. 8, 2019 at 10:30 am in room 2808.
FBI Dir. Emmerson
Buie, Jr.
2111 West Roosevelt Road
Chicago,
Ill. 60612
U.S. Attorney
John R. Lausch
219 South Dearborn Suite
500
Chicago, Ill 60605
Cook County State’s Attorney
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Kim
Foxx
50 West Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 500 Chicago, Ill. 60601
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Attorney
General Illinois
Kwame
Raoul, 1200
100 West Randolph
Street
Chicago,
Il. 60601
Alexander B. Potestivo & Ass., PC Media Fox 32 News
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite 610 Mike Flannery Political
Reporter
Chicago, IL. 60606
Chicago, IL. 60606
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above notice and all attachments were
caused to be personally delivered, to the above parties at the addresses
provided before 5:00 pm on December 13, 2019.
________________________
Respectfully Submitted, Monzella Y. Johnson
Defendant
will withdraw this Motion provided US Bank satisfy said jurisdictional amount
before Jan. 9, 2020.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank
National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling and
Servicing Agreement Dated as of )
December
1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust
2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3 )
Petitioner
)
)
V. ) Judge Fredrenna Lyle
)
)
) Room
2808
Monzella
Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella
)
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems,
Inc. As Nominee for New Century
)
Mortgage
Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson
)
( C )
Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank;
)
Unknown
Owners and Non-Record Claimants, )
)
Respondents
)
AFFIDAVIT
)
COUNTY
OF COOK )
I Monzella Y. Johnson Pro Se being duly sworn on oath states the aforementioned
pleadings enumerated within said motion pursuant to 735 1265 5/1-109, the
undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument
are true and correct, except as to matters
therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the
undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Respectfully Submitted
Notary
____________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
5217 S. Ingleside. Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank
National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling
and Servicing Agreement Dated as of
)
December
1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust
2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3 )
Petitioner
)
)
V.
) Judge Fredrenna
Lyle
)
)
) Room 2808
Monzella
Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella )
Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia )
Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration )
Systems,
Inc. As Nominee for New Century )
Mortgage
Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson
)
( C )
Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank; )
Unknown
Owners and Non-Record Claimants, )
)
Respondents
)
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
I Joe Louis Lawrence being duly sworn on oath states that on Nov. 26, 2019 near
and around 7:35 am, I acted as a Special Process Server and served the Summary
Judgment on Potestivo Law firm via Hispanic woman Loraina.
That on Dec. 3, 2019, I served the Re Noticed
Motion on Potestivo Law firm via Caucasian woman Debbie near and around 11:11
am.
Security is well acquainted with my presence
and surveillance footage would establish the veracity of these facts.
Joe Louis Lawrence
Notary
______________________
__________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment