UPDATE UPDATE ON US BANK AND ATTORNEYS TRYING TO STEAL HOME FROM ELDERLY WOMEN FOR 13 YEARS
THE BEAUTY OF THIS CASE THIS LAW FIRM POTESTIVO IS GOING TO DEMONSTRATE IN THEIR ADMISSIONS HOW CERTAIN JUDGES THAT ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ALLEGED DEMOCRATIC MACHINE ENGAGE IN SOME HORRIFIC JIM CROW ACTS IN STEALING LEGITIMATE HOMES FROM PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE GUISE OF FORECLOSURE.
ANYBODY IN FORECLOSURE OR KNOW SOMEONE HAVE THEM TO TUNE INTO THIS BLOG POST:
KEEP IN MIND THIS IS SOME DEMOCRATIC BULLSHIT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE TERRORIST CRIMINAL ACTS
IN DECEMBER ON THE 9TH 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 AND
THE LAW FIRM FILED THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE WOMEN BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, THAT IS NOT THE WORSE PART BECAUSE THEY HAD COURT BEFORE JUDGE SIMKO THURSDAY NOV. 14, 2019, THEY WERE CONFIDENT SIMKO WAS GOING TO GRANT THEM WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR IN THEIR BULLSHIT MOTION WHICH WAS DEFECTIVE AND FRAUDULENT ON SO MANY LEVELS BECAUSE THAT MONDAY WAS VETERANS DAY AND THE CLERKS OFFICE WAS CLOSED AND THE DEFENDANTS DIDN'T RECEIVE THEIR MOTION UNTIL SATURDAY AFTERNOON.
THE MOTION WAS EXPEDITIOUSLY PREPARED FILED TUESDAY AND SERVED ON POTESTIVO THE SAME DAY ON THURSDAY THE ATTORNEY CAME TO COURT VERY LATE BEFORE SIMKO DISMISSED THE CASE AND IMMEDIATELY WITHDREW THEIR MOTION.
THEY PUT THAT SAME SHIT THEY DIDN'T DARE LEAVE IN FRONT OF SIMKO BUT FILED IT IN FRONT OF LYLE.
ON DEC 9, DEFENDANT MONZELLA TRIED EXPLAINING TO LYLE THAT THEY COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT, THEY DIDN'T FILE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT NONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WHICH, I LEARNED LATER WERE A NUMBER OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING US BANK FROM NUMEROUS LAW FIRMS.
POTESTIVO DID NOT RESPOND TO THE JOHNSON SISTERS SUMMARY, THEY NEVER FILED A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT TO ANYTHING ASSERTED BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY ALLEGEDLY HAVE JUDGES IN THEIR BACK POCKETS.
JUDGE LYLE ASKED THE LAWYER HOW MUCH TIME THEY NEEDED TO RESPOND TO THEIR DOCUMENTS? THEY SAID 28 DAYS WHICH WAS DUE, JAN 6, 2010.
IT WAS ANTICIPATED POTESTIVO WAS NOT GOING TO REPLY PURSUANT TO LYLE'S COURT ORDER IT IS CLEAR MANY CAUCASIAN ATTORNEYS DON'T RESPECT HER BECAUSE SHE HAS NO INTEGRITY, SO THEY ARE MAKING A COMPLETE ASS OUT OF HER DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT IN HER COURT KNOWING SHE WILL NEVER EVER ADMONISH ANY OF THEM, IN THAT SHE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF PICKING ON HER OWN RACE OF INDIVIDUALS THAN TO MESS WITH THEM.
SO ON DEC 14, 2019, 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 WAS FILED WITH THE COURT DATE TO APPEAR BEFORE JUDGE LYLE JAN 9, 2020 AT 10:30
ON JAN 6, 2020 POTESTIVO LAW FIRM FILED A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AT 10:00 PM AS AN ANSWER TO LYLE'S COURT ORDER BASICALLY SAYING FUCK HER! AND THEIR MOTION WAS NOT MAILED OUT UNTIL JAN 7, 2020.
WHILE THE ATTORNEYS ARE VEXING THEIR RACIST ANIMUS DISPOSITION AT WOMEN OF COLOR US BANK IS THE CREATOR AND FACILITATOR RECRUITING THESE ALLEGED WHITE NATIONALIST AND NOW THEY HAVE TO PAY THESE WOMEN (NOT TALKING ABOUT JUDGE LYLE) FOR THE RACIST TERRORIST MAYHEM THEY HAVE SUBJECTED THEM TO FOR SO MANY YEARS TRYING TO STEAL THEIR HOME.
POTESTIVO LAW REQUESTED 28 DAYS TO RESPOND TO NOW 4 DOCUMENTS WE ONLY ASKED FOR 7 DAYS TO REPLY NOW IF THEY WAS NOT ABLE TO RESPOND TO 2 MOTIONS IN 28 DAYS HOW IN THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO ANSWER 4 DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED TO EVERYTHING RECORDED IN EVERY MOTION?
I AM THANKING EVERYONE WITH THEIR SINCERE PRAYERS FOR THESE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN CARING FOR THEIR ELDERLY MOM 90+ YEARS OF AGE IN THEIR HOME.
LET ME ADD EVERY ONE WHO'S SKIN COLOR MAY NOT BE BROWN OR BLACK IS NOT A RACIST AND EVERYONE'S SKIN COLOR WHO MAY BE BROWN OR BLACK IS PROBABLY THE WORSE RACIST, A PERSON OF COLOR CAN STAND BEFORE BECAUSE MANY OF THEM WILL DO WHATEVER THEY ARE TOLD TO PLEASE THEIR DEMOCRATIC ANGLO SAXON MASTERS.
YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE BLACK DEMOCRAT DOWNTOWN IN POWER WHO WILL DENOUNCE THESE RACIST ACTS! THEY HAVE SOLD OUT TO THE MACHINE.
THEY SET THE DATE FOR FEB 19, 2020 TO GO BEFORE JUDGE LYLE BUT BECAUSE THE LAWYERS LACK THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF LEGAL PROCEDURES AND LEGAL PRECEDENTS, RESPONDENT’S MOTION STRIKING AND OBJECTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS FRIVOLOUS DUE TO “PERJURY” “FRAUD” ON THE COURT & IMPOSE SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 w/AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED JAN 8, 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
)
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION STRIKING AND OBJECTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS FRIVOLOUS DUE TO
“PERJURY” “FRAUD” ON THE COURT & IMPOSE SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT
RULE 137 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 Response Motion Striking Petitioner’s Response Motion
et al;
1.
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 court.
Pursuant to Illinois Civil Procedure Rules, failure to file
an answer, where an answer is required, results in the admission of the allegations
of the complaint, Ill. S. Ct. R. 286 (a) Pinnacle Corp. v. Village of
Lake in the Hills, 258 Ill. App 3d 205, 196 Ill. Dec 567, 630 N.E. 2d 502 (2d
Dist. 1994)
That because Petitioner properly plead to all
facts correctly in said Summary Judgment filed in Federal Court negates any
extension of time for the Defendant to respond, due to there not being
“Good Cause Shown” Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 209 Ill.
Dec. 735 652 N.E. 2d 275 (1995)
Justice
Harrison delivered the opinion of the court:
The issue in this case is whether a circuit court may permit a
party to respond to a request for the admission of facts or the genuineness of
documents once the 28-day time limit specified by Rule 216 (c) (134
Ill. 2d R. 216 (c) has expired. For the reasons that follow, we
hold that the court may allow an untimely response where the delinquent party
has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with Rule 183 (134
Ill. 2d R. 183) Because No Good Cause was shown here, permission to
make a late response was properly denied. The circuit court’s order denying
such permission and the judgment of the appellate court affirming the circuit
court’s order are therefore affirmed
2.
That Plaintiffs having admitted to all facts recorded in said
Respondent’s Summary Judgment Motion, Ref as Gr Ex A;
A-
This Court have no jurisdiction to ignore Defendants valid Summary
Judgment demonstrating a plethora of Corruption, Racism Judges colluding in a
Criminal Enterprise engaging in Prejudice and Bias behavior pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2-----1001
(a) (3); Sup. Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1), trying to steal Respondent’s home in said
mortgage fraud scheme.
B-
To
show fraud upon the court, the complaining party must establish that the
alleged misconduct affected the integrity of the judicial process, either
because the court itself was defrauded or because the misconduct was
perpetrated by officers of the court. Alexander v. Robertson, 882, F. 2d
421,424 (9th Cir. 1989);
C-
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not
contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of
contrary averments in the adverse party’s
pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar
Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117
ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al; Plaintiff’s never ever filed
counter-affidavits to any of their pleadings.
3. That
pursuant to the legal precedents already noted Page 3 and 4 of Gr A from
Summary Judgment articulates other Chancery cases of judges engaging in “Fraudulent Acts”, Petitioner never addressed or attempted to impeach any of
Respondents pleadings, 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.
4.
That in fact every Pleading establishes veracity
demonstrating within the Preponderance of the Laws many judges is not only are
Bias but has corroborated their roles acting as a “Private Citizens” in said
criminal episodes .
5.
That pursuant to said Motion filed in 2017 Motion
Striking Petitioners Motion et al. with court transcript, Judge Lyle further demonstrated her Bias Prejudicial disposition at the Respondents
acknowledged affirmatively, “Yes ma’am. I
know” to the fact Respondent properly objected in a timely manner and in
accordance to the Illinois Sup Court Rules, and Rules in accordance to the
Rules of Illinois Civil Procedure.
A-
Respondent Monzella Johnson stated, “I object, He is saying our response, but
they were the ones that were supposed to respond, according to the ruling
pursuant to the Court’s order entered”
B- Plaintiff
is up to the same Bullsh&T they never responded or honored any court orders
by Fredrenna Lyle; they bullied their way in court and are trying to intimidate
the Respondents which are not working.
6.
That the attorneys for the Respondent violated all of
the Rules of Professional Conduct
(RPC 3.3).
7.
That the Plaintiffs failed to comply to the Judges
court order never requested leave to answer or respond later; thereby DEFAULTING and Summary Judgment was properly
filed and served upon the Plaintiffs in a proper timely manner, in the year
2017;
8.
That the Plaintiff’s has disrespected this court again
by filing an Extension of Time as an answer e filed at 10:00 pm what is even
worse they filed a Motion to appear before the judge on the Hearing date of Feb.
18, 2020 seeking an extension making it 43 days and counting……the judge asked
them how much time they needed they requested 28 days and knew that, they had
no intentions of abiding by the court order, that is why they never filed a
Motion sooner requesting an Extension
of Time so as to drag this case out frivolously and demonstrate to
everyone reading this document the control they have on said judge, especially
the FBI;
9.
That the Defendant’s properly filed said Notice of
Motion for Summary Judgment due to “Fraud” on the Court pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 137 on August 23, 2017 and served upon Bryan at 12:50pm on Aug. 23,
2017 at the Law firm of Postestivo & Assoc., by Joe Louis Lawrence;
10. That
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment et al. is clear within the
Preponderance of evidence legal standard demonstrating how attorneys are trying
to steal the Defendants homes in the guise of “Foreclosure” ;
11.
That
“The Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the Circuit Court of
Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985)”.
The United States Supreme
Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it
stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted
through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial
corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley, case
No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since
judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become
principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since
no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been
convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.
- FACT That said judge demonstrated Bias Prejudicial disposition at the Respondents within the Preponderance
of the Laws used her judicial authority to aid and abet in an “Organized Conspiracy” in a
attempt to justify criminally colluding with the Petitioners, stated, Lines 2-6, Page 4 “Now, what he
said was he didn’t get a copy of your response to which he going to reply.
So he needs additional time so that they can file a reply. That’s what he
was basically saying.”
BRUBAKKEN v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992 Ill
App. LEXIS 2144 (1st Dist. Dec. 30, 1992). Additionally, the
fact that a false statement or omission is the result of an honest mistake is
no defense to entry of a sanction. ID. To the extent that an individual lawyer
has engaged in sanction able conduct, that lawyer’s firm can also be jointly
and severally liable with the lawyer.
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.
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].
- FACT Judge Lyle demonstrated Bias Prejudicial disposition at the Respondents within the Preponderance of the Laws used her judicial authority to aid and
abet in an “Organized Conspiracy” by
justifying her unlawful acts to further amplify the veracity of the above,
Pursuant to Page 5, Lines 15-24,
Page 6, Lines 1-2 Judge Lyles
stated, “I know it may seem rather
unusual, but it happens all the time in courts, things are—people are in
offices and maybe they get misplaced. So it’s not unusual for me to give
persons standing on your side additional time. In fact, much to the banks
chagrin, I give them a lot of additional time so that they can protect
their cases”
“And so when
the plaintiff asks for additional time, it’s only fair and equitable that. I
give them additional time. So that’s what I’m doing”
- That Chagrin is defined as
disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, or having failed
A-
Having been beaten in a court battle by African American women
fighting to save their home, POTESTIVO & Associates retreated to chagrin or
allegedly committed careercide resorted to all levels of “Fraud”.
- FACT Judge Lyle admitted on the record being Bias and
Prejudice granting more time to the banks unlawfully in an attempt to wear
the Defendants down financially.
CORRUPT JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS DO NOT HONOR OR ABIDE BY THE
AFOREMENTIONED LAWS OR RULES OF LAW
16. 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
said case is over and was over Dec. 9, 2019 but because of their ability
to finagle “Fraudulent” documents before Judge Lyle is all the reasons why
this matter is unlawfully being frivolously continued.
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 was no judgment.
It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any
place….It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Judgments 43, 44, 45.
Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d 227-232
C-
“A Void Judgment from
its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in
any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment, order or decree may be attacked
at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v.
Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill. App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st
Dist. 1964)
- That under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C.
1985 (3) (b). A judge does not have the discretion on whether or not
to follow Supreme Ct. Rules, but a duty to follow. People v. Gersh, 135
Ill. 2d 384 (1990).
Under
penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5\1-109, the undersigned
certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief
and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same to be true.
Respectfully submitted,
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773
835-5849
WHEREFORE the aforementioned
reasons Respondent respectfully Prays for the Relief
1.
For an Order Imposing Sanctions Striking Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of time with a Denial and Impose Sanctions on all attorneys and law
Firm for their “Fraudulent Acts” in this matter.
2.
For the entry of an Order awarding to your Petitioner for
such other relief and any other relief necessary as equity may require of which
this court may deem overwhelmingly just;
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank
National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling
and Servicing Agreement Dated as of
)
December
1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities)
Trust
2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3
)
Petitioner
)
)
V. )
Judge
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 STRIKING AND OBJECTING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS FRIVOLOUS DUE TO
“PERJURY” “FRAUD” ON THE COURT & IMPOSE SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT
RULE 137 w/AFFIDAVIT
Please be
advised that on Jan 8, 2020, Defendant has filed before this Circuit Court,
Motion Striking et al; and will present said legally sufficient instrument
before Judge Lyle or any Judge in her stead Jan. 8, 2020 at 10:30 am in room 2808.
FBI Dir. Emmerson Buie, Jr.
2111 West Roosevelt Road
Chicago,
Ill. 60608
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
Potestivo & Ass., PC
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite
610
Chicago, IL. 60606
Chicago, IL. 60606
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above notice and all attachments were
caused to be personally delivered, to the above parties at the addresses
provided before 5:00 pm on January 8, 2020.
________________________
Respectfully Submitted, Monzella Y.
Johnson
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT--CHANCERY DIVISION
U.S. Bank
National Association, As Trustee Under)
Pooling
and Servicing Agreement Dated as of
)
December
1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )
Trust
2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through
) Case # 2008 CH 33616
Certificates,
Series 2006-NC3
)
Petitioner
)
)
V. )
Judge 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 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 MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE MECHANICS LIEN SECTION
US Bank National Assoc., as. Trustee
PLAINTIFF,
CALENDAR 62
'No. 2008. CH 33616
HONORABLE MARIAN E. PERKINS JUDGE PRESIDING
Menzella Y. Johnson aka Monzella
Johnson Maria f. JOHNSON AKA. Marcia Johnson, et al.
DEFENDANT(S).
Sho
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE The matter coming before the Court on motion of Defendan to/for (check all that apply): __Summary Judgment - Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
tened Redemption Period - Appointment of Receiver/MIP - Other(1) Motion for Sanctions, (2) motion to Strike Prove up etc. (3) cross motion for Summary Judgment; (4) Motion objecting Pl Motion for extension of time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The above motion (s) are set for briefing with the following schedule: Time,
a. The responses to the motion (s) shall be filed on or before Feb. 5, 2020
b. The reply in support of the motion (s) shall be filed on or before Feb 13, 2020
Hearing on the motion (s) is set for March I0, 2020 at 11: 30 am Final Courtroom 2808
without further notice required.
3. Movant shall furnish the Court with courtesy copies of all briefs and relevant pleadings at least four court days prior to hearing.
4. Oral argument will be allowed at the Court's discretion; the failure to timely file a written
response or reply being deemed a waiver of oral argument
5. All other Response Reply and Hearing dates on the above morons are hereby stricken.
Courtesy copies to be delivered by 3-3-2020
The defendant is referred to the Chancery Division Advice Desk (the "Help Desk”) located in CL-16 of the Daley Center.
ENTERED:
No:
Name:
А,
| Attorney No: 6304322 Name: CARIN Wolkenberg Attorney ---for: Plaintiff
Postestivo & Assoc
Address: 223 W Jackson City/State/Zip: Chicago Il 60606 Phone: -312 263 0300
Hon. Marian E. Perkins #2201, Judge Presiding Judge Ferid M. Lyle
20_ JAN 08 2020
Date:
Circuit Court 2064
No comments:
Post a Comment