UPDATE FEDERAL JUDGE FEINERMAN REALIZING HE IS UNTOUCHABLE ENTERED AN ORDER SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT US BANK ET AL.
JUDGE FEINERMAN ENTERED AN ORDER AUGUST 27, 2021 WHILE CASE WAS ON APPEAL IN COURT OF APPEALS, STATUS HEARING SET FOR 9/10/2021 IS STRICKEN AND RESET FOR 9/8/2021.
JUDGE FINERMAN ENTERED AN ORDER AUGUST 25, 2021, WHILE CASE WAS ON APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS , "IF PLAINTIFF HAS SERVED SUMMONS ON ANY DEFENDANT , OR IF ANY DEFENDANT HAS WAIVED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE ON THE DOCKET THE EXECUTED RETURN OR WAIVER. IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DO SO BY 9/1/2021 THIS CASE WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNDER CIVIL RULE 4(m).
A-
That
Judge Feinerman had knowledge affidavits of Defendant US Bank being served via
Registered Agent said Judge entered an ORDER, May 21, 2021, “Initial
Status Hearing” July 19, 2021 at 9:15 am, “Initial Status Report” shall be
filed by July 12, 2021”.
B- That on May 20, 2021, 14:06 hours US Bank was SERVED CERTIFIED MAIL ON REGISTERED AGENT Pamela Ferguson signed for the document tracking number 7019-1170-0001-0285-1637.
C- That PROOF OF SERVICE WAS FILED and DOCKETED May 24, 2021 and a Copy was set aside for the judge via the Clerks delivery.
D- Judge Feinerman received a MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE GARY FEINERMAN AND ALL NORTHERN DISTRICT JUDGES AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 AND 9(b);
{28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1)} (Filed June 7, 2021, 22 Pages with Affidavit) 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.
&
REINSTATE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (filed JULY 18, 2019, No 19-2040) FOR RECONSIDERATION
DUE TO JUDICIAL “ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY”
DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES
ENGAGING IN RACIAL HATE CRIMES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A “NULLITY” CASE
BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING IN TREASON
OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” ALTERNATIVELY
DISQUALIFY JUDGES DUE TO BIAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO {28 USCA
144, 455 (b) (1)} Canon 3E (1990)
JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CLOSED THEIR EYES TO EVERY EGREGIOUS ACTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN CHICAGO REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO FEINERMAN ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2021.
THIS IS LIKE CHICAGO FIREMEN SEEING A HOUSE ON FIRE IN A COLORED PERSONS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT BECAUSE THE FIRE IS NOT IN THEIR DISTRICT, THEY LEAVE THE BURNING BUILDING AWAITING FOR THE FIREMEN OF THE DISTRICT TO COME PUT OUT THE FIRE, IN THE MEANTIME INNOCENT COLORED FAMILIES PERISHED IN THE FIRE.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE INSURRECTIONISTS JUDGES DID IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THEY ONLY WANTED A DOCUMENT, FROM FINERMAN THAT SAID FINAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 USC 1291, BUT THE CASE WAS OVER
SEE HOW DOMESTIC TERRORISTS ARE WORSE THAN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT CAN ANY JOURNALIST EXPLAIN WHY THE EVENTS IN AFGANISTAN AND THE TALIBAN ARE RECEIVING MORE NEWS COVERAGE THAN THE EVENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE?
JUDGES VIOLATING THEIR OATHS ARE THE NEW WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND IS CAPABLE OF DESTROYING MORE LIVES IN ANY DAY THAN ANY BOMB AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST CAN DETONATE.
WHERE ARE SPECIAL FORCES? TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN ILLINOIS?
US BANK CONCEDED DEFEAT BY NOT OPPOSING OR CHALLENGING INNOCENT WOMEN OF COLOR IN THEIR CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM FOR $30 MILLION DOLLARS BUT INSURRECTIONIST USED THEIR POSITIONS AS "PRIVATE CITIZENS" MADE UP LAWS TO SHOW EVERYONE READING THIS DOCUMENT, THEY ARE THE LAW AND DON'T CARE OR HONOR ANY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT FAVORS COLORED PEOPLE AND CERTAIN JEWS.
THIS COURT ORDER HAD NO SIGNATURE OF ANY JUDGE NOR WAS IT CERTIFIED BY ANY CLERK IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
A CIVIL WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON INNOCENT UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN ILLINOIS WITH MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE SEIZING THE ILLINOIS LEGAL SYSTEM THEY ARE THE TALIBAN OF CORRUPTION.
WHERE ARE THE JOURNALIST COVERING THIS STORY? DO AMERICANS LIVES MATTER IN CHICAGO? IF SO PROVE IT
THEIR ARE JUDGES IN POSITIONS WHO HATE AMERICA AND HAS DONE EVERYTHING UNIMAGINABLE TO SHOW THE WORLD WHAT THEY WOULD DO AS TERRORISTS TO UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Monzella Y. Johnson } Appeal from the United
Plaintiffs –Appellant } States District Court for
} the Northern District of
} Illinois, Eastern Division
V }
No. 21-2264 }
} No. 1:21-cv-02707
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION }
As TRUSTEE for securitized Trust }
2006-NC3, et al. }
Defendant-Appellees } Judge Gary Feinerman
July 22, 2021
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, Jurisdictional Brief Memorandum (filed June 5, 2019, No. 19-2040 ) 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.”
FACT: How the Political Machine of White Nationalists and Inferior Colored people within the party has circumvented the laws of the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court laws circumvented the laws and still managed to ENFORCE JIM CROW LAWS by ignoring and DENYING every valid claim put before the DEMOCRATIC controlled LEGAL SYSTEM, said JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM articulates the BLUE PRINT, the hate the DEMOCRATIC PARTY STILL TO THIS DAY HAVE AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR or any ethnic group, that opposes them as the laws are used as a WEAPON, the new form of LYNCHING and TYRANNY.
FACT: Retired Judge Richard A. Posner on Record “The Basic Thing is that Most Judges Regard These People As Kind Of Trash Not Worth The Time” In the 7th Circuit, staff lawyers review appeals from pro se litigants, and their recommendations are generally rubber-stamped by judges, he noted.
Posner wanted to give the pro se litigants a better shake by reviewing all of the staff attorney memos before they went to the panel of judges. Posner had approval from the director of the staff attorney program. “But the judges, my colleagues, all 11 of them, turned it down and refused to give me any significant role. I was very frustrated by that,” Posner said.
Posner has written about the pro se issue in an upcoming book, and its publication “would be particularly awkward” if he remained on the court because it “implicitly or explicitly” criticizes the other judges, he said.
Hon. Posner at least opened his mouth and became the “WHISTLEBOWER” admonishing his Republican colleague’s history already records the vicious hate Democrats had against people of color, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 speaks on this people need to see and understand RACISM, HATE, HOMOSEXUALITY, VIOLENCE is not in one party, it is in every party (Democratic, Republican) and every ethnic group.
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.’”).
A- That Pursuant to the Jurisdictional Statement filed July 8, 2021, Page 4, Par A, Gr Ex A, (Summons et al.) Judge Feinerman had knowledge affidavits US Bank being served via Registered mail, 5/20,2021, Registered Agent Grace A. Gorka, signed for by Pamela Ferguson and Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549 Ex 25.1 acknowledging Grace A. Gorka as the Registered Agent for U.S. Bank National Association; He entered a court order May 21, 2021 “Initial Status Hearing” July 19, 2021 at 9:15 am.
Judge Sykes and Michael S. Kanne where former appointed Trump Amy Barrett authored the aforementioned ruling.
Seventh Circuit Overturns $44.7 Million Jury Verdict Against City in Shooting Incident
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Julie Tappendorf
The City appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the jury verdict and award. The appeals court found that although the injuries suffered by plaintiff from the shooting incident were grievous, the City was not responsible for the officer's actions, where the officer was acting as a private citizen and not as a City police officer.
The Seventh Circuit noted that Section 1983 imposes liability only when a municipality has violated a federal right. Since none of the plaintiff's federal rights were violated, the court of appeals overturned the jury verdict against the City of Chicago, in that Ex’s A-D unequivocally demonstrate how Judge Feinerman and a plethora of other Judges in the Political Machine violated Section 1983 acting as “Private Citizens” using their robes and unlawful authority to LYNCH, DESTROY, and create GENOCIDAL EFFECT on the lives of Colored United States Citizens; whereby, said exhibits without a scintilla of falsity corroborates the DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE is the TALIBAN OF CORRUPTION and because of this Chicago, Illinois is so violent.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot blames the police superintendent; Superintendent David Brown blames the court system; Chief Judge Timothy Evens blames the Cook County State’s Attorney; States Attorney Kimberly Foxx blames the police department.
Police Superintendent David Brown tried to blame the hot weekend’s convulsion of violence on the Cook County court system’s bail reform, saying too many violent offenders are being released on electronic monitoring. “Chicago police officers are doing their job by arresting people and charging them with murder,” Brown said.
CBS Chicago, Jermont Terry, July 6, 2021.
Those persons of color owned and controlled by the Political Machine do not have authority to admonish or criticize their members or Anglo- Saxons, or any Judge without the Machines authority, they are to blame or frame others who may share the same ethnicity which further corroborates why Chicago is not safe for all ethnic groups, due to the aforementioned and foregoing.
B- Proof of Service filed May 24, 2021;
C- That Pursuant to Page 4, Par B Gr Ex B, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Gary Feinerman and all Northern District Judges and Seventh Circuit Judges Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b); {28 USCA 144 (b) (1)} filed June 7, 2021, he became a “Private Citizen” losing subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case, he stated, “Plaintiff does not set forth legitimate grounds for Disqualifying District Judge Feinerman” (Denied June 10, 2021), hereto attached, said motion of 22 pages and an unimpeached AFFIDAVIT, articulating how Democratic Judges using their robes as “Private Citizens” engaging in horrific “Treason” “Terrorist Offenses”.
D- Plaintiff was before this Seventh Circuit (19 - 2040) a judge allegedly issued a court order June 11, 2019, directing US Bank attorneys to respond to said Jurisdictional Memorandum on or before June 18, 2019.
E- That said Appellees failed to respond so Plaintiff filed a SUMMARY JUDGMENT (June 24, 2019); US Bank and all of its attorneys have repeatedly admitted to colluding with Judges in all pleadings, affidavits via Summary Judgments in the Circuit Courts and Federal Courts but has relied on all Democratic White Nationalists and Inferior Colored people to do what they do best in “Trespassing Upon any and all Laws” Engage in the necessary “Treason Offenses” by denying any document of a meritorious claim as demonstrated systematically throughout this JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM.
F- Allegedly, assigned Judges Joel M. Flaum, Diane S. Sykes and Michael Y. Scudder ignored the Summary Judgment by becoming “Private Citizens” by Remanding the matter back to the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE of Cook County; Plaintiff due-diligently filed a motion Sept 3, 2019, Motion to Recall the Mandate-Review of Judgments after rehearing and Appeal Periods Expire due to Corroboration of Alleged White Nationalists in the Seventh Circuit Engaging in Hate Crimes & Fraud Against Persons of Color and Retired Judge Richard A. Posner on Record “The Basic Thing is that Most Judges Regard These People As Kind Of Trash Not Worth The Time”
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.”
G- That Pursuant to Page 5 Par C, Gr Ex C Jurisdictional Memorandum, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures w/Affidavit June 16, 2021, Judge Feinerman demonstrated his Contempt for the United States Constitution, and Contempt for the Laws of the United States Supreme Court and Contempt for the Laws of the Seventh Circuit, stated “the Summary Judgment, Motion for Summary Judgment is denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. The Motion Hearing set for 7/19/2021 is stricken”
That Pursuant to Par D Jurisdictional Memorandum in an attempt to scilicet videre Judge Feinerman’s corroboration in said “Organized Criminal Conspiracy” Plaintiff filed a 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” he demonstrated his Racist Bias animus hatred at the Plaintiff’s and placed emphasis on the order, “Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought on the motion” (Denied June 30, 2021).
That any Order coming after this aforementioned FINAL ORDER is a RUSE, to keep the judges in the Court of Appeals from learning of the number of judges acting as “Private Citizens” “FIXING COURT CASES” for certain Defendants for an alleged KICK-BACK, that can best be gleaned from a Federal Probe into all of their bank accounts or family accounts to ascertain whose accounts are being laundered into.
H- That Pursuant to Gr Ex D 18 pages of Diabolical Terrorist Acts of “Private Citizens” perpetrating as Judges in the Organized Criminal Enterprise of the courts where under the alleged authority of Former Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown, DELETED an August 1988 Court Order demonstrating a plethora of DEMOCRATIC INSURRECTIONIST tried to DESTROY EVIDENCE implicating the entire Political Machine of Judges REMANDING AN INNOCENT MAN TO JAIL 5 TIMES for ALLEGEDLY OWING CHILD SUPPORT, Colored Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans and Presiding Judge of Jewish ethnicity Moche Jacobius was aware of all unlawful acts but as acted inferior in his position kept his mouth shut so as to be accepted in the Terrorist Taliban Political Machine
I- That the worse part to Gr Ex D is the May 18, 1988 COURT ORDER, DEMONSTRATING Def never was Ordered to pay any CHILD SUPPORT, but his $1200.00 Stimulus check was intercepted due to alleged WHITE NATIONALISTS’ JUDGES LIKE FEDERAL JUDGE FEINERMAN did as court orders were FRAUDULENT SIGNED aiding and abetting in a plethora of sordid Terrorist Civil Rights Acts.
Andersen v. Roszkowski, 681 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ill. 1988)
II- A fraud that constitutes a fraud on the court is a limited kind of fraud. The Seventh Circuit has defined it as a fraud that "defile[s] the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 393 U.S. 841, 89 S. Ct. 121, 21 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1968); Wright & Miller, supra, § 2870 at 254-55 (There must be a "direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process." There must be "egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself.").
Federal courts have inherent subject-matter jurisdiction to review federal judgments obtained by fraud on the court. The theory is that federal judgment "produced by fraud on the court is not ... a decision at all and never becomes final." Kenner, 387 F.2d at 691. If a convincing case of fraud on the court is made, the judgments are vacated and the cost of the proceedings, including attorney's fees, may be assessed against the party. See, e.g., Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575
III- In that said record unequivocally demonstrate that because of the universality of hate Anglo Saxons have against the Plaintiff and any colored person who stands up for themselves fighting against Tyranny and Terrorism in this Democratic controlled courts makes it impossible for anyone to receive justice given the history of systemic (lynching’s) DENIALS recorded in this very Jurisdictional Memorandum with all exhibits.
The United State Supreme Court Decisions
“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."
FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This rule provides in pertinent part: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
No statute, however, has been enacted to aid courts of appeals in balancing these interests when they are requested to recall their mandates, See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 463 F.2d 263, 277-78 (D.C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950 (1972); Hines v. Royal Indem. Co., 253 F.2d 111, 114 (6th Cir. 1958).
Id. All motions must be made within a reasonable time. Id. Motions based upon mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud must be made within one year of the entry of the judgment. Id. Moreover, this one-year limit may not be varied in the trial court's discretion. FED. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
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
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK
MICHAEL S. KANNE
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REHEARING OF JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM & MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM DUE TO JUDICIAL “ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY” JUDGES NOT HAVING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES ENGAGING IN RACIAL HATE CRIMES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A “NULLITY” CASE BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” ALTERNATIVELY DISQUALIFY JUDGES DUE TO BIAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO {28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1)} Canon 3E (1990) TRANSFER CASE PURSUANT TO RULE 26 BREYERS COMMITTEE REPORT239 F.R.D. at 214-15 TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT OUTSIDE THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
&
REINSTATE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed JULY 18, 2019, No 19-2040) FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO JUDICIAL “ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY” DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS DUE TO DEMOCRATIC JUDGES ENGAGING IN RACIAL HATE CRIMES ENTERING ORDERS BEING “VOID” A “NULLITY” CASE BEING “FRAUDULENT” JUDGES “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” ENGAGING IN TREASON OFFENSES ACTING AS “PRIVATE CITIZENS” ALTERNATIVELY DISQUALIFY JUDGES DUE TO BIAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO {28 USCA 144, 455 (b) (1)} Canon 3E (1990)
RETIRED 7TH CIRCUIT JUDGE RICHARD A POSNER STATED “MOST JUDGES REGARD PRO SE LITIGANTS AS KIND OF TRASH NOT WORTH THE TIME”
“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."
NOW COMES the Appellant, Monzella Y. Johnson (Plaintiff), hereby respectfully Moves this court with corroboration, affidavits, unimpeached Summary Judgments from all law firms associated in this matter where court transcripts have been provided with prior Motion for Reconsideration due to “Fraud” & Misrepresentations to the court with all attachments {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedures}:
1.) That said judges ignored the fact the Appellees admitted every assertion/pleading recorded by the Appellant in their Jurisdictional Statement.
A- Pursuant to Federal Rule 56;
B- That the aforementioned Honorable Judges Order of August 4, 2021 DISIMISSING said APPEAL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 is a respectable error, 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].
C- 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.
D- That in said Motion to Reinstate Motion for Reconsideration filed July 18, 2019, Plaintiff was in fact a Defendant-Appellant in that cause and said Motion particularized the plethora of “Fraudulent Acts” of Judges acting as “Private Citizens”
1.) That pursuant to the Appeals court tosses $44.7 million verdict in shooting by off-duty Chicago cop, says city can’t be held liable
By JASON MEISNER and STACY ST. CLAIR
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
FEB 23, 2021 AT 11:49 AM
A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a historic $44.7 million judgment against the city stemming from a shooting by an off-duty Chicago cop, saying that while the incident that left the cop’s friend paralyzed was “tragic,” the city cannot be held liable.
The ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was widely expected, wipes out the decision by a jury nearly four years ago that found the city had repeatedly failed to identify Officer Patrick Kelly as a problem before he shot his friend in the head after a night of heavy drinking.
The 24-page opinion, written by Chief Judge Diane Sykes and joined by Judge Michael Kanne, said that while the victim, Michael LaPorta, indeed suffered grievous, life-altering injuries, the “legal theory for holding the city liable is deeply flawed.”
“LaPorta’s case is tragic. His injuries are among the gravest imaginable. His life will never be the same,” Sykes wrote. “But ... because none of LaPorta’s federal rights were violated, the verdict against the City of Chicago cannot stand.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett participated in the oral arguments in December 2019 but has since been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court and was not a part of the ruling.
A spokesperson for the city’s Law Department was not immediately available for comment.
But it was clear during the appellate arguments that the 7th Circuit was skeptical of the city’s liability, regardless of Kelly’s troubled past.
“The harm was inflicted by the off-duty officer,” Sykes said at the time. “The city did not violate anybody’s bodily integrity, the off-duty officer did.”
Sykes wrote in the opinion released Tuesday that the state is not obligated to protect individuals against “private violence.”
“When Kelly shot LaPorta, he was not acting as a Chicago police officer but as a private citizen,” the opinion stated.
“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)).
2.) 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 or Federal Officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
3.) 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)”.
A- Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook took part in this precedent.
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.
4.) That 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);
a. 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).
5.) That Rule 26 it implements the Breyer Committee’s recommended use of transfers. Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 214-15. In That Chief Judge Diane P. Wood obstructed justice used her position and authority covering-up every egregious diabolical Terrorist Acts perpetrated by her colleagues’ judges as “Private Citizens”.
6.) That Appellant has filed a complaint before the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial and Disability et al. and Petition for Review & Petition to Transfer This case to Another Judicial Council (07-16-90079) pursuant to 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 et al.”
7.) That said REINSTATE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed JULY 18, 2019, No 19-2040), unequivocally particularized a historic account of judges acting as “Private Citizens”, that corroborates State Officials, Public Agencies within the Municipalities of Chicago, Illinois seizing Terrorist control over all State Public Agencies and Colored, African Americans kept their mouths shut while Civil Rights violations were taking place.
8.) That said Motion to Supplement Motion to Supplement Jurisdictional Memorandum et al. (filed August 9, 2021) relates to the aforementioned Par 7 as Judge Feinerman corroborated his role as a “Private Citizen” and lost subject -matter jurisdiction; thereby making his court order a “Nullity” “Void” The Seventh Circuit noted that Section 1983 imposes liability only when a municipality has violated a federal right.
A- Judges Diane S. Sykes, Michael Kanne and Supreme Court Justice Amy Barret who was the judge before being nominated to the United States Supreme Court overturned the $44.7 million dollar jury verdict, see Page 3 Par C of the Jurisdictional Memorandum;
B- “Plaintiff does not set forth legitimate grounds for Disqualifying District Judge Feinerman” (Denied June 10, 2021).
C- That Judge Feinerman did everything in his unlawful authority as a “Private Citizen” “Trespassed upon the Laws” 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."
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
9.) FACT- That Judge Feinerman violated the aforementioned Model of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E (1990) “Motions containing allegations of an appearance of partiality should be decided by another judge. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is "as important to developing public confidence in the judiciary as avoiding impropriety itself. United States v. Hollister, 746 F.2d 420, 425-26 (8th Cir. 1984)”.
A- That said pleadings taken from the Motion for Reconsideration filed in the District Court, (June 28, 2021) that is subject to the Appeal
11.) That because US Bank realized they have been DEFEATED with the unimpeachable Complaint filed in Federal Court did not attempt or try to finagle themselves out of the TRUTHFUL PLEADINGS, thereby admitting pursuant to Fed. Rule 56.1.
12.) That said Judge set up a status hearing date on May 21, 2021 for June 19, 2021 at 9:15 am, he indicated in his order. Initial Status Report shall be filed by 7/12/2021.
13.) Plaintiff is the only litigator, that complied with said Order and filed said Motion for Summary Judgment et al. June 16, 2021.
14.) That allegedly said Judge in a fit of rage acting in his own volition as a “Private Citizen” one can easily infer from the foregoing document, DENIED said Summary Judgment. On June 22, 2021, Motion for Summary Judgment is denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1, The motion Hearing set for 7/19/2021 is stricken.
A- That said Judge Denied Appellant’s valid Summary Judgment when the Appellee has admitted to every assertion via Summary Judgments in the Circuit Courts, Court of Appeals and District Courts and because of the color of the Appellants skin, Judges become “Private Citizens” making sure Corruption, Violence and all acts of Terror and Fraud gets passed in their courts.
B-
10.) That every judge in the Seventh Circuit closed their eyes to every valid complaint, motions and affidavits Summary Judgments said Petitioner put before them on appeal in affidavits validating the verity of judges committing Treason Trespassing upon the laws of the United States Constitution engaging in “WAR” against the United States Constitution making every order rendered against the Petitioner. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he or she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason;
11.) FACT: Retired Judge Richard A. Posner on Record “The Basic Thing is that Most Judges Regard These People As Kind Of Trash Not Worth The Time” In the 7th Circuit, staff lawyers review appeals from pro se litigants, and their recommendations are generally rubber-stamped by judges, he noted.
Posner wanted to give the pro se litigants a better shake by reviewing all of the staff attorney memos before they went to the panel of judges. Posner had approval from the director of the staff attorney program. “But the judges, my colleagues, all 11 of them, turned it down and refused to give me any significant role. I was very frustrated by that,” Posner said.
Posner has written about the pro se issue in an upcoming book, and its publication “would be particularly awkward” if he remained on the court because it “implicitly or explicitly” criticizes the other judges, he said.
12.) That Hon. Posner at least opened his mouth and became the “WHISTLEBOWER” admonishing his Republican colleague’s history already records the vicious hate Democrats had against people of color, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 speaks on this people need to see and understand RACISM, HATE, HOMOSEXUALITY, VIOLENCE is not in one party, it is in every party (Democratic, Republican) and every ethnic group.
13.) 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…..”
A- That every judicial act denial towards the Appellant corroborates the veracity said judges has met the burden of warring against the Government of the United States and is grandiose enough to FLAUNT their acts to the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress.
B- That because said judges Pro Se litigants as Trash and will never honor or uphold any laws of equality where a colored person is concerned and unequivocally demonstrate and warrant the Transfer of this matter to another District that recognizes Pro se and other litigants as Human Citizens of the United States
C- That pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 Relief from a Judgment or Order:
(a) Corrections: Based on Clerical Mistakes: Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake maybe corrected only with the appellate courts leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59 (b);
(3) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic ), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) The judgment is void.
14.) FACT- That Appellant have yet to have been before any judge in the SEVENTH CIRCUIT who have followed any rule where this case is concerned or any case involving a Pro se litigant that is not an inmate.
15.) FACT- That Judge Easterbrook violated the same aforementioned Model of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E (1990) No. 07-2287 as Chief Judge as the Plaintiff he was seeking appointment of counsel, Judge Easterbrook DENIED him legal representation as a Public Aid welfare recipient then and still to this date resulting from said litigations. 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."
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
A- That Easterbrook’s rationale for denying him Appointment of Counsel stems from Farmer v Haas, 927 F.2d 607 Appellant Dee [Douglas] Farmer is a transsexual inmate in the federal correctional system.1 On May 30, 1989, Farmer filed a Bivens action, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that her eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by prison authorities at the Federal Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin (Oxford) when they denied her any and all forms of medical treatment for her disease.2
B- That Judge Easterbrook has misinterpreted the laws and entered a ruling that satisfied his racist legal disposition denying him Equal Protection of the laws of having a legal right to an attorney being indigent receiving welfare having a wife and five children.
C- That the Appellant was at said time and is still a CERTIFIED HETEROSEXUAL FREEMAN Born and Raised in the United States of America.
D- That during this time near and around 2006 and 2007 Caucasian Clerks with intimate relationships with certain judges informed the Appellant Joe Louis his pleadings and arguments were quite impressive and said that 2 judges were impressed with his work were in fact chess players and it was said by a clerk, supposedly a judge allegedly said “No FREEMAN is smart enough to prepare or write any of the aforementioned legal documents, unless, he is a prisoner because that is the only time they have free time to do anything, when they are locked up” nobody appeared fond of this third judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment