FINALLY, THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HAS RECEIVED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/ALTERNATIVE SUPERVISORY ORDER ON JUDGE FREDRENNA LYLE WHO SEEMS TO BE THE QUEEN OF THE CARTEL OF ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES STEALING HOMES FOR RACIST BANK ATTORNEYS.
THE WORSE PERSON A BLACK PERSON CAN GO BEFORE ARE BLACK PEOPLE OR NEGROES MANY OF THE BLACKS WHO HAVE ASCENDED TO POWER HAVE BEEN OFF OF THE BACKS OF SO MANY INNOCENT AFRICAN AMERICANS.
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME HAS NEW FACES MOST BLACKS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED MUST PROVE THEIR ALLEGIANCE BY DESTROYING THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS BY PROTECTING "WHITE NATIONALIST" RACIST INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PARTY THAT DEEMS THEM INFERIOR TO THE SUPERIOR RACE (WHOM SO EVER THAT IS CONTROLLING THEM OR THEIR POSITIONS)
IT IS NOW 15 YEARS AND MANY SORRY ASS BLACKS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LIKE FREDRENNA LYLE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THE BENCH PROVIDED THEY PROVE THEIR SELF-WORTH BEING IN THE POLITICAL MACHINE BY DESTROYING THEIR OWN ETHIC GROUPS AND DOING WHAT THEY ARE TOLD UPHOLDING THE DOCTRINES OF JIM CROW AND PROTECTING WHITE NATIONALIST WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE PERSON ON THE STATE LEVEL WHO IS BLACK, AFRICAN AMERICAN OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY, NEGROE IN PRESENT AUTHORITY OPENED UP THEIR MOUTHS TO DENOUNCE THE HATRED, RACIST CORRUPT ACTS OF BANK ATTORNEYS STEALING THE HOMES OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS AND NOW ELDERLY WOMEN BECAUSE OF THEIR INFERIOR DISPOSITION TO OTHER ETHNIC RACES.
SO EVERYONE INVOLVED SIMPLY CLOSED THEIR EYES, KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT AND THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO GO AWAY MAYOR LIGHTFOOT, CHIEF JUDGE TIMOTHY CALVIN EVANS, KIM FOXX, STATES ATTORNEY ALL KNEW ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THIS CASE, FIGURED IF THEY ALLEGEDLY KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE WOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM BECAUSE BLACK LIVES REALLY DON'T MATTER IN THIS CITY BECAUSE IN FACT A LOT OF BLACKS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HATE THAT, THEY ARE BLACK AND MANY ACT AND WISH THAT THEY WERE OF THE COLOR AND RACIST ETHNIC GROUPS BY GOING ALONG WITH THE HATE DESCRIBED IN THIS VERY CASE.
JUDGE LYLE A SELLOUT NEGROE MANY WOULD CALL HER A NIGGER HAS USED HER ROBE AND FALSE AUTHORITY TO HELP RACIST BANK ATTORNEYS STEAL THE HOMES FROM HARD WORKING ELDERLY WOMEN OF COLOR, SHE IS NOT ALONE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHERS LIKE HER.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SEEMS TO ONLY RECRUIT AND APPOINT SPINELESS BLACKS WHO WOULD SELL THEIR OWN MOMMA TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE PARTY FOR A POSITION OR POLITICAL FAVOR.
IT IS NOW 15 YEARS AND THIS IS HOW RACIST LAW FIRMS ARE ABLE TO FINANCE AND SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO FANCY SCHOOLS OR TAKE ELABORATE VACATIONS OFF OF THE VERY INJUSTICES AND FRIVOLOUS LITIGATIONS BY WEARING DOWN ANY PERSON WITH PROTRACTED BOGUS LITIGATIONS BECAUSE OF THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD WHO SUPPOSED TO INVESTIGATE JUDGES, DON'T DO SHIT BUT COVER-UP CRIMES AS IN THIS CASE.
BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER TO ALL BLACKS BECAUSE SO MANY BLACKS SEE THEMSELVES AS NIGGERS AND NOT FREE MEN OR WOMEN AND WILL DO ANYTHING THE ANGLO-SAXON TELL THEM TO DO AS A SLAVE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THEM OR FOR ANY FAVOR.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT BUILDING
200 East Capitol Avenue
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62701-1721
CYNTHIA A. GRANT
Clerk of the Court
(217) 782-2035
TDD: (217) 524-8132
January 26, 2023
FIRST DISTRICT OFFICE
160 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601-3103
(312) 793-1332
TDD: (312) 793-6185
Monzella Yohanus Johnson
5217 S. Ingleside Ave.
Chicago, IL 60615
In re: Johnson v. Lyle
129343
Dear Monzella Yohanus Johnson:
This office has received and filed as of January 26, 2023 the following in the
above entitled cause:
Motion by Petitioner, pro se, for leave to file a petition for an original writ of
mandamus or, in the alternative, for a supervisory order.
Any future filings or correspondence filed in the Supreme Court must include the
Supreme Court case number on all documents.
Very truly yours,
Clerk of the Supreme Court
cc: Bryan Gerald Thompson
Hon. Freddrenna M. Lyle
Phillip Russell Perdew
Poulami Mal
Hon. Sophia H. Hall
State's Attorney Cook County
Thomas J. Dart
Hon. Timothy C. Evans
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ________________________________________________________________________
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 ) Appeal from
the Circuit Court
) of Cook County
) Chancery
Division
Plaintiff-Appellees ) Gen No.
2008-33616
)
) Hon Freddrenna Lyles
)
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 )
)
V. )
Defendant- Appellant )
)
)
)
MOTION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS or in the alternative
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER VACATING ORDERS DUE TO
CRIMINAL ACTS “FRAUD” “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” AND FOR PRESIDING JUDGE/ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO INVOKE JURISDICTION DUE TO JUDGE LYLE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE/TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS/ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL ACTS USING HER ROBE TO
HELP RACIST BANK ATTORNEYS STEAL HOMES IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES w/AFFIDAVIT for “CAUSE” DUE TO BIAS AND OR PREJUDICE
CONDUCT PURSUANT TO S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2—1001 (a) (2, 3) (WEST 2006) TO IMPOSE
SANCTIONS/REMANDS PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 137 S.H.A. CRIMINAL CH. 38,
33-3 W/AFFIDAVIT
_______________________________________________________________________
To the
Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
Now comes Defendant –Appellant, Monzella Y. Johnson, a
United States Citizen through herself
Pro se your Petitioner, the people of the State of Illinois, a citizen,
a resident and an Elector of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
Illinois, respectfully represents and shows to your Honors the following:
1.)
That said Appellant have provided Notice or Knowledge
that Appellant had been fighting a Criminal Enterprise in the Illinois Court
system via a Judicial Complaint to the Judicial Inquiry Board and a host of
other Law Enforcement Agencies everyone closed their eyes to the plethora
criminal allegations noted and admitted to throughout all pleadings with no
Agency warranting any investigation.
A-
That the Judicial Inquiry Board received a Blue Print
particularizing diabolical criminal conspiracies hereto attached, Gr Ex I, Judicial
Complaint naming Circuit Court Judges and Appellate Court Judges.
B-
That in relation to Gr Ex I are detailed
documents particularizing every heinous Terrorist Acts establishing veracity
ignored by the Judicial Inquiry Board Ref as Gr Ex I-2 Photos of
the documents received by the State Police and delivered.
C-
That on September 8, 2022, Michael Deno, Executive Director,
& General Counsel acknowledged receipt of Gr Ex I.
D-
That on Oct 14, 2022, Michael Deno, CLOSED the
case, Ref as Ex J, further using his ethnicity and position to
continuously cover-up the “Organized Criminal Enterprise” of
Judges using their robes as “Private Citizens” aiding and assisting
their kinds in the Political Machine.
E-
That on Nov. 21, 2022, Michael
Deno of the Judicial Inquiry Board, CLOSED the case Ref as Exhibit K
from Gr Ex I closing their eyes and authority to a plethora of criminal
acts of judges acting as “Private Citizens” Domestic Terrorists trying to
steal a home which has languished in the courts for now 14 years.
F-
That upon communicating with Natosha Cuyler Toller, (Deputy
Director) Jan. 23, 2023 and learned that said matter had been closed but never
received the letter, hereto attached, Gr Ex L, Affidavit detailing how
that information was gleaned.
2.) That it is evident from the aforementioned
Exhibits, Michael Deno, (Former Cook County Prosecutor) of the
Judicial Inquiry Board used a legal standard not applicable in this case as a
means to justify covering up CONCERTED
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES Closed the complaint
because the allegations did not constitute incapacity and/or misconduct under
the law and standards of judicial conduct in Illinois. Most often these
complaints concern a losing litigant's subjective perception that justice was
not obtained in his or her cause. By closing the complaint, the Board does not
pass judgment on the merits of the case. This is the sole responsibility of the
Appellate Court. A letter is sent to the complainant informing him or her that
the complaint has been closed.
3.) That not one member of the
Judicial Inquiry Board was able to ascertain from a competent legally prepared
complaint that a Summary Judgment was attached and never at any time did an
attorney ever DENY or OBJECT to any of the properly plead
assertions.
4.) 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.
5.) That
what the Republicans could not accomplish seizing and overthrowing the
Whitehouse during the Insurrection of Jan 6, the Democrats have accomplished
successfully seizing all legal venues and State Agencies acting as Domestic Terrorists/”Private
Citizens.
6.) That
said Plaintiff-Appellees have engaged in an elaborate “Organized Conspiracy”
so as to steal Defendants home taking advantage of the fact they are elderly and
control the Political Rulings in all Courts; thereby, Corroborating with
veracity Black Authority is not recognized, Black Lives don’t matter in Illinois
Courts, Pro se litigants are treated as outcasts because they have accepted
being INFERIOR and or for not CONFORMING to the Political Machines doctrines.
7.)
That no judge or attorney whom these matters have been
before seems to have a legal definition or understanding of any laws that
relates to any laws relating to Canon Ethics or Ethics involving Lawyers yet so
many have instituted rulings based upon Laws of Jim Crow which have been
outlawed by the United States Supreme Court but is still being ENFORCED in all
ILLINOIS COURTS.
PREAMBLE & SCOPE
[1] An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is
indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based
upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary,
composed of judges with integrity, will interpret and apply the law. Thus, the
judiciary plays a central role in preserving justice and the rule of law.
Inherent in the Rules contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) are the
precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the
judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence
in the legal system.
[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office and
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional
and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the
greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality,
integrity, and competence.
[3] The Code establishes standards for the ethical conduct of
judges and judicial candidates. The Code is intended to guide and assist judges
in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct and to
provide a basis for regulating their conduct through the Illinois Judicial
Inquiry Board and the Illinois Courts Commission.
[4] The Code governs a judge’s personal and judicial activities
conducted in person, on paper, and by telephone or other electronic means. A
violation of the Code may occur when a judge uses the Internet, including
social networking sites, to post comments or other materials such as links to
websites, articles, or comments authored by others, photographs, cartoons,
jokes, or any other words or images that convey information or opinion.
Violations may occur even if a judge’s distribution of a communication is
restricted to family and friends and is not accessible to the public. Judges
must carefully monitor their social media accounts to ensure that no
communication can be reasonably interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice;
an ex parte communication;
the misuse of judicial power or prestige; a violation of restrictions on
charitable, financial, or political activities; a comment on a pending or
impending case; a basis for disqualification; or an absence of judicial
independence, impartiality, integrity, or competence.
[5] The Code consists of four Canons, numbered Rules under each
Canon, and Comments that generally follow and explain each Rule. The Policy and
Scope and Terminology sections provide additional guidance in interpreting and
applying the Code. The numbering of the Code is patterned on the American Bar
Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (rev. 2010), reserving numbers for
provisions not incorporated in Illinois.
[6] The Canons state principles of judicial ethics that all judges
must observe. Although a judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule,
the Canons provide important guidance in interpreting the Rules. Where a Rule
contains a permissive term, such as “may” or “should,” the conduct being
addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion of the judge
or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for action
or inaction within the bounds of such discretion.
[7] The Comments that accompany the Rules serve two functions.
First, they provide guidance regarding the purpose, meaning, and proper
application of the Rules. They contain explanatory material and, in some
instances, provide examples of permitted or prohibited conduct. Comments
neither add to nor subtract from the binding obligations set forth in the
Rules. Therefore, when a Comment contains the terms “must” or “shall,” it does
not mean that the Comment itself is binding or enforceable; it signifies that
the Rule in question, properly understood, is obligatory as to the conduct at
issues.
[8] Second, the Canons combined with the Comments identify
aspirational goals for judges. To implement fully the principles of this Code
as articulated in the Canons, judges should strive to exceed the standards of
conduct established by the Rules, holding themselves to the highest ethical
standards and seeking to achieve those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing
the dignity of the judicial office.
[9] The Rules of the Code are rules of reason that should be
applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court
rules, and decisional law and with due regard for all relevant circumstances.
The Rules should not be interpreted to impinge upon the essential independence
of judges in making judicial decisions.
[10] Although the black letter of the Rules is binding and
enforceable, it is not contemplated that every transgression will result in the
imposition of discipline. Whether discipline is imposed should be determined
through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rules and should depend
upon factors such as the seriousness of the conduct, the facts and
circumstances that existed at the time of the conduct, the extent of any
pattern of improper conduct, whether there have been previous violations, and
the effect of the conduct upon the judicial system or others.
[11] The Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil
or criminal liability. Nor is it intended to be the basis for litigants to seek
collateral remedies against each other or to obtain tactical advantages in
proceedings before a court.
Effective January 1, 2023
8.) That
Gr. Ex and the
Judicial Inquiry Board demonstrates how all of the attorneys all have violated Ethics
All
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;
9.)
That said judges and attorneys have satisfied the legal
standard Preponderance of the Evidence have exhausted a plethora of unlawful
acts using their robes upholding criminal acts being a part of an “Organized Conspiracy” trying to
steal Defendant’s home;
10.)
That due to “Fraud” Systemic Racism and alleged Political
Terrorist Intimidation, Supreme Court Rule 383 is necessary because the
Affidavits and Exhibits attached demonstrates the need for this court to tear
down the walls of Injustice, Corruption and Racism in that those Judges and
lawyers who cannot uphold the integrity of their duties and oath as an attorney
and judge need to seek employment in another profession; alternatively, be
remanded into custody.
11.)Where
applicable judges and lawyers who ignore the laws and act outside of the laws
don’t belong in the profession Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218,
220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985)
(Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt
power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court
Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be
characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct
constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute).
Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which
warrant discipline.
Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (
12.)In
the wake of extensive investigations by Federal Law enforcement authorities
revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois court system (“Operation
Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that significant professional
misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement to report misconduct was
frequently ignored, particularly in the cases of judges with regard to the
conduct of other judges.
Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the
ABA,
Judicial
Code 24-25 (1992)
13.) Furthermore,
when testing for the “appearance of impropriety” the Court has a criteria that must be met, Commentary
Canon 2, 2A 2C, this Commentary
in Canon 2C clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the Court’s posture towards
the membership no judge in any of the lower courts were able to lawfully
Dismiss or Deny any of the, Motions presented in a Legally upright manner, in
that, they had to act outside of judicial discretion, and outside of the
judicial immunity provisions afforded to them denying the Defendants claims;
WHEREAS,
your petitioner prays that a Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order
Vacating Orders due to Criminal Acts “Fraud” “Trespassing upon the Laws”
“Treason” and for presiding Judge/Attorney General to Invoke Jurisdiction due
to Judge Lyle Obstruction of Justice/Trespassing upon the Laws Engaging in
Criminal Acts Using her Robe to Help Racist Bank Attorneys Steal Homes in
Illegal Foreclosures
for “Cause” due to Bias and or Prejudice Conduct Pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2—1001 (a) (2,3) (West 2006) Impose Sanctions/Remands
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137
S.H.A. Criminal CH. 38, 33-3 with affidavit in the above entitled cause.
to Supreme Court Rule 137 S.H.A. Criminal Ch.
38, 33-3 and a Rule to Show Cause be issued on all attorneys and judges complicit
in these acts in the above-entitled cause.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella
Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
