BRANDON JOHNSON AND PAUL VALLAS HOW WILL YOU ADDRESS ANY LEVEL OF CORRUPTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS OR JUDGES STEALING HOMES IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES WHAT WILL YOU DO ONCE YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS?
IT IS TIME FOR PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT SELLOUTS IN POSITIONS AS YOUR LEADER
FORMER MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT ALLEGEDLY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF BANKS STEALING HOMES IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES AS WELL AS THE CHIEF JUDGE TIMOTHY EVANS, STATES ATTORNEY KIM FOXX AND ATTORNEY GENERAL KWAME RAOUL, COOK COUNTY PRESESIDENT TONI PRECKWINKLE AND JUST ABOUT EVERY ALDERMAN AND ALDERWOMAN WHO HAVE LEFT THEIR POSITIONS.
EVERYBODY FELT THAT IF THEY KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT AND WENT ALONG WITH THESE CRIMES, THEY WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND CONTINUALLY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED WITHIN THE POLITICAL MACHINE.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE EGREGIOUS CHOICES MANY OF THE BLACKS HAVVE MADE SELLING OUT THEIR ETHNIC GROUPS OH IT IS TRUE MANY OF THEM ARE MERELY FIGUREHEADS DOING THE BIDDINGS OF WHAT THEIR SPONSORS ARE ORDERING THEM TO DO AS FALSE LEADERS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
LORI LIGHTFOOT WENT ALONG AND CLOSED HER EYES TO EVERYTHING COMPLAINTS, VIOLENCE, CRIMES ETC AND LOOK AT WHERE IT GOT HER, WHILE IT IS TRUE A NUMBER OF BLACKS HAVE PROFITED OFF BACKSTABBING, AND SELLING OUT MANY IN THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES BUT A NEW DAY IS EMERGING PEOPLE ARE UNIFYING READING AND PUTTING THE LITERATURE OUT MAKING PEOPLE AWARE OF THE TYPE OF PEOPLE MISRERESENTING PEOPLE OF COLOR FOR ANY TYPE OF FINANCIAL GAIN.
A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER IS APPEALING TO EVERY BRANCH OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO APPREHEND ALL PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH STEALING HOMES IN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES BUT THE PERSONS IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT PRETENDING TO BE JUDGES AND MAILING OUT COURT ORDERS, SO AS TO PREVENT THE BLACK JUDGES FROM SEEING WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE LOWER COURTS.
EVERY BLACK LEADER WHO RECEIVED THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.
THESE ARE THE CHOICES MANY OF THE BLACKS HAVE MADE DECEIVING THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, THEY ARE WHY THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES ARE DECIMATED AND NOW WITH AND UNDER LORI LIGHTFOOT DOWNTOWN AND THE NORTH SIDES ARE FOLLOWING SUIT WHY BECAUSE IT SEEMS FASHIONABLE TO DESTROY AND DENIGRATE YOUR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED,
|  Feb 27, 2023, 9:14 PM (3 days ago) | | ||
| ||||
Introduction.
This is an Appeal from a Summary Judgment Order of foreclosure and Sale in direct derogation of current remedial legislation designed by the Illinois Legislature to abrogate Financial Elder Abuse of vulnerable citizens such as the elderly vulnerable defendants herein, i.e. Dean Sallas (age 85) and Amelia Sallas (approx. age 80) who were married for more than ½ a century.
This particular appeal is unique in that.”
1. The complaint C 24 filed herein, and the record in general appears to be devoid of any averment of any assignment of the security agreement sought to be foreclosed to the initial plaintiff Byline Bank.
2. That the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas is reported in the record to have fiduciary breached his relationship toward Mrs. Sallas in that he did not raise as a defense the Financial Elder Abuse protective statutes and in particular to this foreclosure proceeding, did not raise the fact the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 voids any attempt by the holder of an agreement signed by such a person as Mrs. Sallas to foreclosure or otherwise collect on an obligation evidenced by a document signed in violation of the said section 22.
3. That as part of the Motion for Summary Judgment C 485 , the plaintiff presents a Petition presented by the Guardian in case 07 P 5360, entitled in Re: Amelia Sallas C 371 wherein the Guardian for Mrs. Sallas appears to make some serious omission of fact and law. In particular, knowing that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 as violated by Byline Bank on January 25, 2018 the Guardian makes no mention of said fact. Instead the Guardian requests the Court for permission to enter into the very wrongful and ultra vires contract voided Section 22 and most importantly - a criminal offense for Byline Bank to enter into. (It is respectfully submitted that this action by the Guardian, appearing to be represented by the Byline Bank as attornment to the crime by the Court invokes the Himmel case and 18 USCA 4 reporting to law enforcement requirements.
4. That without a scintilla of proof as to either the Standing of the plaintiff to pursue this foreclosure, or mesne debts appearing to have been long abandoned by 3rd persons, the plaintiff was not only allowed to have such stranger debts added to the judgment, but to do so by a Summary Judgment entered prior to the defendant Sallas having an opportunity to take discovery, or file defenses and counterclaims to the instant foreclosure complaint objected to.
5. That without any indication that the plaintiff made any disclosures required by Federal and States law C 27, the balance due as of the date of the alleged default was set $152,607.00, but the judgment for more than $200,000 in excess. Note: The initial principal balance due when Mr. and Mrs. Signed the loan documents to be $173, 366 (C67) dated January 25, 2018.[1] .
Notwithstanding a continuing objection as to the standing of the Byline Bank to bring this foreclosure action herein, this commercial loan document was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas on January 25, 2018. And the said agreement appears of record as exhibit H attached to the complaint filed herein (C24) Stripped to its primary issue and concern, this appeal raises the pressing issue of whether or not the Chancery (Equity) Division of the trial court attorns to and countenances the Financial Elder Abuse clearly barred by its own rules, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, and 720 ILCS 5/17 - 56.
The casual deceptions of the Byline Bank et al herein, not only as to the initial service of process on Dean Sallas (C201 ), the Petition of February 15, 2018 (C371 ), amounts due and owing C636, omission of assignment by Plaza Bank to Byline Bank , affidavit of Attorney fees C 727, casual characterization of predatory mortgage as a legitimate loan arrangement rather rank FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE of the most predatory nature, cannot be tolerated. The commercial loan aside the efficacy of the Judicial system required pursuant to Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution is challenged by disrespect for integrity, decency, and honor by the decisions in this case and the EVICTION from his home of Dean Sallas. Allowing such predation as renders Sallas homeless and vulnerable and denies him his human and vested civil rights.
Table of Authorities
1. Statutes:
a. 755 ILCS 5/11a - 20
b. 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56
c.
2. Cases
a. In re: Neprozatis
b. In re: Himmel
c. Wambaugh vs. Parsons.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL.
The instant appeal is distinguishable from most appeals that are brought to this Court as the Appellant, Dean Sallas, is not only pro se, but elderly (age 85) l Mr. Sallas’ wife (and codefendant) has become a victim of a predatory guardianship, wrongful isolation, and worse. Sallas’ Constitutional Rights have been overtly and repeatedly violated, and it is respectfully suggested that Mrs. Sallas’ Court appointed Guardian in these proceedings abdicated the responsibility he claims. (see Petition of Feb 15, 2018 (c ) See also Wambaugh vs. Parson
Pursuant to the criteria of the Himmel decision, the clear words of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the statute that provides for appointing a guardian, i.e. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, this Court is placed on notice that the plenary Guardian’s appointment and assignment are severely limited solely to the property vested solely of Mrs. Sallas but not to any property of Mr. Sallas, including but not limited to his interest in the marital property of the parties. The Guardian is not appointed to be the alter-ego of Mrs. Sallas and his appointment gives him no jurisdiction concerning either Appellant Dean Sallas or Sallas’ property interests. In fact the Guardian’s “power” is severely limited to acts specifically granted in the statute of those only to the extent that said ‘powers’ are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary and 3 benefit the individual who is designated his ward.
That said, the Guardian is a fiduciary and he owes to Mrs. Sallas the highest brand of fidelity, integrity, and honesty possible. 755 ILCS 5/11a- 3 and the 1st, 4th,5th, and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution further embellish define and limit the guardian’s responsibility. In a similar manner, this Court is placed upon notice that the affidavits submitted to the Court by the Attorney’s for the Byline Bank praying for a reimbursement of attorney fees for their client are patently absurd – and this Court on the record substantially reduced the claim for attorney fees.
The Appellant respectfully suggests that he at 85 years of age, and his wife at years of age are classic victims of Financial Elder Abuse perpetrated in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Issue 1. Do statutory and common law protections against abusive and predatory lending practices have meaning in Foreclosure of Mortgage proceedings.
Issue 2. What are the criteria for the entry of Summary Judgment. In particular can Summary Judgment be entered while there is pending a Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff and prior to the defendant being given an opportunity to do discovery, file counterclaims or defenses to the pleadings of the plaintiff.
Issue 3. Does the Court in a home mortgage foreclosure have to protect senior citizens from clear abuse by lenders. In simple terms do the hallowed principles of Equity and Justice apply.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
That essential parties to this case are:
1) Appellant, Dean Sallas. He is the spouse of Amelia Sallas for more than ½ a century. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are the homeowners of the property subject to the Byline Bank foreclosure action herein.
2) Mrs. Amelia Sallas In the related cases of In re: Amelia Sallas 07 P 5360 the Circuit Court of Cook County on******* entered an order finding the Amelia Sallas as a disabled person and in need of a Guardian of her person and her property. Both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas resided in the “property” under foreclosure until approximately ( C ) .
3) Byline Bank (and is claimed assignees). The plaintiff herein. (NB. Without evidence being submitted the appellant of a proper assignment of the collateral from the initial lender to the Byline Bank, defendant does not concede the Byline Bank has standing to bring this foreclosure).
4) The Cook County Public Guardian. Mr. Golbert was appointed plenary guardian for Mrs. Sallas after a series of mesne transactions and appointments.
On January 25, 2018 the Byline Bank, being fully aware of the prohibitions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 in derogation of the statutory prohibition demanded and obtained the signature of both Mr. Dean Sallas, and Mrs. Amelia Sallas on a Commercial loan document connoting that the signatories owed the Byline Bank the sum of $$173, 366dollars and was required to repay to the Byline Bank that sum at the rate of dollars per month at an interest rate of %. This loan was secured by the borrower’s home. (C 67) This document is the basic document upon which this collection action is based. A prior security agreement in favor of a stranger to these proceedings is sought to be foreclosed.
On January 25, 2018, all parties knew that amongst the Illinois Statutes was 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. In words and phrases section 22 states:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
(a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.(b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
On February 15, 2018 it appears of record in the plaintiff/appellee’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and in case 07 P 5360 (C 371) that the Cook County Guardian (the plenary guardian appointed to protect Amy Sallas) appeared before Judge Boliker by petition dated said date to seek to authorization execute commercial loan documents noted supra and appearing as exhibit H attached to the complaint. Dishonestly, the Guardian’s petition to the Court and presentation did not disclose that on January 25, 2018, the Byline Bank had in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 had obtained the signature of his ward. Mrs. Amy Sallas, the wife of the Appellant. [N.B The Guardian, having a duty of disclosure to the Court, and a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Sallas, did not inform the Court that the actions of the Byline Bank were a serious violation of the law prohibited by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and the Financial Elder Abuse Statutes. The Petition submitted in words and phrases asked for permission for Guardian to sign the Byline Bank papers. (c371)]
Subsequently, by a series of mesne transactions the Guardian removed from the marital funds of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas approximately $40,000.00 and according to the Summary Judgement documents (c 377 )paid the same over to the Byline Bank apparently reducing the balance due to about approximately $153,000.
The Byline Bank on or about filed this foreclosure suit on or about . On or about a Motion to Quash to false return of summons on Dean Sallas was filed, C . and granted on C .[2] On Dean Sallas filed a MOTION TO DISMISS C .on raising the issues of unclean hands, and pointing out the irregularities in this proceeding. This Motion was denied on .C .
The Counter to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was a Motion for Summary Judgment.C . Even though prior to the ability of the defendant to take discovery, asset defenses, answer the complaint, the trial court on . in the Amount of total sum of
On or about , the Byline Bank successfully petitioned to the trial court for leave to the Court for the Court to recognize an assignment of interest to
A judicial sale was held on , the sum $ was bid, This sale was confirmed on
N.B. At all-time relevant the title to the subject real estate is vested (though a land trust arrangement) as the marital property of both Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas. A search of case 07 P 5360 does not indicate that at any time the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas (Amelia)or any other person or entity was granted a quit claim deed or other conveyance of Mrs. Sallas marital interest in her home. [3]
ARGUMENT
The appellant Dean Sallas (age 85) is pro-se and apologizes in advance as to his lack of legal skills and any deficiencies in his presentation or brief.
APPELLANT & HIS SPOUSE AS SENIOR CITIZENS, WHO HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR MORE THAN ½ A CENTURY, AND WHO ARE BOTH AGED 80 PLUS ARE ENTITLED TO NOT ONLY THEIR 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION RIGHTS, BUT THE REMEDIAL PROTECTIONS AFFORED THE TO VULNERABLE SENIOR CITIZENS. AND THE APPLICATION OF THE HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY
Illinois in Article 1 Section 12 of its CONSTITUTION of 1970 states:
SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE
Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for
all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,
privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
law, freely, completely, and promptly.
A foreclosure action, such as the instant action is an Equity/Chancery action and addresses the issues to the conscience of the sovereign and thus requires parties seeking relief to not only do equity, but to come to the Court with ‘clean hands.’
The Appellee (Byline Bank) demonstrates a callous disregard for these principles in the ‘key document’ required by this foreclosure – the loan document. This loan document was executed by the Byline Bank and Amelia Sallas in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 which in clearly obviates the right to a Foreclosure. The statute stating.
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
(a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
The total record herein including but not limited thereto the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT clearly indicates that Mrs. Sallas, a necessary party to any foreclosure action concerning her home, was adjudicated a disabled person, and a Guardian was appointed to protect her personal interests. A clear criminal violation of section 22 occurred on January 25, 2018 that cannot be swept under the rug, or buried with a multitude of copies of documents such as filed herein by the Byline Bank.
The record is devoid of any mitigating circumstances that might obviate the enforcement of State and Federal financial elder abuse legislative protections or justify the Circuit Court in ignoring its own heritage and core principles.
Indeed, the case of In re: Neprozatis , makes it very clear that in Illinois Equity Courts if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck it is indeed a duck. Indeed, 720 ILCS 5/17- 56 similarly decrees that entities that have the ability to subject an individual to Financial Elder Abuse are not under Illinois law free to use the facilities of Illinois Courts to do so. That statute renders such persons not only subject to triple damages and attorney’s fees, but the burden of proof is reduced from clear and convincing to preponderance of the evidence.
The case Wambaugh vs. Parsons , addresses the fiduciary duty of a guardian. The case is relevant along with Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian
The Summary Judgment order entered herein is particularly offensive to not only the origins, and principles, of Equity, but Article 1, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution, but Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution. A litigant seeking the equitable relief of a foreclosure cannot engage in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE or deal inappropriately with senior citizens. Indeed, the grant of Summary Judgment not only ignores statutory prohibitions, but even basic concepts that even lay litigants are aware.
In particular, how is the Byline Bank even before this Court to file a foreclosure action. An examination of the documents filed by the Byline Bank does not include an assignment, quit claim deed, or other evidence of a conveyance of the Security Interest from the original holder of the Mortgage (Plaza Bank) to Byline Bank). Byline Bank may have some relationship with other creditors of Mr. Sallas, but proxy litigation is not appropriate for a court of equity.
Indeed, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Byline Bank/appellee is replete with documents that connote AND emphasize the plaintiff’s ‘lack of doing equity, unclean hands, criminal conduct’ and serious conduct that raises serious concerns. The clear unequivocal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22), and 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 cannot be ignored or swept under the Rug. Both statutes are remedial and intended to address the very concerns that are raised in these proceedings.
Further, even though the HIMMEL decision is ignored in these FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE cases the totality of the legislation enacted at both the State and Federal level manifests a demand that the elderly’s 14th Amendment protections not be trampled on by institutions such are noted herein.
The disclosure rules and ordinances enacted both at the Federal and State level that address loans to senior citizens and other vulnerable people are more than words on paper. They are intended to be strictly enforced, even if a Byline Bank, or a Court Appointed Guardian would be embarrassed or lose money. The spectacle created by the calculation of the alleged balance due illustrated the point. As the Guardian (Mr. Golbert) has never been specifically authorized to address any asset of Appellant Dean Sallas (including his marital property interests) serious questions of ultra vires conduct (as well as criminal contempt of court questions) are raised by the February 15, 2018 petition. These questions and the comments made by the Byline Bank in support of its MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT suggest some serious conspiratorial action.
On January 25, 2018 the contract that violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 was signed. This contract was attached to the complaint as the first 3 pages of exhibit H. It is respectfully submitted that the claimed balance due to the Byline Bank was approximately $175,000.00. There was no mention of any sundry secret judgments outstanding etc. In fact the Guardian’s February 15, 2018 petition to Judge Boliker similarly made no mention of such a judgment. Protection of Debtors under law require such items to be disclosed when the documents are signed.
Thus, the Byline Bank /Cook County Public Guardian pattern continues unabated in the lower Court. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are elderly and vulnerable – ergo, being a bit disrespectful, it is the position of the defendant/appellant that the trial court ruled that if remedial legislation designed to protect against FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE interferes with the whim and caprice of the Byline Bank & Guardian the said legislation not only can be ignored, but the objecting elderly are silenced![4]
Without discovery, the appellant/defendant has not had the ability to make inquiry as to what if any attunements, special dispensations et al may have been facing him in these proceedings. It is apparent now that the appellant pursuant to the provision of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56, the appellant might have a serious counterclaim against not only the Byline Bank, but others involved in the trial court proceedings. Section 56 may not come with the hype of a RIC0 action, but not only does this remedial legislation connote a legislative intent that the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSERS face criminal charges, but on the Civil side the award to be assessed is Triple Damages, plus Attorney fees. So serious was the Illinois Legislature that this remedial legislation be readily available, that it also lowered the Standard of Proof to preponderance of the Evidence.
The appellee is not paranoid in suggesting some sort of attornment or special dispensation by Judge Boliker in approving the Guardian obfuscating a criminal action perpetrated against its ward. He cannot understand Judge Boliker and/or Judge Robles did not forward to Law enforcement a referral in this instant case. It is respectfully suggested that the totality of the facts memorialized in the record herein are a cogent example of FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE barred by Illinois Statutes, and so corrosive to the core values of America that not only must the Summary Judgment be reversed, but a referral to Law enforcement must be made. 18 USCA 4 demands the same.
The demand of the appellant for a referral is not taken lightly. Indeed, it is respectfully submitted that no making such a request would a measure of disrespect by the appellant for himself, but the Justice system. The calculation of loan balances demands the same. No Court can, in my opinion, garner the respect that is demanded to do its job and accept the calculation of a creditor that commences with a initial loan balance on January 25, 2018 and ends two years later after the payment of approximately $20,000 with a new balance of approximately $200,000 more than the initial debt
With all due respect, the Appellant suggests that the concept of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW as defined by centuries of English and America Equity law cannot tolerate the conduct disclosed by the Byline Bank in this foreclosure suit toward an elderly couple i.e., Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas. The Summary Judgment of foreclosure and the subsequent orders of Court approving the “sale” of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas must be reversed and rendered for nought.
2.
WHEN A PARTY FILES A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THAT PARTY TO SUCEED IN HIS MOTION MUST MEET THE CRITERION OF TAKING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE NON=MOVING PARTY THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THAT THE NON-MOVING PARTY CAN PREVAIL.
The Judicial system of the State Court is the ‘escape value’ of society and thus the Court system must not only be held to the standard of “Caesar’s wife” but, in fact be free of bias, favoritism, and even the appearance of corruption. Thus, if a citizen is to be denied his right to a trial on the merits by a ‘short cut’ procedure of Summary Judgment the proof of liability cannot be tinged by obvious exaggerated claims for attorney fees, obvious breaches of fiduciary relationship, misleading petitions such as the February 15, 2018 document, suspicious calculations and assortments of balances due, and outright criminal action such as the Byline Bank’s violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a -22 on January 25, 2018.
In simple words, the Court must be absolutely free of corrupt conduct. Any tolerance of the corrupt conduct, such as a violation of a statute such as 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, or 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 is a denial of equal protection of the law. In words more comfortable to a ‘lay defendant’ – Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas are entitled to a level playing field.
Reiterating, it is clear that on the facts most notable in the record, that the Byline Bank, while appearing as the plaintiff, does not provide evidence of its STANDING to bring this instant FORECLOSURE SUIT. The Mortgage Balance plaintiff seeks is obscene, clearly smacks of usury, over-reaching, and a bit of intentional fiction. Indeed, it is respectfully submitted, that on the level playing field the trial court would sua sponde dismiss a foreclosure suit that submits a contract claiming a balance of approximate $175,000, and after adding up all the charges claims after the payment of $20,000.00 a balance of approximately $375,000. In fact it is submitted that pursuant to Himmel, such a proposition would require the Court to refer such a claim to Law Enforcement for investigation as to criminal violations. Indeed, it is suggested the remedial statute of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 is relevant as if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Indeed, public protection demands such a referral. Elderly citizens are not flotsam!
Equality before the Law is not a difficult concept. The first paragraph of 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution recites America’s credo. The concept is not difficult, not subtle, and not subject to interpretation, except to the extent that someone or some entity is attempting to avoid the clear unequivocal principle.
“Lawyer talk,” “Judicial distinctions” and double speak are the hall=marks of the Byline Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court’s granting the same. No matter how the package is presented, the foreclosure proceeding is based upon the COMMERCIAL LOAN DOCUMENTS, and an alleged default on the payment of the same executed on January 25, 2018 by both Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas.
Section 22 makes it very clear that not only has the Byline Bank committed a crimes, but it cannot profit directly or indirectly from its misdeeds to wit:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7[5]
There is no exception connoted in this remedial statute.
The Byline Bank is not a meek vendor who lent his life savings to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and is being denied enforcement of his note because of obscure , vague, and little known statute. The Byline Bank has a New York Stock Exchange symbol, and is a publicly traded company. It lawyers have sought and obtained tens of thousands of dollars in Attorney fees in an abbreviated Court proceeding that required no discovery, no testimony, no responses to either a defense or counterclaim etc. There is no just reason that the Byline Bank should not be held to RULE OF LAW.
It should be noted that section 22, does not by itself obviate the claimed liability of Dean Sallas. Its effect is to make enforcement of the foreclosure impossible as Amy Sallas is a necessary party to the litigation and her interest in her home is barred by the clear and unequivocal words of the statute. Marketable title because of the criminal action of the Byline Bank is NOT available to them. Thus, the foreclosure suit should have been dismissed.
3.
THE LAW FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE OF ANY KIND CANNOT BE TOLERATED SENIOR CITIZENS IN ILLINOIS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER
The fact is Mr. and Mrs. Sallas, like many other senior citizens here in Illinois spent their productive years saving for their ‘later years.’ Mrs. Sallas was ‘targeted’ for a Guardianship. A Guardian was appointed for her, pursuant to the mandate of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b which clearly limits the Guardian’s authority, renders the Guardian a fiduciary, and complicates the life of both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.
While this Appeal does not address the Guardianship fiasco the February 15, 2018 petition placed in the record by the Byline Bank does render it relevant. Section 3b states:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
The 4th page of the 3 page exhibit H attached to the plaintiff’s complaint raises Hurricane red flags. The Summary Judgment order similarly raises another set of warnings. The implications while at this point are merely suppositions they cannot be ignored. 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 is a clear mandate and statement that the Rule of Law applies to everyone including but not limited to senior citizens. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE, including that evidenced in these and the Probate Guardianship proceedings are not protected – and should not and cannot be protected in this Court.
That reported petition of February 15, 2018 (and other actions) of the Court appointed guardian connote that the defendant Charles P. Golbert, the Cook County Public Guardian indicate a serious over-reaching by the said Court official. By Section 22, as to Mrs. Sallas the home loan transaction was over. Attempting to obfuscate and/or avoid the protections granted to his ward certainly is contrary to Mr. Golbert’s fiduciary relationship and the authority allowable to be provided a guardian without serious conflict with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
To discourage conduct such as exhibited by the plaintiff Byline Bank, the guardian for Mrs. Sallas and its assignee, the Illinois Legislature not only provided that FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE was a crime, but imposed triple damages and attorney fee penalties on the offender.
In this instant proceeding it has be observed that if the loan balance was two dollars and fifty cents, the loan documents should reflect that amount. In fact, in legitimate personal and business transactions such is the common practice. However, in this instant proceeding Mr. and Mrs. Sallas according to the affidavits submitted by the Byline Bank in support of it Motion for Summary Judgment the actual balance was with interest in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Even in the submission by the Cook County Public Guardian on February 15, 2018 the documents were designed to mislead Judge Boliker and place her in a state not in accord with objective reality. Such conduct is unacceptable and wrong.
Ironically, the clear misrepresentations revealed in the February 15, 2018 document would even be wrong in the most coercive totalitarian society. They and their follow up, and in particular the Summary Judgment cannot be tolerated here in Illinois.
The judgment of the lower court cannot stand and must be reversed and the instant foreclosure action dismissed.
It the risk of being verbose, Dean Sallas notes that
Financial Elder Abuse, is not a vague term coined by the Congress and the legislature to describe a societal malady that is becoming very prevalent. Major periodicals such as the New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Netflix, et al have all run articles describing the same and the role of the judicial and the political establishment therein. It may not be politic to say the same in writing, but this instant cases fills the spectrum of abuse.
This appeal may be limited to just the case of BYINE BANK vs. AMY SALLAS but the attachment by the plaintiff of the Guardian’s petition of February 15, 2018 to its Motion for Summary Judgment demonstrates the tie in between the Guardian appointed in case 07 P 5360 and the instant matter. The inclusion of the Petition et al was clearly intended to distract from the overt criminality that occurred on January 25, 2018.
755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is remedial legislation (as is 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56). Remedial legislation is broadly construed and rarely ignored as it reflects societies attempt to address a serious problem. The trial court below chose to ignore the protections mandated by society and the legislature. The aforesaid Petition of February 15, 2018, was intended to give credence to the idea that the Probate Court recognized the factual situation and after due consideration approved Mrs. Sallas’ guardian entering in the transaction of January 25, 2018.
Reading the Petition of February 15, 2018 obviates the argument of prior attornment by the Probate Court as not one word appears in the petition that alerts the Probate Judge supervising the Guardian that a crime was committed by the Byline Bank, that the principal balance of the loan was NOT approximately $175,000.00, or that Financial Elder Abuse had been committed and the Judge was not being told the salient and important facts. Apparently the ruse worked in the Probate Division and again before the lower court.
There is no question as to words of section 22 and the fact that the criminal violating the act is barred from collection of the void obligation from the property of the victim (Amelia Sallas). Slight of hand is obviated and barred. The Court below should have been aware of the full meaning of Section 22 and the legislative intend to protect the elderly from predators. Denying Sallas the opportunity of discovery and presenting a defense denied him (and his wife – a necessary party) of due process of law.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons mentioned herein, the Appellant Dean Sallas respectfully requests this Court to reverse the decision of the trial court, dismiss the foreclosure proceeding and to restore Mr. and Mrs. Sallas to their home.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONCLUSION
Elderly (persons such as Dean and Amelia Sallas) are reported daily in the media as being subjected to predation by unscrupulous individuals who relentlessly prey on them. Publicity such as articles in the New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Press, Netflix, GAO reports etc. have had limited impact on protection in spite of legislation such as 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, which the trial court totally ignored, or 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56. It further appears that the ancient and hallmark criteria of Equity Court have also been abrogated in this Court.
Equity Courts (such as the trial court in these proceedings historically did not require either section 22 or section 56 to address the atrocity of financial elderly abuse and predation of the elder proudly pleaded by the Byline Bank in these proceedings. The fact that an averred co-conspirator promulgates its co=operation from ultra vires wrongful assumptions of nefarious over-reach tolerated by another Court in another branch of this Court fails to deprive this Court of the duty of compliance with equitable concepts.
The Guardian appointed for Amy Sallas is limited in his authority not only by the words of appointment authorized by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, to wit:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
But his appointment is further limited by his fiduciary relationship and theoretically by a supervising judge and the judge’s diligence and devotion to the Rule of Law. The trial court herein sitting in Chancery (equity) has an affirmative duty (as the conscience of the sovereign) to address the totality of the situation. Its power of Judicial notice obviates any claim or argument leading to benign neglect.
Thus, there is no excuse for the trial court to not observe that:
1) The home loan sought to be foreclosed was predatory, as it was a procrustean commercial loan. This loan arrangement augmented the income of the Byline line Bank, not only be its terms, short duration, higher than similar loan arrangement for home loans as to interest, fees, et al,
2) The government sponsored reverse interest loan was not offered to this elderly couple, even though it would have eliminated the very cash flow problems that lead to this foreclosure. (The home had a value of approximately ½ million dollars and the alleged indebtedness was less than $200,000.00.
3) That interest and terms were more expensive than the published loan arrangements reported in the media for the area, type of dwelling, et al.
4) That the guardian’s conduct was highly unusual, appeared to be over-reaching, and less than honorable.
5) The Byline Bank’s claim for attorney fees is totally unreasonable. The record reveals that the total claim was significantly greater but rejected in part by the Court. It is respectfully suggested that the over-reach of the plaintiff herein is so significant that it should be addressed by this court. In certain Federal cases excessive attorney fees are reported to result in a denial of all attorney fees. Under Illinois law, excessive interest charges, result in loss of all interest charges. .
Finally, the appellant wishes to spread of record and point out Chancery (Equity cases) are not tried in a vacuum. When the Chancellor take jurisdiction, especially when a claim for Summary Judgment is made, the entire proceeding is before him – not just bits and pieces. Thus, the actions of Court appointees in abdicating their duty to protect their wards has to be noted. Attention is thus called to the fact the Court appointed Guardian failed to present 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 as a defense to this foreclosure. The Guardian at all times relevant was well aware that Amy Sallas is a necessary party to the foreclosure and the clear words of section 22 prohibit the collection of the void loan from Mrs. Sallas or her estate. Mrs. Sallas’ home is patently part of her marital estate. The Guardian’s authority is limited by the 14th Amendment and the section 3b words:
Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.
As noted supra - guardian is not the alter=ego of his ward and his authority is limited by the criteria to those specific actions that are in fact 1) reasonable, 2) necessary, and 3) beneficial to the ward.
Standing out is the spectrum of a Court appointed guardian saddling his ward and her husband with a procrustean commercial loan arrangement clearly detrimental to them. (If the Court exercises judicial notice it will also recall that during the January 2018 loans were prevalent and interest rates extremely low – if memory is correct, some lenders in even making negative interest loans) It therefore follows that the trial court did not operate or render its decisions in a vacuum. The trial courts viewing these proceedings had affirmative duties to address the apparent irregularities that were being disclosed – even if the same were not of record. Chancery Courts do not engage in blind man’s bluff – only Justice and protection of America’s core values such as equal protection of the law.
Equal Protection of the Law pursuant to the 14th “Amendment is more than a catch phrase; it is a core value of American civilization. The perversion of the same in any manner is unacceptable in all forms especially in relation to the vulnerable in our society. The Elderly (such as Dean Sallas age 85, and Amelia Sallas (age ) are particularly vulnerable. The Illinois legislature recognized the same when it enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.
The enactment of the aforesaid statutes was an attempt to remediate the very maladies that are prevalent in this appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas became involved in Court proceedings that resulted in their 50 plus year marriage being grossly interfered with by a Court appointed guardian. This Guardian ignored his fiduciary and statutory responsibilities and acted allegedly in concert with a Predatory lender to forfeit the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas using predatory lending tactics including a commercial loan arrangement that culminated in an approximately $175,000.00 loan balance on January 25, 2018 resulting roughly two years later in a deficiency loan balance of approximately $350,000.00 with the apparent attornment of the Court appointed guardian.
As this litigation was culminated in by a decree of SUMMARY JUDGMENT rather than a trial, this Appellate Court is respectfully requested to vacate the Summary Judgment order as being anticipatory and improperly granted. The criteria for the grant of a Summary Judgment being – “the court determining that upon a reasonable examination of all the facts of this case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party – there are no facts that would tending to allow a court to rule in favor of the non-moving party. Considering the admission by all (including the plaintiff) that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 has been violated by plaintiff, Summary Judgment must be denied. Indeed, in light of 720 ILCS 5/17—56 and the Neprozatis case the predatory nature of the Commercial loan documents of January25, 2018 which are the basis for this foreclosure similarly are deleterious to the success of this foreclosure suit.
Appellant respectfully urges this Court to reverse the Summary Judgment granted by the Circuit Court, and vacate all subsequent orders of foreclosure, sale and confirmation and sending this matter back to the trial for the plaintiff to have leave to file defenses, obtain discovery, file counterclaims, and enjoy due process of law and a trial on the merits, if any.
[1] It should be noted that at the time of this signing of the Commercial loan Documents, Mrs. Sallas (Amy Sallas) (age approaching 80years) had been adjudicated in case 07 P 5360 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois entitled In re: Amelia Sallas as a disabled person and a Guardian was appointed for her. Ignoring, the clear prohibition of statute, prior to the defendant being given an opportunity to do discovery, present defenses, or even plead to the complaint, on ( ) the Court below entered Summary Judgment in the principal sum of $
[2] Mr. Sallas’ Cook County, Illinois attorney withdrew his appearance on ( ), and he has been pro-se since that date.
[3] Mrs. Sallas, is sued in this proceeding by the Byline Bank as Amelia Sallas. The Commercial loan agreement executed on January 25, 2018, recognizes Mrs. Sallas’ person interest in the subject property. The undated signature page signed by Mr. Golbert, the Court appointed guardian for Mrs. Sallas – and apparently the subject matter of the Petition in case 07 P 5360 is the immediate following page to exhibit H. This page is un=usual in that 1) it has a signature line for Dean Sallas and the guardian failed to include with his signature an exculpation clause. As no judgment was sought by the Appellee against Mr. Golbert in any capacity including but not limited to Public Guardian the Commercial contract of both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas is materially changed. Such a situation should release Mr. Sallas from liability. Mrs. Sallas is release by section 22.
[4] It is respectfully submitted that regardless of whether or not the appellant’s appeal is accepted or not, the conduct of the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN and the apparent attornment of the BYLINE BANK and its attorneys must be reported to law enforcement. The February 15, 2018 petition in case 07 P 5360 submitted to Judge Boliker is much more than ethically challenged. The Guardian had a duty to provide Judge Boliker with all the facts, including but not limited to: 1) the violation by the Byline Bank of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, 2) the clear overcharge on interest and other charges occasioned by a Commercial loan, 3) the fact that other loan arrangements were available – the home had a value of approximately ½ million dollars and thus several hundred thousand dollars in equity, 4) the transaction had been complete for 3 weeks in violation of the law, 5) the consequences of the criminal action of the Byline Bank, and 6) that there was a secret balance due that was not being disclosed by the Byline Bank.
[5] Dean Sallas does not admit to any liability on any note that the Byline Bank claims to have. Dean Sallas is still entitled to his day in Court. The dismissal of this foreclosure lawsuit for failure to be able to sue all necessary parties does not foreclose the Byline Bank from suing Dean Sallas at law. The Statute just bars Byline from suing Mrs. Sallas. (It should be noted that the contract signed by the Guardian was signed without an exculpation clause – it appears on its face to be an acclamation of personal liability on the part of the Cook County Public Guardian). Fortuitously, on the foreclosure proceeding is before this Court.
Ken Ditkowsky
Attention Law Enforcement: All of you are being properly Noticed with Courtesy Copies in a unified manner because of the concerted actions of Clerks and other conspirators acting as Judges dispatching orders as if cases have been presented before judges when in fact a lot of cases are fixed under the tables preventing the judges from acting on this matter and other cases similar like this before other judges.
This case amplifies how Clerks are using their positions to aid and assist in a plethora of criminal activities assisting other law firms to steal homes in illegal foreclosures and try to destroy the records so as to cover-up their tracks.
Marcia Johnson
FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE LEGAL REALM, I HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN IN FRONT OF A BLACK JUDGE OR STATES ATTORNEY WITH THE INTEGRITY OR MORAL TURPITUDE TO OPEN UP THEIR MOUTHS AND SPEAK UP ON ANYTHING THAT IS WRONG THAT MAY INVOLVE CAUCASIANS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, MOST BLACK LEADERS WILL KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT SO AS TO NOT UPSET ANY OF THE SPONSORS WHO FINANCED THEIR CAMPAIGNS IN ORDER THAT THEY ARE ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO ANY POSITIONS WITHIN THE POLITICAL MACHINE.
THIS IS 2023 THERE ARE BLACKS WHO STILL ACT LIKE THEY ARE WEARING CHAINS AND LIVING ON PLANTATIONS DOING THE BIDDING OF WHAT THEY ARE TOLD, TO MAINTAIN THEIR JOBS IN THE PARTY.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CASE ONLY 7 PAGES OUT OF 25 IS NECESSARY JUST ABOUT EVERY NEGRO WHO WANTS TO BE DESCRIBED AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN RECEIVED NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF A FORMER ALDERWOMAN WAS APPOINTED THE POSITION AS A JUDGE BECAME THE WORSE JUDGE TO EVER PUT ON A ROBE.
HER JOB WAS TO HELP RACIST BANK ATTORNEYS STEAL THE HOMES FROM HARD WORKING RETIRED SENIOR CITIZENS OR WHOMEVER HOMES THE MACHINE OPERATIVES TELL HER TO STEAL.
NOBODY RESPECTS BLACKS IN AUTHORITY MANY THINK THEY ARE A FUCKING JOKE BECAUSE, THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE PUBLIC WHAT SO MANY HAVE DONE TO BE APPOINTED JUST SO THEY CAN ACT AS STRAW BOSSES OVER THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS.
THERE ARE CAUCASIANS WITH BUSINESES BEING AFFECTED BY THESE TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO PREFER ANY ETHNIC GROUP TO BE IN CHARGE WHO HAS A BACKBONE AND WILL TAKE A STAND ON WHAT IS RIGHT AND STOP LOOKING FOR MR. CHARLEY TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, AND WHEN TO DO IT.
THE SAD REALITY IT IS GOING TO TAKE CERTAIN CAUCASIANS OR LATINOS TO STEP UP AND DO WHAT THE INFERIOR NEGROES DIDN'T DO WHILE THEY WERE IN OFFICES BECAUSE TOO MANY OF THEM WERE TRYING TO PLEASE MR. CHARLEY OR BE HIM OR HER, DUE TO SELF-HATE, THE ONLY TIME MANY OF THE INCUMBENTS BECAME AFRICAN AMERICAN OR WITH THE BLACK POWER MOVEMENT IS WHEN THE REALITY OF THEM LOSING THEIR HOUSE NIGGER STATUS WAS IN JEOPARDY NOW, THEY WANT TO ATTEND ALL OF THE CHURCHES ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES FOR THE BLACK VOTE.
TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT HOW RACIST WHITE JUDGES ACT LIKE KU KLUX KLANSMEN AND STEAL A WOMAN'S HOME AS SHE NEVER MISSED PAYING HER MORTGAGE, THEY HAD COUNTY CLERKS TO DESTROY COURT FILES AND, IN THE ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT, THEY HAD CLERKS INTERCEPT DOCUMENTS AND MAKE SURE BLACK JUDGES NOT SEE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON---BLACKS MAY HAVE THE TITLES BUT NO POWER!
WHO WANTS A FIGUREHEAD LEADING THEM?
TAKE A LOOK AT THE LINK BELOW AND SEE HOW BLACK ATTORNEYS LAW LICENSE WERE SUSPENDED FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT CORRUPT POLITICALLY CONNECTED JUDGES.
LOOK AT HOW CLERKS DESTROY COURT FILES AND PREVENT JUDGES FROM WITNESSING THE CORRUPTION OF THEIR BRETHERN.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LJjR24qvSdAmvJIYcwnpGbEBPkKeLrAX/view?usp=share_link
________________________________ 129343________________________________
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 )
)
)
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDERS DUE TO ERROR “FRAUD” TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS
MAKING THE ORDERS A NULLITY CLERKS ARE DELETING RECORDS FROM DATABASE AND ALLEGEDLY
DISPATCHING COURT ORDERS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE COURT w/AFFIDAVIT
_______________________________________________________________________
Now comes Plaintiff-Appellant, Monzella
Y. Johnson., a United States Citizen by and through herself Pro se respectfully
moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order with affidavit
in the above-entitled cause.
Reasons in
support of this motion are set forth in the attached affidavit.
Respectfully Submitted,
By:
____________________________
Monzella Y. Johnson.
Pro
Se /Appellant
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT
I Monzella Y. Johnson, being first duly sworn on
oath depose and states as follows:
1.)
Motions for Reconsideration are
designed to bring to the court’s attention newly discovered evidence that was
unavailable at time of original hearing, changes in existing law, or errors in
court’s application of law. Continental
Cas. Co. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, App. 1 Dist. 1996, 216 Ill. Dec.
314, 279 Ill. App. 3d 815, 665 N.E. 2d 374, appeal dismissed, et al.;
2.)
The purpose of a Motion to Vacate is to alert the trial
court to errors it has made and to afford an opportunity for their correction. In re Marriage of King, App. 1 Dist. 2002,
270 Ill. Dec. 540, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83, 783 N.E. 2d 115, rehearing denied
pending appeal; et al.
3.)
That the Appellees having
admitted to all facts recorded in said affidavits;
a.
Clerks nor Officers of the court have no jurisdiction ignored and
obstructed justice demonstrating Prejudice and Bias behavior pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2-----1001
(a) (3); Sup. Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1), by making sure said Motions never was presented
to the SEVEN JUSTICES in the ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT..
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.
4.) That on Jan. 26, 2023, Appellant filed her MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR ISSUANCE OF
A SUPERVISORY ORDER and said Motion was never allegedly docketed in the database.
5.) That on Feb 8, 2023, Ref as Ex A Appellant received an email from an alleged
Clerk or Officer of the Court a TYPED LETTER “TODAY THE FOLLOWING ORDER
WAS ENERED IN THE CAPTIONED CASE”
A-
That Ex A had no CERTIFICATION or NAMES OF ANY JUDGES in ATTENDENCE on the
Order.
6.) That on Feb. 8, 2023 only after calling (217)
782-8132 and was connected to Matthew Rousey he provided his email and emailed
an Order FILE STAMPED Feb 8, 2023 Ref
as Ex B, not CERTIFIED nor the NAMES OF ANY JUDGES IN ATTENDENCE.
7.) That on Feb 8, 2023 Appellants received a message
from 855 667-8592, calling on behalf of owner to help relocate them and sent a Certified
Letter, Ref as Gr Ex S,
Altisource.
8.) That on Feb 13, 2023 near and around 2:01 pm
a printout Ref as Gr Ex C identifies the last cases for the past 30 days filed, Page 2 does not reflect that Ex A was in fact filed
9.) That on Feb 13, 2023 near and around 2:24 pm
a printout Ref as Gr Ex D identifies the case In re: Committee on Character and
Fitness, Order Date Feb 8, 2023, That Page 2 of Gr Ex D does not reflect
that none of the documents filed by the Appellant is properly noticed as being
filed at any time.
10.) That in Ref to Gr Ex D see how STATE
OF ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, Ref as
Ex E corroborates and verifies with
the STRICTEST VERACITY of the Supreme Court Justices receiving and ruling on a
case presented in a legally upright manner with a SEAL, SIGNATURE AND FILE
STAMP, In re: Committee on Character and Fitness.
A-
That the
Appellees can not under any circumstances impeach any of the factual pleadings
asserted in this Motion accompanied with an affidavit; due to its veracity, but
is relying on any Clerk to intercept this document and delete it and prohibit
it from reaching any judge in the Supreme Court by any corrupt means necessary.
B-
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.
11.) That Gr Ex F purportedly from
the Justices of the Hon Supreme Court, (Feb 22, 2023) further corroborate alleged Domestic Terrorists acting
in an unofficial capacity by emailing to the Appellant an Order entered by the
Court; thereby, Inducing Reliance upon the Appellant and other parties
receiving said document.
A-
That
said Domestic Terrorists operating as “Private Citizens” have infiltrated State Agencies, courts etc.
and has violated the Ku Klux Klan Act That said “Private Citizens” are so Corrupt and Nefarious
and deem themselves untouchable “Trespassing
upon the Laws” engaging in “Treason
Offenses” in that said Parties are now in violation of the following Act, Pursuant to Section 4 of the Ku Klux
Klan Act of 1871: the law is clear, “Whenever in any State or part of a
State………unlawful combinations…….shall be organized and armed, and so numerous
and powerful et al…………and whenever, by reason of either or all of the causes
aforesaid, the conviction of such offenders and the preservation of the public
safety shall become…..Impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall
be deemed a rebellion against the Government of the United States…..”
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action
for fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491
N.E. 2d 1236, 96 ILL Dec. 776, 142 ILL App 3d 354, Appeal Denied.
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme Court has held that: “The elements of a
cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as
“fraud and deceit” or deceit) are: (1) False statement of material fact; (2)
known or believed to be false by the party making it; (3) intent to induce the
other party to act; (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of
the statement; and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance.
12.) That because so many persons in responsible
authority have been able to Induce
Reliance on so many others have deluded
many in competent jurisdiction to accept any document as genuine because of the
environment it may have been created and or mailed from.
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.
13.) Pursuant to Vigus V. O’Bannon, hereto
attached, Gr Ex G, a CERTIFIED COURT ORDER of Feb. 23, 2023, where Attorney Joseph P. Harris, ID# 28618
appeared before Michael T. Mullens Case #13 CH 17994 on
Calendar 60 call with the Defendant Peggy Strong.
14.) Court Order states “This matter coming
before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment, Counsel for both
parties present in court, the court hearing oral argument and being advised in
the premises it is Defendant and her counsel representing that they never
defaulted.”
1. “Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
denied without prejudice, the court finding Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of
the motion insufficient to demonstrate no genuine of issues of material fact
with respect to the issue of default”
15.) That hereto attached, Ex’s H & I Affidavits from Joseph P. Harris (attorney whose license was
suspended for speaking out about these unlawful foreclosure proceedings) and Peggy
Strong swearing under oath that they appeared before Judge Mullens and
never Judge Otto April 23, 2014.
See that is why, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (was enacted)
- Section 1 (42 U.S.C.) 1983.
“Of all the Civil Rights legislation
enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, none has had a greater contemporary
impact than the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act grew out of a special
one-paragraph message sent to the 42d Congress on March 23, 1871, by President
Ulysses S. Grant, urgently requesting the enactment of legislation”.
Section 2 (42 U.S.C.) In the House of Representatives.
“Congressional Debate of the
second section of the Ku Klux Klan Act was more extensive and enduring than
that of Section 1; As originally presented, Sec. 2 made it a felony for any
“two or more persons” to conspire to commit certain enumerated crimes “in violation
of the rights and privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is
entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“Throughout the debates, supporters
of the Act made repeated references to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan;
Victims of these atrocities included not only blacks but white Republicans as
well. The crimes that were perpetrated, therefore, were not viewed as isolated
occurrences, but as part of an “Organized Conspiracy….Political in its origin
and aims”, “crimes perpetrated by concert and agreement, by men in large
numbers acting with a common purpose for the injury of a certain class of
citizens entertaining certain political principles, id, at 457 (remarks of Rep. Coburn). See also e.g., id.
At 437 (remarks of Rep. Cobb) (“None but Democrats belong or can belong to
these societies”) et al.,
“Where these gangs of Assassins show
themselves the rest of the people look on, if not with sympathy, at least with
forbearance. The boasted courage of the South is not courage in their presence.
Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not;
witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand or petit juries act as if they
might be accomplices. In the presence of these gangs all the apparatus and
machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if
government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most
dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to justice. Of the
uncounted scores and hundreds of atrocious mutilations and murders it is
credibly stated that not one has been punished. Cong. Globe, supra note 2, app. At 78 (remarks of Rep. Perry). (“While murder is stalking abroad in disguise,
while whippings and lynching’s and banishment have been visited upon
unoffending American citizens, the local administrations have been found
inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective”) et al., …. And the
State made no successful effort to bring the guilty to punishment or afford protection
or redress to the outraged and innocent.”)
16.) That Gr Ex J (filed June 25,
2015) prepared by Gr Ex H, DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S GLOBAL
MOTIONS AND REQUEST TO RECONSIDER PRIOR JUDGMENTS
A-
That Pars 5,6,7,8 validate the veracity evidence was presented demonstrating said Defendant
was never in DEFAULT nor was she in any type of FORECLOSURE.
B-
That
Par 10 unequivocally articulate that Judge Thullins (which was an error typing
his name it should have been Mullens)
states “if we recall correctly this case was before Judge Thulin in
2803, originally not Judge Otto, in 2804”
C-
That Par 11, states, “the judge, who denied the motions the first time, had
instructed the Plaintiff’s attorney to come back into his courtroom and explain
why the Plaintiff was attempting to compel the Defendant to pay through an
escrow account, when she was not delinquent in her payments. That the Plaintiff
waited three months and never complied with the court directive et al.
D-
That
Par 12, states, “That approximately three months later, the Plaintiff
refiled the same motion’s a second time, however the file miraculously was now
in Judge Otto’s Courtroom, without any form of a notice to either the Defendant
nor her attorney, of this apparent change, of courtroom or the judges”
GENERAL ORDER
NO. 3.1,1.4 - Changes of Venue
a.
Whenever a judge assigned to the Chancery Division, either on his own motion or
upon motion of the parties, grants a change of venue, the case shall be
reassigned to the Presiding Judge of the Division who shall order the Clerk to
draw by random electronic process from the category bank designated on the
original pleading a new calendar number.
(i) The
electronic data processing equipment shall automatically exclude the calendar
number of any judge to whom the case has previously been assigned.
(ii)
Procedures followed by the Clerk when an order for a change of venue is made
shall be the same as prescribed in 1.3 a (iv), a (v), a (vi), a (vii), b and c
above.
(iii)
The excluded calendar or calendars shall appear on the three-part printed form
in addition to the information provided in 1.3 a (v) above.
GENERAL ORDER
NO. 1.3 - Assignment or Transfer of Actions
(a) Assignment of Actions.
Subject
to Rule 295 of the Illinois Supreme Court, any action may be assigned to any
judge or associate judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for hearing or trial,
regardless of the department, division or district in which the case was filed
or to which the judge is regularly assigned. Any action or proceeding may be
heard or tried in any courtroom in the Circuit Court of Cook County, regardless
of the department, district or division in which the case was filed or for
which the courtroom is regularly used.
(b) Filing or Trial in Wrong
Branch.
