Part 2 of 2 Petition for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative Supervisory Order filed before the Illinois Supreme Court July 23, 2024.
Because the document is 40 Pages, the first 20 Pages are posted separately, the Clerk of the Supreme Court FILE STAMPED Page 21 the Motion for Leave et al.
Parties served were First District Appellate Court Judges Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr, Margaret Stanton McBride, David W. Ellis, via email nwatson@IllinoisCourts.gov, Potestivo & Associates, Bryan Gerald. Thompson, Poulami Mal, Lord & Locke Law Firm, Phillip Russell Perdew.
This case amplifies the Hate the Democrats have for Black or Colored People who fight back against tyranny and injustices not one person of Color in the Democratic Party opened their mouths and denounced any of these atrocious criminal acts perpetrated by US Bank attorneys trying to illegally steal a home in the guise of FORECLOSURE, as a matter of fact, Black Democrats are PROMOTED and sponsored to judgeships on how well they fuck over Black and Brown people for members of the Political Machine.
Judge Freddrenna Lyle who don't know the rules of law and was a former Alderwoman was PROMOTED to the APPELLATE COURT for a job well done violating every law recorded in the books using her ethnicity covering up for the racist corrupt attorneys working for US Bank.
Judge James T. Derico was appointed as a Judge and followed the same suit as Lyle in DENYING every Motion presented to him showing that US Bank attorneys was committing FRAUD on the Courts, he was fucking onery as Hell and was more like a Stephen of Django portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson.
IT IS A FACT: READ THIS DOCUMENT BLACK DEMOCRATS DO NOT HELP FREE MEN OR WOMEN WHO STANDS UP TO RACISM, CORRUPTION WHERE CAUCASIANS ARE CONCERNED, MANY OF THEM GO ALONG WITH RACISM SO AS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE VERY ONES WHO DON'T LIKE OR RESPECT THEM.
It seems like being a Democrat in Illinois, I am not sure how Blacks acts in other cities but, I can attest to this fact in Chicago, Illinois many of them act like obedient servants on a SLAVE PLANTATION, they are violent nasty to their own ethnic groups and certain Hispanics but act in a manner of extreme supplication when dealing with Caucasians over their own ethnic groups.
Chicago do not have a Black DEMOCRAT who has the authority regardless to any of their titles or positions to open up their mouths and say anything negative about what the racist Caucasians have done in this case or in Part 1, the only ethnic groups who can say something are certain Caucasians not affiliated or part of this case and certain Hispanics who do not share the same Inferior disposition as many of the Blacks who want to be accepted by the Democratic Political Machine.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE CREATED LAWS MAKING SURE BLACK AND REPUBLICANS RECEIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871, the Democrats have found a way to circumvent those laws and recruit Blacks and Colored people to violate the Civil Rights of their own ethnic groups; thereby, protecting many of the racist individuals who may be the architects behind the scenes.
Many of the Black Democrats especially of Color will say anything to seek your vote but in reality once they are elected you become a NOBODY, they are in the position and don't give a dam about you your neighborhoods or your families until it is time for the next election.
THIS IS THE PAGE THAT WAS FILE STAMPED
________________________________________________________________________
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 James T.
Derico
)
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 LEAVE TO FILE
PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER HOW DOES
THE APPELLATE COURT WHO HAD JURISDICTION IN 2011 (JUDGES NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., CAUCASIAN
JOSEPH GORDON, JAMES R. EPSTEIN) AFFIRMING CIRCUIT COURTS DECISION VACATING FORECLOSURE
AND SALE SAME PARTIES APPELLEES NEVER APPEALED THE ORDER NEVER FILED AN
APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENT MATTER APPELLATE COURT BUT SAME JUDGE (NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR., MARGARET S. MCBRIDE, DAVID W. ELLIS) NOW CHANGES HIS MIND AND
COLLUDE WITH OTHER CAUCASIAN JUDGES AND RULE THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN
THE APPELLEES ADMITTED TO ALL PLEADINGS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ”
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” OFFENSES IN THIS ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE w/AFFIDAVIT
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme
Court of the State of Illinois:
Now
comes Plaintiff-Appellant Monzella Y. Johnson. your Petitioners, being
represented Pro se, the people of the State of Illinois, by the relator herein
Illinois, a Citizen, a Resident and an elector of the City of Chicago, County
of Cook, and State of Illinois, by Monzella Y. Johnson., respectfully asks
leave of this court to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus et, al; and that
summons issue as provided by law.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
________________________________________________________________________
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 James T.
Derico
)
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 )
)
)
SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
Along with
MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
TRESPASSERS
OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court
has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and
those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are
trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court
stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar
to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They
constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such
judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v.
Piersol, 1 Pet. 328,
340,
26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter
upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can
add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding."
The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a
void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become
trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757
(N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of
his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit
an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a
judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law,
the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of
no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683,
1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a
manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with
the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of
his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him
any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United
States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state
officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual
(in his person).
NOT ONE DEMOCRAT IN THIS CITY OR STATE UNDERSTOOD THIS AREA OF
LAW AND WHY THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT WAS ENACTED:
That Pursuant to 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
lynchings 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.”)
That
Under 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….”
1.) . 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).
2.) 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.
3.)
That the Appellant
has met and exceeded the burden required
in Fed Rule
Civ P. 8 and 9 require plaintiffs to particularize their
allegations of "fraud on the court" in as
short, plain, and direct a way as is reasonable. To comply with these rules, the
Court instructed plaintiffs to set out each judicial proceeding complained of,
allege specific facts that make those proceedings "fraudulent" or
otherwise improper, and name the particular judges and other individuals
involved and the extent of their involvement in each claim of
"fraudulent" or otherwise improper conduct.
4.) That because of the Color of said Defendant’s
skin and that they are Senior Citizens, State Employees nor Democratic judges
deem them as United States citizen entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws and
is violating every area of the laws egregiously as if the Ku Klux Klan members
are controlling the Democratic Legal Arenas and or State Agencies.
5.) “Any judge who does not comply with his
oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution
and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is
engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three oaths of
office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution
of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the
Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully
comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888) he/she is without
jurisdiction , and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
6.)
That the Seventh Circuit
ruling from Judge Sykes and Michael S. Kanne where former appointed Trump Amy
Barrett stated: ( ALL REPUBLICANS)
Seventh Circuit Overturns $44.7 Million
Jury Verdict Against City in Shooting Incident
Wednesday,
February 24, 2021 Julie
Tappendorf
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
recently overturned a jury verdict against the City of Chicago awarding $44.7
million in damages relating to a shooting involving an off-duty police
officer. First Midwest Bank as Guardian v. City of Chicago.
According to the court opinion, the
plaintiff claimed that a Chicago police officer shot his friend during an
argument when the two had been drinking. The friend suffered traumatic brain
and other injuries. The friend sued the City of Chicago seeking damages for the
shooting, arguing that the City was responsible for the officer's conduct.
Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the City's failure to have an
"early warning system" to identify officers who might engage in
misconduct, failure to adequately investigate and discipline officers who
engage in misconduct, and the "code of silence" among police officers
contributed to the shooting incident. The City argued that the officer was off
duty and not acting under "color of state law" at the time of the
shooting, so the City was not liable under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights
Act. The case made its way to a jury which found the City of Chicago liable and
awarded $44.7 million in damages to the plaintiff. The jury found that two of the
City's policies - its failure to maintain an adequate early warning system and
failure to adequately investigate and discipline officers - caused the officer
to shoot his friend.
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.
7.) A
judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law.
Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures.
Judge ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’
schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to
clearly stated rules breed disrespect for and discontent with our justice
system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its
tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
A- Fraud upon the court is
a basis for equitable relief. Luttrell v. United States, 644 F. 2d 1274, 1276
(9th Cir. 1980); see Abatti v. C.I.R. , 859 F 2d 115, 118 (9th
Cir. 1988) “it is beyond question that a court may investigate a question as to
whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment” Universal Oil
Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed.
1447. The power of the court to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it
effectively. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64
S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 1184 and United
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L. Ed. 93.
B- “A judge is an officer of
the court, as are all members of the Bar. A judge is a judicial officer, paid
by the Government to act impartially and lawfully”. People v. Zajic, 88
Ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626. “A
void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it
would be if there were no judgment. It has no legal or binding force or
efficacy for any purpose or at any place….It is not entitled to enforcement.
30A Am Judgments 43, 44, 45. Henderson v Henderson 59 S.E. 2d 227-232
C- “A Void Judgment from its inception is and forever continues to be
absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support
a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation,
ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. “A void judgment,
order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or
collaterally” Oak Park Nat Bank v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill.
App. 2d 385, 197 N.E. 3d 73, 77, (1st Dist. 1964)
D- 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);
E- 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).
The petition and the procedure in
this case are based upon former proceedings in which this court granted the
writ prayed. People V. Fischer, 303 Ill 430, 135 NE 751 et, al.
The supervisory authority of the
Supreme Court of Illinois: A powerful tool for the court and practitioner
alike. April 2012 Vol. 57, No. 9, Ill State Bar Ass.
In Philip Morris, USA, Inc. v. Byron, 226 Ill.2d 416 (2007), albeit in
dissent, Justice Freeman, joined by now Chief Justice Kilbride, stated that
“[g]enerally this court will not issue a supervisory order absent a finding
that (i) the normal appellate process will not afford adequate relief, (ii) the
dispute involves a matter important to the administration of justice, or (iii)
our intervention is necessary in order to prevent an inferior tribunal from
acting beyond the scope of its authority.” 226
Ill.2d at 422 (citation omitted)
Justice Freeman and Chief Justice
Kilbride thus appear to have treated the lack of adequate appellate relief
situation as an alternative basis for granting a supervisory order rather than
simply a factor modifying the other two bases for granting such an order. This
expanded formulation of the supervisory order standard is a logical extension
given the Rule’s constitutional underpinnings. After all, as noted above, the
Illinois Constitution states that “supervisory authority over all courts is
vested in the Supreme Court” without any reference to the normal appellate
process. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, Sec.
16
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy
to compel compliance with mandatory legal standards. People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill.2d 185, 192-93 (2009)
(“Mandamus relief will not be granted unless the petitioner shows a clear right
to the requested relief, a clear duty of the public officer to act, and clear
authority of the public officer to comply with the order.” (Emphasis in
original).
Rule 383 and the
Standards the Court Utilizes in Considering Motions for Supervisory Order:
Rule 383
provides, at its most basic, that “[a] motion requesting the exercise of the
Supreme Court’s supervisory authority shall be supported by explanatory
suggestions and shall contain or have attached to it the lower court records or
other pertinent material that will fully present the issues.”Rule 383(a) After stating the
requirements for service, the Rule provides a relatively expedited period for
objection— seven days when service of the motion is made by facsimile or 14
days when service is accomplished by mail or commercial carrier. Rule
383(c) Additionally, the Rule allows oral argument at the discretion of the
court. Rule 383(d)
The formulation of the standard for supervisory orders in
Suria is very broad. Suria provides that a supervisory order may be granted in
any situation where a trial or appellate court acted in excess of its authority
or abused its discretionary authority. Suria,
112 Ill. 2d at 38.
Justice Freeman and former Chief Justice Kilbride thus
appear to have treated the lack of adequate appellate relief situation as an
alternative basis for granting a supervisory order rather than simply a factor
modifying the other two bases for granting such an order. This expanded
formulation of the supervisory order standard is a logical extension given the
Rule’s constitutional underpinnings. After all, as noted above, the Illinois
Constitution states that “supervisory authority over all courts is vested in
the Supreme Court” without any reference to the normal appellate process. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, Sec. 16.
The supervisory authority of the Supreme Court of Illinois:
A powerful tool for the court and practitioner alike By Matthew R. Carter,
Winston & Strawn LLP 2 Trial Briefs | April
2012, Vol. 57, No. 9
As the foregoing analysis reveals,
the court has absolute authority to act when it feels so compelled. Moreover,
the instances where the Supreme Court has issued supervisory orders are so
eclectic that diligent litigators should consider it a tool to achieve timely
relief in critical situations
The petition proceeds in conformity with the instructions of this court
in People
V. Haas, 239 Ill 320, 87 NE 1111, with respect to the
presentation of original petition for Mandamus et al;
The issue presented in this original petition for Mandamus involves a
matter of great public importance in that it concerns the power conferred upon County
judges by the City Election Act to punish judges and clerks as for contempt
because of misbehavior or misconduct in their respective offices.
Petitioner respectfully submits that the court should grant leave to
file the Petition for Writ of Mandamus et al; duly signed and verified and
herewith presented with a petition, and with these suggestions and Memorandum
of Law in support of the relief requested, and that a summons issue in
conformity with the law, to the Appellees returnable within a short time to be fixed by
this court, so that in this proceeding the powers of the County judges under
the City Election Act may be definitely and promptly determined.
REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
I.
Sup Ct. Rule 71, Sufficient
for Removal, conduct which does not constitute a criminal offense may be
sufficiently violative of the Judicial canons to warrant removal for cause. Napolitano
v. Ward, 457 F 2d 279 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 409
U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972).
Sup Ct. Rule 63 (C) (1). S.H.A. 735 ILCS
5/2-----1001 (a) (3);
In Re Marriage of O’Brien
912 N.E. 2d 729 (Ill App. 2 Dist. 2009),
When a party moves for
substitution of the trial judge for cause based upon an alleged violation of
rule setting forth mandatory bases for recusal, the movant need only show the
existence of that factor and that an objective, reasonable person would conclude
that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and need not show
actual prejudice.
Canon
3
D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct
Fravel v. Haughey, 727
So. 2d 1033 (Fla.
App. Ct. 1999), Illinois Judicial Ethics Op. 2001-06 (2001)
Acts constituting direct, criminal
contempt
A wide variety of acts may constitute a direct, criminal
contempt. And act may be criminal contempt even though it is also an indictable
crime. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. App 651, 1889 WL
2373 (1st Dist. 1889). As is making false representations to the
court. People v. Katelhut, 322 Ill. App. 693, 54 N.E.2d
590 (1st Dist. 1944). Misconduct of an officer of the court is
punishable as contempt. People ex rel.
Rusch v. Levin, 305 Ill.
App. 142, 26 N.E. 2d 895 (1st Dist. 1939).
Official
misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits
misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when, in his official
capacity, he intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as
required by law; or knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by
law to perform; or with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority ….S.H.A. Ch 38
33-3.
False statements
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which she knew or reasonably should have known
to be false, and failed to disclose to tribunal a material fact known to her
when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting criminal or fraudulent at by
client, given that attorney’s misconduct was not result of dishonest or corrupt
motive, but of misguided attempt to accommodate clients. 99 Ill.Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH11
Three-year suspension was
recommended sanction for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty
and fraud, made statement of material fact to tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known was false, and offered evidence that he knew to be
false and failed to take reasonable remedial measures. 96 Ill.Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. SH 358.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, made false statements
of material fact or law to tribunal which she knew were false and engaged in
conduct which tended to defeat administration of justice. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 877.
Censure was recommended sanction for
attorney who made statements of material fact or law known was false, and
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 95
Ill Atty.Reg. & Disc.Comm. CH 504
One-year suspension was recommended sanction for attorney who made
statement of material fact which he knew was false in appearing in professional
capacity before tribunal, made a statement of material fact which he knew to be
false in course of representing client, and engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty. 95 Ill Atty.Reg. &
Disc.Comm. CH 191.
Disbarment was recommended sanction
for attorney who engaged in serious misconduct by making misrepresentation
during his divorce proceedings and who was a recidivist. 94 Ill. Atty. Reg. & Disc.Comm. SH469
Fraud on court
Two-year suspension, retroactive to beginning of interim
suspension, was recommended sanction for attorney who made statement of
material fact or law to tribunal which lawyer knew or reasonably should have
known to be false, instituted criminal charges as prosecutor when he knew or
reasonably should have known that charges were not supported by probable cause,
committed criminal act that reflected adversely upon lawyer ‘s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to
administration of justice, and engaged in conduct which tended to bring courts
or legal profession into disrepute. 96 Ill. Atty. Reg. &
Disc. Comm. CH 118.
Jim Crow Laws are still being enacted and enforced in Chicago,
Illinois Courts Black and Brown lives simply don’t matter and it is clear now
in these proceedings being elderly is worse because the laws are used against
said parties to destroy or displaced them in society unless you are in a
position to pay off certain politicians or abide by their rules and doctrines
of Corrupt politicians or Terrorists operating behind the scenes making sure
the events recorded never come to “Light”
exposing the truth how the courts are under siege by so many judges closing
their eyes to the realities of injustice, being perpetrated on the innocent and
indigent.
In the 20th century,
the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In
Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential
segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional,
in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate
facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively
overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of
society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states
of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs
v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v.
C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along
with other cases such as McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637
(1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton
v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly
dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson.
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il. 60615
_______________________________________________________________________
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 James T.
Derico
)
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 )
)
)
DRAFT ORDER
MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER HOW DOES
THE APPELLATE COURT WHO HAD JURISDICTION IN 2011 (JUDGES NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., CAUCASIAN
JOSEPH GORDON, JAMES R. EPSTEIN) AFFIRMING CIRCUIT COURTS DECISION VACATING FORECLOSURE
AND SALE SAME PARTIES APPELLEES NEVER APPEALED THE ORDER NEVER FILED AN
APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENT MATTER APPELLATE COURT BUT SAME JUDGE (NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR., MARGARET S. MCBRIDE, DAVID W. ELLIS) NOW CHANGES HIS MIND AND
COLLUDE WITH OTHER CAUCASIAN JUDGES AND RULE THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN
THE APPELLEES ADMITTED TO ALL PLEADINGS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ”
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” OFFENSES IN THIS ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE w/AFFIDAVIT
This matter having come on to be heard on
Petition for Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a Supervisory Order How does the Appellate Court who had
Jurisdiction in 2011, (Judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasian Judges Joseph
Gordon, James R. Epstein) Affirming Circuit Courts Decision Vacating
Foreclosure and Sale Same Parties, Appellees never Appealed the Order never
filed an Appearance in the Present Matter Appellate Court but Same Judge
(Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasians Margaret S. McBride, David W. Ellis) now change
his mind and collude with other Caucasian Judges and Rule they Don’t Have
Jurisdiction when the Appellees Admitted to all Pleadings of Mortgage Fraud via
Summary Judgment, “Trespassing Upon the Laws” “Treason Offenses” in this
Illegal Foreclosure w/Affidavit
It is HEREBY Ordered that Writ of Mandamus /Issuance of a
Supervisory Order Vacating Orders et al.
Granted / Denied
________________________________
Justice
________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
Justice
_________________________________
Justice
________________________________________________________________________
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 James T.
Derico
)
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 )
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
PETITION AND MOTION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUPERVISORY ORDER HOW DOES
THE APPELLATE COURT WHO HAD JURISDICTION IN 2011 (JUDGES NATHANIEL HOWSE, JR., CAUCASIAN
JOSEPH GORDON, JAMES R. EPSTEIN) AFFIRMING CIRCUIT COURTS DECISION VACATING FORECLOSURE
AND SALE SAME PARTIES APPELLEES NEVER APPEALED THE ORDER NEVER FILED AN
APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENT MATTER APPELLATE COURT BUT SAME JUDGE (NATHANIEL
HOWSE, JR., MARGARET S. MCBRIDE, DAVID W. ELLIS) NOW CHANGES HIS MIND AND
COLLUDE WITH OTHER CAUCASIAN JUDGES AND RULE THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN
THE APPELLEES ADMITTED TO ALL PLEADINGS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT ”
“TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” “TREASON” OFFENSES IN THIS ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE w/AFFIDAVIT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Defendant-Appellant
Appeals to the Illinois Supreme Court,
for an Order on Petition for Writ of
Mandamus for Issuance of a Supervisory Order How does the Appellate Court who
had Jurisdiction in 2011 (Judges Nathaniel Howse, Jr., Caucasian Joseph Gordon,
James R. Epstein) Affirming Circuit Courts Decision Vacating Foreclosure and
Sale same Parties, Appellees Never Appealed the Order, Never filed an Appearance
in the Present Matter, Appellate Court but same Judge (Nathaniel Howse, Jr.,
Margaret S. McBride, David W. Ellis) now changes his mind and Collude with
other Caucasian Judges and Rule they don’t have Jurisdiction When Appellees
Admitted to All Pleadings of Mortgage Fraud via Summary Judgment “Trespassing
Upon the Laws” “Treason” Offenses in this Illegal Foreclosure w/Affidavit ,
I Monzella Y. Johnson in this cause hereby
certify that, I Have caused the following on said service list to receive the
Petition et al., and all of its attachments by emailing and/ depositing them in
a Post Office via regular mail, August. 23, 2024 to the following:
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson,
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
Email
Service List:
Courtesy Copies
TO: THE following
By
Email
Homeland
Security ITTF.Web@illinois.gov
Capital
News Illinois jnowicki@capitolnewsillinois.com
Bureau
Chief Jerry Nowiki mownbey@illinoistimes.com
Judicial
Inquiry Board Michael Deno Michael.Deno@illinois.gov
Cook County State’s Attorney
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Kim
Foxx
50 West Washington, Suite 2600
50 West Washington, Suite 500 Chicago, Ill.
60602
Chicago, Ill. 60601
statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov Presiding
Judge Sophia Hall timothy.evans@cookcountyil.gov ccc.mfmlcalendar12@cookcountyil.gov
Cook
County Sheriff’s
Tom Dart
50 West
Washington, Suite 702 email CCSO@ccsheriff.org
Chg. IL 60601
President/CEO Rick Aneshansel
US Bank Natl. Assoc. rick.aneshansel@usbank.com
Registered
Agent: Grace A. Gorka US Bank Natl.
Assoc.
190 S. LaSalle,
grace.gorka@usbank.com ggorka@usbank.com
Chg. IL 60603
JSC_General@atgf.com Pamela Murphy-Boylan President CEO of the
(TJSC)
RPerdew@lockelord.com Lord & Locke Law Firm
simon.feng@lockelord.com Lord & Locke Law Firm
pmal@potestivolaw.com Potestivo Law Firm
chicagodocket@lockelord.com Lord & Locke Law Firm
Hon Mayor Brandon
Johnson Special Agent in Charge (FBI)
City Hall 7th
floor Wes Wheeler, Jr. .
Chicago, IL.
60601 2111 West
Roosevelt Road
Chicago, Il 60608
Illinois
Courts Commission
555 West
Monroe, 15th floor
Chicago Ill.
60661
info@IllinoisCourtsCommission.gov
Illinois Court
Commission Members
Justice P.
Scott Neville, Jr. Chairman
Justice Thomas
M. Harris
Justice
Margaret Stanton McBride
Judge Lewis
Nixon
Judge Sheldon
Sobol
Judge Aurora
Abella-Austriaco
Madam Paula
Wolf
Chicago Police Superintendent, 3510 S. Michigan Ave, Chicago Ill. 60653
Email CLEARPATH@chicagopolice.org
Clerk of the
Circuit Court
Iris Y.
Martinez
Attorney General
50 West
Washington, Suite 1001 Kwame
Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov
Chicago, Ill.
60601
555 West Monroe Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Potestivo & Ass., PC
Bryan G. Thompson, Poulami Mal
ipleadings@potestivolaw.com
bthompson@potestivolaw.com
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite
610
Chicago, IL. 60606
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5/1 -109, the undersigned
certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief
and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same to be true.
_________________________________
Monzella Y. Johnson,
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
_______________________
Notary
________________________________________________________________________
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 James T.
Derico
)
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 )
)
)
EXHIBIT LIST
1.)
Gr. Ex. A- MOTION STRIKING/OBJECTING Appellees Motion to Dismiss et al.
2.) Gr. Ex. B, Attorneys who have not filed an Appearance Motion to Dismiss
Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
3.)
Gr. Ex. C Order Granting Gr Ex B.
4.)
Gr. Ex D MOTION VACATING THE COURT ORDER OF JUNE 20,
2024 ET AL
5.)
Ex. E, ORDER
PETITION NOT CONSIDERED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
6.)
Gr Ex F RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE MARITZA MARTINEZ INSTANTER ET AL.
7.) Gr. Ex G MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS/FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE ET AL.
8.) Ex
G, Court Order September 23, 2022, Ref as Ex G, that she never had
lawful authority to enter.
9.) Gr Ex H, RE NOTICE OF FILING MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT OF FRAUD OF $50 MILLION DOLLARS, RE NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECUSE THE
ENTIRE COOK COUNTY JUDICIARY AND APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ET AL.
10.) Gr Ex I, MOTION TO CERTIFY COURT ORDER OF MAY 8, 2024
ET AL.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Monzella Y. Johnson, Pro Se
5217 S. Ingleside Ave
Chicago, Il 60615
773 835-5849
Mon, Jul 29 at 12:00 PMAttention Clerk for Judge Maritiza Martinez:It's time for people to see and realize that Black Democrats in Chicago have no authority over Caucasians and surprisingly Judge Chavira and Martinez acted like Black women, or racist or sexist Hispanics and they are the first Hispanic women to get intertwined in this sick incest scandal.If you are Black and a Democrat, they must do whatever they are told and this is how so many have achieved their status within the Political Machine, you won't find a half of a Black person denouncing any of the injustices noted in any of the documents vocally because they are only servants or figureheads for the party, but Judge Arce made it clear and corroborated what has been asserted to me for years that no Black or Irish judges (aka the Good ol Boys) will ever rule in my favor, but they made it clear there are some good white judges who will do right by me where the law is concerned, I just have to get in front of one of them..If I was fortunate to get a Spanish sister, they helped their ethnic groups when we were at 32 West Randolph, Que las negras no me ayudan en este caso mujeres! Many told the Black Clerks what was being done to me was wrong because none of them saw where the money was going because, I never owed any money for child support and when they took my money from welfare for payments while in front of judge David Haracz, they always gave me a receipt that said suspense!I have had women whose fathers are racist as HELL, try and help me but not a Black person now look at all of the Blacks involved and ask them why did so many go along with this sick ass Bullshit? If you want to know the answer just watch DJANGO UNCHAINED featuring Jaime Foxx and Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen many of the Black men in the Democratic Party are just like him as well as the women.This is how the Democratic Party keeps Freemen or Freewomen disenfranchised from society by oppressing them if not by imprisoning them unlawfully for 25-35 years before DNA finally says oops he didn't do it or in the worst-case scenario how they recruited so many inferior negros and certain Hispanics wanting to be accepted to take part in JIM CROW ACTS that the Ku Klux Klan perfected in the South Mississippi etc. and using the same formula showing their true hate for people of Color fighting racism and injustices.This Paternity case is going on 40 years old Nov 21, 2024, and this is how long the Democrats have been profiting off of the misery and injustices levied at me and my family not wanting me to work go to school but pay a bill via extortion that was never my bill in the first place.To further amplify the MENTAL ILLNESS of this case Francoise much rather lie and live with me being a DEADBEAT FATHER, with never any attachment to her child now a woman rather that ADMIT her DAUGHTER IS HER SISTER AND HER FATHER IS THE GRANDFATHER/FATHER.Ask any Caucasian if what, I have recorded on paper is true?Legally the State has already admitted to all of my pleadings as being true and correct.Please find the proposed court order for the August Hearing at 9:00 am: