ATTENTION MEDIA/REPORTER WILLIAM J. KELLY COOK COUNTY NOR STATE JUDGES HONORS ANY LAWS RELATING TO CIVIL RIGHTS OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

BECAUSE STEVE FANADY IS GREEK HE IS BEING TREATED AS A BLACK OR BROWN MAN AND IS A NORM IN HOW THE COURTS VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THESE MEN OR WOMEN EVERYDAY WHO CAN NOT AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON WHEN THEY ARE BEING RELEASED FROM JAIL AFTER SPENDING 20, 30 OR 40 YEARS IN PRISON FOR SHIT THEY NEVER DID IS WHEN LAWYERS COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORKS. 

                                                                      STATE OF ILLINOIS

 OR THE COOK COUNTY COURTS DO NOT HONOR THE 14^TH AMENDMENT OR ANY ILLINOIS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ONLY THE LAWS OF THEIR FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION VIA SEXUALITY, SKIN COLOR ETC.

NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC JUDGE WHO TOOK PART IN THESE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES REALIZE THEY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THEIR POSITIONS—REPORTER WILLIAM J. KELLY, BECAUSE STEVE FANADY IS GREEK THE POLITICAL MACHINE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT PARTICULARILY FOND OF HIM OR HIS KIND BECAUSE HE IS NOT SUBMISSIVE, INFERIOR OR OF THEIR SEXUAL OR RACIST FRATERNITY. I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH HIS ATTORNEY IF HE DOESN’T MIND MY SKIN COLOR AS A BROWN MAN.

I HAVE HELPED A MAN WHO HAD 4 OR 5 ATTORNEYS TO SEEK CUSTODY OF HIS DAUGHTER HE LOST HIS VEHICLES AND JOB OF $30.00 AN HOUR PAYING 4 OR 5 ATTORNEYS WHO WAS NOT ABLE TO GET HIM CUSTODY WITH HIS DAUGHTER, HE HAD ONE OF THE MOST RACIST HISPANICS ON THE 3OTH FLOOR WHERE FORTI IS.

I GOT HIM WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND THE SUPREME COURT DENIED GETTING INVOLVED WITH HIS CASE.

HE will never receive justice in Cook County or Illinois, they are treating him as if he is a Black or Brown Man-----------THERE IS NOT DEMOCRATIC JUDGE IN ILLINOIS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF ANY OF THESE LAWS:

1.)  The Court April Perry stated, “Moreover, the state case is a mortgage foreclosure/eviction action, and presents no basis for federal jurisdiction” In that, this is the norm in Cook County and State Courts in how cases are “FIXED” Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.  Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778 (1975).  Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga. 1995), The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s constitutional rights. Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 Ill 2d 215. U. S. Sup Court Digest 24(1) General Conspiracy, U.S. 2003, Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.----U.S. v. Jimenez Recio,; 123 S Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L. Ed 2d 744, on remand 371 F. 3d 1093. People v. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108; People v. Mordick, 1981, 50 Ill, Dec 63. S.H.A. Ch 38 33-3, Official misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when in his 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…….  

 

 

The first time an Appearance was filed was in September 2024—NO DEMOCRATIC JUDGE IN COOK COUNTY OR ILLINOIS HONORS THE 14^TH AMENDMENT OR ILLINOIS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES---THEY ONLY RULE ACCORDING TO RACIST, FRATERNAL SEXIST HATEFUL GUIDELINES—STILL ENFORCING JIM CROW LAWS OUTLAWED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

The following is a case where a Black Man was remanded and incarcerated not for any criminal offense but for not taking a Genetic Test.

I have never had a DNA test on the 88 D 079012 case even though a Default was entered and never VACATED May 18, 1988 Cook County Judges still violated my Civil Rights had me REMANDED forced off my Cook County Sheriffs Position, Illegally forced off my CTA Position as Ronald Bartkowicz and Assistant States Attorneys trumped up charges backdated Police Officer Francoise Hightower’s daughter Tycee Hightower’s age making her a minor from 2002-2007

Pursuant to Fed Rule 8 and 9 see the attached Emails Particularizing the Terrorist Acts of Fraud by “Private Citizens” impersonating law abiding judges

 I AM IN KANGAROO COURT a Racist judge allegedly told the African Clerks to not put me on her calendar and to put me or Forti’s calendar because he would know what to do, this judge never should have been in a robe or licensed to practice law, this conversation of what took place Dec 13, 2024 is a clear example of egregious violations of Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and  42 U.S.C. 1981)

Racial Discrimination, Racial Retaliation, Racial Hatred, Racial  Oppression, Civil Rights Violations, Unequal Applications of the Laws, and  Disparate Treatment on the basis of race,  color, sexuality  or national origin and  age  (42 U.S.C. 1981).

This court has .Jurisdiction over the statutory violations alleged as conferred as follows: over Title V11 claims by U.S.C. {1331, 28 U.S.C. {1343 (a) 3 and 42 U.S.C. {2000e-5 (F) (3); over 42 U.S.C. {1981 and {1983 by 42 U.S.C. {1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42 U.S.C. {12117}.

I AM A HETEROSEXUAL MAN OF COLOR AND THE LEGAL JUDICIARY IS OF THE OPPOSITE AND RACIST BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE CLOSET LIVING ALLEGED DOUBLE LIVES WITH WIVES NOBODY WHO IS A DEMOCRAT IS GOING TO SAY SHIT TO ANOTHER JUDGE OUT OF FEAR—THE SHIT HAPPENING TO P. DIDDY WILL HAPPEN TO THEM.

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S TOLD ME THIS YEARS AGO, BUT I NEVER PAID IT ANY ATTENTION BUT THEY ARE RUNNING THE CITY AND COURTS AS A FRATERNITY OR SORORITY, ALLEGED BLOW JOBS OR SEXUAL FAVORS GOES A LONG WAY DEPENDING ON WHO IS DOING OR RECIVING WHO!

The Following is a Court Hearing continued from Dec 9 to Friday Dec 13 where, I was supposed to have been before Judge Romanek. Judge Forti have no idea that Judge Romanek’s Court Order was a Nullity/Void but Democratic judges don’t understand legal procedures because as racist Caucasians learning the laws was not necessary dealing with Black and Brown people or certain foreigners eg Greeks, Asians etc. whomever they deem inferior to them.

I filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Forti’s racist Ass and they pitched the case to another racist on the 30^th floor Romanek.

1.       Judge Abbey Romanek: O. K. All right. Well, I don’t find that to be biased and complicity. I find that to be a mistake of fact, which can be easily fixed. The States Attorney is here and they don’t and aren’t aware of this case at all. So I’m not even sure that they are involved in this case.

2.      Joe Louis Lawrence: But I submitted the court orders showing that the state’s attorney did,

3.      Judge Romanek: Well ok in fact, well, then that’s just a mistake of fact. And if that’s the case, then that can be cured. It doesn’t show bias. So your motion to

4.      Assistant States Attorney Madison Mathis: Your honor, I actually found this case in one of our databases. It looks like it looks like it had been taken off call for non-states attorney  matter back on Let’s see here March 27^th of 2024.

5.      Judge Romanek: But I see something here from May 20.

She committed Perjury on the bench saying the Assistant States Attorney is not on the case, Once President Trump is inaugurated he needs to send in the military because we have a different breed of Domestic Terrorists running Chicago’s courts.

Clerk:  Mr. Lawrence, the Judge told you to come back at 11, you are a little early.

Joe Louis Lawrence: OK, Alright.

ASA: What I would do I will ask you to unmute yourself and I’ll call you all individually  to discuss your child support matter. But I do see I have someone in the county lockup Mr. Lee. Can you please unmute yourself? Good morning, Sir how are you? I’m OK,

ASA: Well, Mr. Lee, you were here ‘cause you have not submitted to genetic testing. Have you been submitted to genetic testing there in the detention center phone?

OK, so is there possible to get him to genetic testing today?

Deputy: I have no idea. OK, so what I’ll do, what are you in for? Sir? I didn’t know any other case. No. OK, so what I’ll do, sir,

ASA: I’ll go ahead and release you on this case only, and I’ll need you to go submit for the genetic testing. OK, and if you do not test, I’m gonna issue another warrant. OK, so let me give you your next court date, and I will write this on the order. I’m gonna send order over to you. OK, so now I’m gonna give you an extra day. Your next court date will be January 3^rd at 11:00 AM. And you’ll be on zoom. Okay. Now go ahead with your question So you’re gonna send me all that information. OK, we have to go, have to come. No, she knows. So you’ll get the email, tell you when it comes back to the zoom, as well as you get an order for your genetic testing, and you do that as soon as possible. But you do it before the 3^rd of next month. So you’re gonna send me somewhere in particular, and you go down, you go to the Daley center in the basement. That’s where you take it at. OK, just go along. I don’t have to pay for it? No, I remember last time they told me I was gonna have to pay. What do they call it? What they. Pay for this test. OK, the State pays for this test, but you need to take it.

Mr. Lee OK, I’m gonna take it Monday then.

ASA: I’m gonna check if you don’t take it. I’m gonna issue another warrant for your arrest. Alright. Mr. Davidson, I’ll send this order over, probably within the next 45 minutes. And thank you That’s the one I’m done. I’ll send the order to you. Thank you. Thank you, ma’am. Have a good day. Thank you. You too Alright, ma’am, I’m ready for you parties now.

States Attorney Yolanda Simmons:  I’m gonna call your name, and I’ll be asking yourselves to give me a number. Where I can reach you at, I have Mr. Lawrence. Please unmute yourself.

ASA: OH yeah. Good morning. Yes, you have a state child support case. Yes, ma’am. I have noticed. OK, give me a phone number.

ASA: I can reach you at 312 965-6455. OK, go ahead and mute yourself. I’ll give you a call.

Joe Louis Lawrence: Excuse me, I spoke to Miss Simmons. She said, I have to speak to judge Forti.

Clerk: This is about what’s supposed to go before the Judge, right?

Joe Louis Lawrence: Yes.

Clerk: OK, yeah. See, it has to go back before that judge to ask

Joe Louis Lawrence: Yes, ma’am, OK Yeah,

Joe Louis Lawrence: Madam Clerk. Could you put me back before Judge Forti please?

Clerk: Well, that has to be done before the Coordinator, So you would just have to hold on a moment.

Joe Louis Lawrence: OK,

Clerk: thank you.

Clerk: Alright.

Clerk: so you have to go back before that judge to ask for a change of venue or SOJ.

Joe Louis Lawrence: That is correct,

Clerk: So You have to go back to that judge. Which judge was it?

Joe Louis Lawrence: It was Judge Romanek

Clerk You have to go back before that judge. You have to file your motion.

Joe Louis Lawrence But I did, I did all of that. The clerks indicated that Romanek said send the case to Forti

Clerk No it can’t come to judge Forti just like that

Joe Louis  Lawrence but that’s why I…

Clerk:   So now listen to me Sir, Listen to me. You have to go before that judge with your motion. You say you went before Judge Romanek to ask, what did you ask for? Was it an SOJ substitution of judge?

Joe Louis Lawrence: Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am.

Clerk: OK, so now listen to me. Listen to me. So Judge Romanek is supposed to send that substitution of  judge to our presiding judge, which is Judge Scannicchio. It has to go to the presiding judge and then they enter it into a lottery system to sort it out to go to another judge. You just can’t say go to judge Forti. It was never on Judge Forti’s call.

Joe Louis Lawrence: with all due the respect. Who am I speaking to please?

Clerk Kimberly Wilson: My name is Kimberly Wilson. I am the coordinator.

Joe Louis Lawrence: OK, OK everything you’re saying I’m familiar. With but I can’t do nothing different if this is where they’re sending me. I sent him a courtesy copy explaining what was said. So if I'm not supposed to be in front of Judge Forti which I understand and know this, I just need an order from Forti sending this matter to Scannicchio. I can’t make nobody put me where I’m supposed to go, now I am going through Romper Room.

Clerk Kimberly Wilson: I see and I hear you, Judge Forti can’t do an order Because it was never on his call. Judge Romanek is supposed to do the order to send it to Judge Scannicchio. She knows this. She’s supposed to do the order sending it to Judge Scannicchio. Pretty much judge Forti has nothing to do with it. is what I am trying to tell you.

Joe Louis Lawrence: But I understand. But you see where…

Clerk Kimberly Wilson:  He can’t do an order because it’s not on his call and it was not before him. It’s what I’m trying to say. So you have to go back before Judge Romanek for her to do an order to transfer to substitute the judge. You want to change? You want to substitute a judge? Is what you want.

Joe Louis Lawrence: When I did this, I originally filed  a motion to disqualify Judge Forti. The case was sent to Romanek. Romanek did not follow the procedures. She said that everything I was saying, I was wrong and I filed the proper motion to recuse her November the 4^th when the Clerks went to put me on her calendar, she informed them that she did not want me on her calendar and said to send this case to Judge Forti is the reason why I'm here.

Clerk Kimberly Wilson: Madam Clerk, Can you look this case up for us and tell me what’s going on? For some reason I can’t get into the into the odyssey to look this up.

Joe Louis Lawrence: I mean they are playing games with me now. I wouldn’t be in front of him if I’m trying to recuse him. Yes,

Madam Clerk: Mr. Lawrence. Do you know your case number? I don’t have your case number 88 DO79O12. Wait wait one moment, You said 1988 D.

Joe Louis Lawrence Yes ma’am.

Madam Clerk: OK go ahead D  079012 If I could get in, cause our system is acting up.

Clerk Kimberly Wilson:  I’m having a problem with the system. It won’t even let me sign on to the system.

Madam Clerk:  I know it’s a mess today. Is it Hightower and Joseph Lawrence?   

Joe Louis Lawrence: Yes Ma’am,  OK,  this is not even my child.

Madam Clerk: Ok what are you trying to find out?

Clerk Kimberly Wilson: Basically He’s saying that, He’s trying to do a substitution of judge before the proper judge. Romanek. And for some reason, they told him he had to come to judge Forti. As far as we know, he's not even saying it. It is on. It is assigned to his calendar, if that’s, if that means anything.

Joe Louis Lawrence: Yes, It does

Madam Clerk: it is calendar 61. OK,

Clerk Kimberly Wilson:  OK, so, Mr. Lawrence, you were right. It is on calendar 61.

Clerk Kimberly Wilson: So Mr. Lawrence

Judge Forti:  So, Mr. Lawrence,  you’re clogging the system with all due respect here. Here’s the issue. Miss Simmons and I are going to address your motion that you filed for default. That piece of the case is on calendar 61. But the piece of the matter that deals with Judge Romanek is not on my calendar. I just sent an email to Judge Scannicchio’s assistant to confirm that, So only with respect to your motion for default, are we going to deal with this today? And Miss Simmons, when you’re ready, I’d like to handle the Lawrence matter.

Joe Louis Lawrence: Your Honor, I filed a motion to disqualify you, so you shouldn’t be handling anything.

ASA Yolanda Simmons: Your Honor, I am ready

Judge Forti: Well, who heard that? as, I understand it. And that’s why I’m asking if there was a motion to disqualify me. There should be an order indicating whether or not that motion to disqualify was granted or not. I’m not aware of it being granted.

Joe Louis Lawrence: That is the motion put before Judge Romanek. That’s the issue right now.

Judge Forti: Well If she denied it, then it’s done. And you’re back in front of me.

Joe Louis Lawrence: Judge Scannicchio Never sent the case to you.

Judge Forti: No, that’s not true. Miss Simmons, all right. Did you get a copy of Mr. Lawrence’s motion for default?

ASA Yolanda Simmons: Yes, I did. Now, this is just to refresh myself, Mr. Lawrence. You’re trying to terminate arrearage because you’re alleging the petitioner is deceased. Is that correct?

Joe Louis Lawrence: Excuse me!

ASA Yolanda Simmons:  Are you trying to terminate arrearage? Because you are alleging the petitioner is deceased?

Joe Louis Lawrence: No, no. I filed the default from a Summary Judgment.

ASA Yolanda Simmons:  OK, so I got something from Judge Scannicchio, because your case was with   Judge Scannicchio, correct?

Joe Louis Lawrence:  Not that I know of.

Judge Forti: It was on calendar one at interim basis. Mr. Lawrence is saying that Judge Roman Act denied his motion and now. After the Fact he wants to disqualify Judge Romanek that’s not the way it works,

ASA: Yolanda Simmons Right.

Judge Forti:  But you’re involved in Simmons because Mister Lawrence filed a complaint against the assistant state’s attorney and a slew of other people, He claims that,  You have got notice of this and that is why I want you to be on this because he has filed a motion for default

Joe Louis Lawrence: Your Honor, First of all,  You’re confusing the issues with all due respect!

Judge Forti:  No I’m not Mr. Lawrence. Please be quiet. Please be quiet. I want Miss Simmons to look into this.

ASA Yolanda Simmons: So you’re under what I have. The last order on the most relevant order I have is from judge Romanek  returning the case to calendar 61. So that’s what I have.

Judge Forti:  All right. And she returned it back to me because the motion to disqualify against me was denied. So you understand that Mr. Lawrence, you tried to get me disqualified and Judge Romanek said no.

Joe Louis Lawrence: But she was  biased and she didn’t send the case to Judge Scannicchio, She sent the case directly to you. And I did that. But that’s O. K. Because it went through calendar one.

Joe Louis Lawrence: No, it didn’t.

Judge Forti: Yes, it did. You understand?

Joe Louis Lawrence:  Where’s the court order at? There’s no court order. There’s no court order from Judge Scannicchio  sending the case back to you.

Judge Forti: And the reason is the only. Thing that matters is that judge Scannicchio that Judge Romanek  denied the motion to qualify. I mean, yes, to disqualify it. Stayed on calendar. What? So that portion of the case is finished. Do you see an order? Miss Simmons of Judge Romanek denying the motion that?

ASA: Yolanda Simmons: I see that I have that order right here your Honor.

Judge Forti:  Fine. Judgment. And your honor. All right, you accept that Mr. Lawrence?

Joe Louis Lawrence: No, I don’t.

Judge Forti: All right, why not?

Joe Louis Lawrence: It’s because Judge Scannicchio was the one that’s supposed to send the case back to you. Not Romanek sending the case to you directly.

Judge Forti: It went through calendar one. It was the only place. The only place, Sir, once Judge Romanak denied the motion for cause. It had to come back here. Plain and simple. So I. have the case. And Miss Simmons back to what I said, he has filed a motion for default against the state.

ASA: Yolanda Simmons: OK, now.

Joe Louis Lawrence:  So I am. I’m respectfully objecting to the state being involved because judged when Eileen Burke was a judge, she was involved in this matter and denied..

Judge Forti:  And at the moment, Sir, Sir, this is falling. I’m telling you that you have filed a motion against a variety of parties, including the assistant state’s attorney. You got him. You filed a motion for default. Isn’t that, right?

Joe Louis Lawrence: That is correct. And I also filed a motion to go to a different venue

Judge Forti: I am letting him Miss Simmons know that you filed this motion for default. And I want to know what Miss Simmons’s position is now.

ASA:  At this time, I have received some emails on this case. From Scannicchio Clerk as well as from our own internal policies on how we handle with these cases. Your honor. I’m going to have to set this for brief continuance and get more clarification from my supervised attorney about how we handle these types of cases given the nature of what Mr. Lawrence has filed. So what date?

Judge Forti:  So what day?

ASA: I want to say this for January 30^th. I’m I’m sorry. January 3^rd.

Judge Forti: is that work, Mr. Lawrence?

Joe Louis Lawrence: It’s fine.

ASA: Can you come back here at noon?

Joe Louis Lawrence:  Back to zoom?

ASA: Yes.

Joe Yes

Judge Forti: And the issue is where it where you’re get your getting Miss Simmons is seeking the continuance with respect to the fact that you re noticed your motion for default

Joe Louis Lawrence: And for the Cook County Judiciary to be recused as well.

Judge Forti: That I cannot do.

Joe Louis Lawrence: And we still have Maritza Martinez motion that have not been addressed that I paid to $75 for

Judge Forti: You need to go back to Miss Judge Martinez I can only handle because I have not recused myself and your effort to get me recused by virtue of the SOJ was denied. So I am. Keeping this case until at least we see what Miss Simmons says on the motion for default anything relating to Judge Romanek or Judge Martinez you have to raise in those courtrooms all right. So Miss Simmons, what do you have Mr. Lawrence’s contact information?

ASA: I did get a phone number from Mr. Lawrence  Let me see if I still have your number at 312-965-6455.

Joe Louis Lawrence: That is correct.

ASA: All right, Mr. Lawrence, I have you.

Judge Forti: All right. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. All right, Miss Simmons, what other matters do we have?

 

 

                                                                Respectfully Submitted

 

                                                                   Joe Louis Lawrence

 

HATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS JUST AS REAL TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT ULYSSES S. GRANT ENACTED THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871.

IT IS CLEAR DEMOCRATS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF RULING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THIS CASE SHOULD PROBABLY BE IN FRONT OF QUALIFIED REPUBLICANS BECAUSE ILLINOIS HAVE NEVER HAD A DEMOCRAT TO RULE OR APPLY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO PEOPLE OF COLOR OR SENIOR CITIZENS.

DEMOCRATIC JUDGES IN COOK COUNTY AND ILLINOIS NOW IN THE FEDERAL COURT HAVE FOUND A WAY TO CIRCUMVENT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND "LYNCH" INNOCENT PEOPLE OF COLOR BY LYING ON THE BENCH OR APPLY THE WRONG CASE LAWS TO CASES ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF A PERSON'S SKIN COLOR, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REALIZE THAT A JUDGE FUCKED THEM OUT OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS GOING ALONG WITH RACISM, TERRORISM OR WHITE SUPREMACY.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WANTED TO PUT THIS WOMAN AS THE US ATTORNEY FOR THE NORRTHERN DISTRICT--THANK GOD THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Senate confirms April Perry as judge after JD Vance blocked her U.S. attorney nomination

It’s unlikely anyone will be nominated to be Chicago’s top federal prosecutor until after Donald Trump takes office in January.

By  Jon Seidel and Tina Sfondeles

 

  Nov 12, 2024, 6:13pm CST

PRESIDENT BIDEN MADE HER A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ONLY TO LEARN THAT SHE FIT RIGHT IN AS A RACIST, SHE USED HER POSITION AS A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE BY INCITING AN EGREGIOUS FALSE RULING (NOT An ERROR) ON THE FOLLOWING CASE INVOVING FIRST RESPONDERS WHO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY EVICTED FROM THEIR HOME BY THE COOK COUNTY SHERIFFS 3 DAYS BEFORE THANKSGIVING. 

ONLY AFTER FILING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEC 16, 2024, An ILLEGAL COURT ORDER CAME UP SAYING THAT JUDGE PERRY ENTERED A COURT ORDER DEC 13, 2024, KEEP IN MIND THEY HAD A MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY DEC 19, 2024 AT 10:00 AM, ASK YOURSELF WHY WOULD A FEDERAL JUDGE ISSUE A RULING ON A MATTER THAT IS SCHEDULED BEFORE HER NEXT WEEK?

THE ORDER STATES 

SHE IS AWARE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE A HATE FOR BLACKS, COLORED AND SENIOR CITIZENS SURPASSING HUMAN IMAGINATION, SHE BECAME A DEFACTO ATTORNEY FOR US BANK BY SAYING DEFENDANT IS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PENDING STATE COURT CASE 2008 CH 33616 TO FEDERAL COURT. DEFENDANT WAS SERVED IN THAT CASE IN OCTOBER 2008, AND THEREFORE REMOVAL IS UNTIMELY UNDER 28 USC 1446; MOREOVER, THE STATE CASE IS A MORTGAGE FORECLOSUE/EVICTION ACTION AND PRESENTS NO BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. THE CASE IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

THIS JUDGE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THIS BECAUSE SHE IS EMBRACING THE DOCTRINES OF THE KU KLUX KLAN AND IS IN VIOLATION OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871.

HOW CAN A CASE TERMINATED AND AFFIRMED BY THE STATE APPELLATE COURT IN 2010 STILL BE PENDING?

THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE ARE USING THEIR POSITIONS TO OPPRESS AND DESTROY PEOPLE OF COLOR AND SENIOR CITIZENS MAKING IT CLEAR THE REAL HATE DEMOCRATS HAVE FOR ETHNIC GROUPS THEY DEEM BENEATH THEM OR OUTSIDE OF THEIR SEXUALITY.

NO DEMOCRAT SEES ANYTHING WRONG HERE BUT, I WAS IN THIS SAME POSITION YEARS AGO WHEN, I FILED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CASE AND A JUDGE DID THE SAME THING TO ME, I APPEARED BEFORE HIM MAY 2, 2018 FOR MY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HE SAID THAT HE DISMISSED MY CASE APRIL 2 OR 3, THE CLERKS MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT MAILING ME THE ORDER, AFTER READING THE ORDER, HE USED A LEGAL PRECEDENT FROM APRIL 24, 2018, A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC CLERKS WERE INVOLVED COVERING THIS UP.

THE ONLY TYPE OF PEOPLE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANTS ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL DESTROY THEIR OWN ETHNIC GROUPS AND UPHOLD THE TENEMENTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY AND THE RIGHTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' WHICH MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON IS DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB DOING.

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & VACATE THE DEC 13, 2024, ORDER WAS FILED DEC 18, 2024 

THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS FILED DEC 19, 2024  

 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

 

U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee Under)

Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of        )

December 1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )

Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through               )

Certificates, Series 2006-NC3                                 ) )                                                           

                                                            Petitioner      )

                                                                                 )           24- cv- 12195

V.                                                                              )          Judge April Perry

                                                                                 )                                                                                                                                                                      )      Room 1725

                                                                                 )

Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella                  )                                   

Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia            )                                               

 Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration           )

Systems, Inc. As Nominee for New Century          )

Mortgage Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson         )                                         

( C ) Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank;                  )

Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants,      )

                                                                                 )

                                                           Respondents  )

 

                  NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO DEEM DEC. 13^TH COURT ORDER VOID/A NULLITY DUE TO DEFENDANT BEING THE HOME OWNER AND NO ATTORNEY HAS EVER APPEARED IN ANY COURT IMPEACHING THE VERACITY OF ALL PLEADINGS SAID ORDER VIOLATED DUE PROCESS & DEMONSTRATED BIAS AND OR PREDJUDICE OR SPECIAL INTEREST BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS BEING SENIOR CITIZENS OR OF COLOR JUDGE RECOGNIZED DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED IN 2008 BUT FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE JUDGE GILLESPIE VACATED FORECLOSURE JUNE 10, 2010 AND APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED DEC 30, 2011, AND STATED DEFENDANT IS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PENDING STATE COURT CASE, CASE IS 16 YEARS OLD & PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF SECTION 42 USC 1983 IN VIOLATION OF BUT ATTEMPTS TO COVER-THEM UP KEEPING DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY HOMELESS  “MOTION UNOPPOSED”

 

 

NOW COMES the Moving Party, Monzella Y. Johnson Pro se (“Defendant”), hereby properly filing this Motion and all of its attachments to all parties Noticed in the Certificate of Service {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedures}:

 

 

 

That on Dec. 19, 2024, Defendant has filed her Notice of Emergency Motion shall present this Motion at 10:00 am via Courtesy before Honorable April Perry for a Hearing/Order in room 1725, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL. 60604 Jan 2, 2025 or before any Emergency judge who will hear this case sooner due to the gravity of the issues surrounding this matter as Retired First Responders Senior Citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                       Respectfully Submitted,

 

                                                                                      _________________________

                                                                                        Monzella Y. Johnson

                                                                                          Pro Se

                                                                                        Frogishtwo65@gmail.com

                                                              

 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

 

U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee Under)

Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of        )

December 1, 2006 Mastr Asset–Backed Securities )

Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through               )

Certificates, Series 2006-NC3                                  )   )                                                         

                                                            Petitioner      )

                                                                                 )          

V.                                                                              )

                                                                                 )                                                                                   )     

                                                                                 )

Monzella Y. Johnson, A/K/A Monzella                  )                                   

Johnson; Marcia E. Johnson A/K/A Marcia            )                                               

 Johnson: Mortgage Electronic Registration            )

Systems, Inc. As Nominee for New Century          )

Mortgage Corporation; Monzella Y. Johnson         )                                         

( C ) Cestui Que Trust; Discover Bank;                  )

Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants,      )

                                                                                 )

                                                           Respondents  )

 

  EMERGENCY MOTION TO DEEM DEC. 13^TH COURT ORDER VOID/A NULLITY DUE TO DEFENDANT BEING THE HOME OWNER AND NO ATTORNEY HAS EVER APPEARED IN ANY COURT IMPEACHING THE VERACITY OF ALL PLEADINGS SAID ORDER VIOLATED DUE PROCESS & DEMONSTRATED BIAS AND OR PREDJUDICE OR SPECIAL INTEREST BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS BEING SENIOR CITIZENS OR OF COLOR JUDGE RECOGNIZED DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED IN 2008 BUT FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE JUDGE GILLESPIE VACATED FORECLOSURE JUNE 10, 2010 AND APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED DEC 30, 2011, AND STATED DEFENDANT IS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PENDING STATE COURT CASE, CASE IS 16 YEARS OLD & PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF SECTION 42 USC 1983 IN VIOLATION OF BUT ATTEMPTS TO COVER-THEM UP KEEPING DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY HOMELESS  “MOTION UNOPPOSED”

 

 

(Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)

 

 

NOW COMES the Moving Party, Monzella Y. Johnson Pro se (“Defendant”), hereby properly filing this Motion and all of its attachments to all parties Noticed in the Certificate of Service {Pursuant to Fed Rules of Civil Procedures}:

 

1.)  That on Dec. 11, 2024, Defendant has learned this matter is before the Hon April Perry but Democratic Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, refused the case and it was reassigned to Judge Robert W. Gettleman and he refused the case and it was reassigned to Judge Perry but said Motions were titled EMERGENCY.  

 

2.)    The Notice of Emergency Original Petition of Removal From State Jurisdiction and Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Mandatory Injunction et al. and Summary was presented in a Legally sufficient manner and demonstrated a Prima Facie showing of Civil Rights unlawful acts lodged at Defendant,  Turner 24 F. Cas. 337 (No. 14247) C.C.D. Md. 1867) The “equal benefit” clause is cited in what would appear to be the earliest reported case enforcing the section. The plaintiff was an emancipated slave who was indentured as an apprentice to her former master. Although both whites and blacks could be indentured as an apprentice, under the law of Maryland, indentured blacks were not accorded the same educational benefits as whites and, unlike whites, were subject to being transferred to any other person in the same county. Circuit Judge Chase granted a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that the purported apprenticeship was in fact involuntary servitude and a denial under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 of the “full and equal benefit of all laws. and the amazing part is that “all” Plaintiffs have admitted every gregarious Unconstitutional act by not objecting or submitting any counter-affidavits to the courts.

 

3.)    Thereby relying on other Democrats of like mindedness in the Judicial Arena of said Party to save them and protect them keeping them “above” the Law, Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants INC., 136 Ill App. 3d 1084 et al. State Law: 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 parties’ pleadings,           Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992).   Jennings v. Patterson, 488 F. 2d 442, equal access to public facilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had been “denied the right to hold and enjoy their property on the same basis as white citizens.” Jennings suggests the potential usefulness of the equal benefit clause in guaranteeing full and equal enjoyment of public property and public services.” Developments in the Law section 1981, 15 Harv. Civ. Rts. ---- Civ. Lib. L. Rev 29, 133 (1980).

 

4.)   The Court April Perry stated, “Defendant is attempting to remove PENDING state court case 2008 CH 33616 to federal court” How is it the case was DISMISSED AND AFFIRMED by the Appellate Court Vacated 16 years ago is still pending your Honor?

 

5.)  The Court April Perry stated, “Moreover, the state case is a mortgage foreclosure/eviction action, and presents no basis for federal jurisdiction” In that, this is the norm in Cook County and State Courts in how cases are “FIXED” Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.  Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 537 P. 2d 898, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778 (1975).  Vaughn 462 S.E. 2d 728 (Ga. 1995), The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s constitutional rights. Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 Ill 2d 215. U. S. Sup Court Digest 24(1) General Conspiracy, U.S. 2003, Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.----U.S. v. Jimenez Recio,; 123 S Ct. 819, 537 U.S. 270, 154 L. Ed 2d 744, on remand 371 F. 3d 1093. People v. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108; People v. Mordick, 1981, 50 Ill, Dec 63. S.H.A. Ch 38 33-3, Official misconduct is a criminal offense; and a public officer or employee commits misconduct, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, when in his 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…….  

 

A-      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 (7^th Cir.), cert denied, 409 U.S. 1037, 93 S. Ct. 512, 34 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1972).

 

6.)  That pursuant to Homes.com, hereto attached, Gr Ex A, Page 2 OWNERSHIP HISTORY, Johnson Sisters Trust and Johnson Sep 2024 -Present Private Individual.

 

7.)    That Defendants as Victims of an Egregious Terrorists Criminal Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy most Democratic Judges has either signed unlawful court orders, or ignored all Pleadings corroborating the veracity of everything being asserted as being true, that the Defendants has presented or created unlawful applications in the laws covering up the fact US Bank is trying to steal Defendants home and used the Cook County Sheriffs to further violate our Civil Rights by using the Cook County Sheriffs to forcibly evict from said home of 61 years. The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional rights, including refusing to set appeal bonds for two defendants in timely fashion, issuing bench warrants without probable cause, and forcing a defendant to enter a guilty plea in the absence of Counsel. The Court stated, that the judge’s “cavalier disregard of these defendants’ basic and fundamental constitutional rights exhibits an intolerable degree of judicial incompetence, and a failure to comprehend and safeguard the very basis of our constitutional structure Id at 735 See also In re Hammel, 668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996). (Judge removed for improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and make restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendant’s basic constitutional rights).

 

8.)    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 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.”)  

 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….” 

 

9.)    That the Democratic controlled judiciary is still today violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and Cook County, State Courts are still a Criminal Enterprise and no judge of that Party is addressing the continuous unlawful lynchings with unjust applications of the laws so as to wear down any litigant that attempts to rise above deliberate oppression and judicial racism in the courts. In the wake of extensive investigations by Federal Law enforcement authorities revealing widespread corruption in the Illinois court system (“Operation Greylord”) and elsewhere, indicating not only that significant professional misconduct was occurring but also that the requirement to report misconduct was frequently ignored, particularly in the cases of judges with regard to the conduct of other judges. Lisa L. Milord, The Development of the ABA, Judicial Code 24-25 (1992)

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)

Finally, this Motion is best closed by a jurist who has stated”; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)

 

Federal Court FEDERAL JUDGE GETTLEMAN: stated, Tuesday March 10, 2009, where he found Superintendent of police Jody Weiss in Contempt of Court and Ordered the City to Pay $100,000.00, “No one is above the Law”, he cited a 1928 decision by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that said, “If the Government becomes the law breaker, it breeds Contempt for the Law, It invites everyman to become a law unto himself. It invites Anarchy.”           

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        

                                                            

                                                                               Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                             _________________________

                                                                                 

                                                                                 Monzella Y. Johnson

 

                                                                                Frogishtwo65@gmail.com