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.
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 )
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. 13TH
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. 13TH 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.”
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
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 (7th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment