APARTHEID IN ILLINOIS COURTS DEPENDING ON YOUR SKIN COLOR, SEXUALITY AND WHAT SEXUAL, RACIST OR POLITICAL FRATERNAL ORDER IS IN CONTROL IS HOW TYRANNY AND TERRORISM DESTROYS ITS CITIZENS WHO DECIDES HOW JUSTICE IS DISPENSATED NOT INACCORDANCE TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULINGS.
THIS 22 PAGE DOCUMENT WAS FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2025, IN THE MORNING, the Democrats own everyone including some Republicans Racial Hate is a Norm and is Politically accepted by everyone.
US sues Illinois and Chicago for impeding Trump immigration crackdown
April Perry's bid to be city's first female top federal prosecutor to end, Biden will tap her to be federal judge
The White House on Wednesday will officially announce Biden’s intention to nominate April Perry to be a U.S. District Court judge. For months, the effort to confirm Perry as Chicago’s new U.S. Attorney was stalled by Sen. J.D. Vance, a Republican from Ohio.
That April Perry corroborated her involvement in this Criminal Enterprise by using her robe to facilitate her authority in denying any and all claims Defendant put before her court showing the FBI and this Honorable Court her depraved indifference to the United States Constitution and people of Color now that she is an untouchable federal judge.
E- That Judge April Perry is demonstrating unequivocally using her robe and jurisdiction to racially OPPRESS, LYNCH INNOCENT PERSONS OF COLOR, AS IF THEY WERE ROPES, DOGS OR WATERHOSES BY APPLYING UNLAWFUL APPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS IN AN TYRANNICAL TERRORIST MANNER, not fearing any retributions because of her fraternal brethren in the Seventh Circuit, allegedly will DENY ANY DOCUMENT Pro Se’s or individuals of color who presents valid legal claims before that circuit they will be SYSTEMATICALLY DISMISSED.
F- That Defendant and other innocent Litigants of color cases have appeared before JUDGES ALLEGEDLY DESCRIBED AS MEMBERS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, NAZI FRATERNAL ORDER OR WHITE NATIONALIST MEMBERS who have systematically denied all of their claims as outlined in the aforementioned history of cases.
G- That former States Attorney Kim Foxx, Illinois Attorney General, Kwame Raoul, and Chief Judge Timothy Calvin Murphy, former Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, have admitted via Summary Judgment and Default judgment (filed Feb. 2024) as Democratic judges incite hateful rulings not in accordance to any Civil Rights laws “the fact Negroes in the Democratic Party have no authority over Racist Anglo- Saxons” Pages 7-8 of the Affidavit, Summary Judgment have been admitted to via Local Rule 56.1
H- “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.”
I- That 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. Plaintiff complied with said rule but the court was a law unto himself.
J- Posner: ABA Journal (September 11, 2017) Most judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time' Posner, 78, told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin last week that he decided to retire because of conflicts with his colleagues over the treatment of pro se litigants, who represent themselves. In a new interview with the New York Times
|
, Posner elaborated on his concerns about the treatment of such litigants.
A- “The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge,” Posner said.
In the 7th Circuit, staff lawyers review appeals from pro se litigants, and their recommendations are generally rubber-stamped by judges, he noted.
Posner wanted to give the pro se litigants a better shake by reviewing all of the staff attorney memos before they went to the panel of judges. Posner had approval from the director of the staff attorney program. “But the judges, my colleagues, all 11 of them, turned it down and refused to give me any significant role. I was very frustrated by that,” Posner said.
Posner has written about the pro se issue in an upcoming book, and its publication “would be particularly awkward” if he remained on the court because it “implicitly or explicitly” criticizes the other judges, he said.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, } Appeal from the United
As
TRUSTEE for securitized Trust
} States District Court for
2006-NC3, et al.
} the Northern District of
Plaintiffs –Appellees }
Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
No. 24 cv 12195
} No. 25-1118
}
Monzella Y. Johnson
}
Defendant-Appellant
} Judge April Perry
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE
28 (j) & RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO FED RULE OF CIVIL P 59(e) ALSO RULE 60
RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER w/AFFIDAVIT WARRANTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE TO INVOKE JURISDICTION BECAUSE 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…..” RACISM 18 U.S.C. 1983 (DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF
LAW) JUDICIAL CORRUPTION HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO BY ALL APPELLEES AND EVERYONE
INVOLVED WHERE ONLY A NON-RACIST HETEROSEXUAL CAUCASIAN DOJ GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY
CAN PUT THE APPELLANTS BACK IN THEIR HOME & PROSECUTE/PURGE LAW CLERKS/FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES DELETEING COURT RECORDS, LAW CLERKS/ATTORNEYS FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS FRAUDULENTLY,
DUE TO RACISM & EGREGIOUS HATE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS OR HETEROSEXUAL BLACK OR
BROWN MEN AS PRO SE LITIGANTS WHO ARE HELD AT DISPARATE LEGAL STANDARDS THAN
ANY CORRUPT LICENSED BOARD ATTORNEY The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper
v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958).
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.
Now comes Defendant-Appellant, Monzella Y.
Johnson Pro Se in this cause respectfully represents to this court the reasons
and files herewith her Affidavit in support of Motion Clarification et al;
A-
The U.S. Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and city
of Chicago on Thursday, accusing the Democratic strongholds of unlawfully
interfering with Republican President Donald Trump's crackdown on
illegal immigration and seeking a court order blocking so-called
sanctuary laws. Reuters Immigration Crackdown, By Tom Hals, Feb 6, 2025.
B-
The Federal Judges of the Seventh Circuit and District Court are
using their ethnicity and fraternal unions as well as what we now know as DEI in
violating the laws of Colored, Black and Senior Citizens in having Equal Access
to the Laws where justice is being sought based on the United States
Constitution not on racial hate and bigotry.
C-
That
when the U.S. Justice Department is coming after the Democrats they can see how
other Democrats and Republicans are acting as Private Citizens using their
robes or positions of authority as weapons of mass destruction upholding
tyranny and obstruction of justice going against the laws of the Federal
Government and U.S. Constitution for personal agendas and or racial/fraternal
sexual orientations.
1.) That
pursuant to Rule 60 (a) Corrections Based
on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may
correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission
whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The
court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an
appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a
mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order,
or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
for the following reasons:
(1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b) ;
(3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4)
the judgment is void;
(5)
the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A
motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons
(1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order
or the date of the proceeding.
(2) Effect
on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment's
finality or suspend its operation.
(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This
rule does not limit a court's power to:
(1)
entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or
proceeding;
(2)
grant relief under 28 U.S.C. §1655 to a defendant who was
not personally notified of the action; or
(3)
set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
2.) That 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.
3.) 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);
a. A
void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Kalb v. Feuerstein
(1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L, Ed 370.
4.)
That 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).
5.)
That former Seventh Circuit Judge became
the Serpico of the Seventh Circuit criticizing other judges in the circuit, Posner:
ABA Journal (September 11, 2017) Most
judges regard pro se litigants as 'kind of trash not worth the time'
Posner, 78, told
the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin last week that he decided
to retire because of conflicts with his colleagues over the treatment of pro se
litigants, who represent themselves. In a new interview with
the New York Times, Posner elaborated on his concerns about
the treatment of such litigants.
A-
“The basic thing
is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of
a federal judge,” Posner said.
In the 7th Circuit, staff lawyers review appeals from pro
se litigants, and their recommendations are generally rubber-stamped by judges,
he noted.
Posner wanted to give the pro se litigants a better shake
by reviewing all of the staff attorney memos before they went to the panel of
judges. Posner had approval from the director of the staff attorney program.
“But the judges, my colleagues, all 11 of them, turned it down and refused to
give me any significant role. I was very frustrated by that,” Posner said.
Posner has written about the pro se issue in an upcoming
book, and its publication “would be particularly awkward” if he remained on the
court because it “implicitly or explicitly” criticizes the other judges, he
said.
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 (4th ed. 1992)
6.) Defendant-Appellant
filed a MOTION TO CLARIFY WHY APPELLANT IS BEING DIRECTED TO PRESENT A BRIEF
WHEN FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE CORROBORATED AND ADMITTED TO BEING COMPLICIT IN SAID
TERRORIST CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE APPELLANT
& NOT HAVING JURISDICTION & IGNORING TRANSFERRING THIS MATTER TO
ANOTHER CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO RULE 26 PURSUANT TO THE BREYERS COMMITTEE REPORT,
239 F.R.D. AT 214-15. COURT ORDER BEING
A NULLITY (case # 21-2905)
7.) That pursuant to the court order of Nov 29,
2021, Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes have ADMITTED without a scintilla of falsity,
being a DE FACTO ATTORNEY when she DENIED said SUMMARY JUDGMENT
filed Nov. 23, 2021.
8.) That on January 18, 2022 Appellant filed her Response to Rule to
Show Cause why her case should not be dismissed complying with all United
States Supreme Court precedents and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9.) That on January 19, 2022 an alleged judge purportedly drafted
and further corroborated their psychotic sociopath arrogance for the laws has
admitted knowledge and corroboration of being active in this “Domestic
Terrorist Conspiracy” as “Private Citizens” protecting U.S. Bank and all
other parties DECLARING WAR and MAYHEM on Appellant
and any other Colored Persons seeking to vindicate themselves from any Racial
Injustice, or Civil Rights violations before the Seventh Circuit via Machine
District Court judges as demonstrated throughout all affidavits and other
related cases of other Pro Se litigants.
A-
Massachusetts District Court
Judge and Court Officer Indicted for Obstruction of Justice (Thursday April 25,
2019) Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts.
B-
BOSTON – A Massachusetts District Court Judge and Trial Court
Officer were indicted today in federal court in Boston on obstruction of
justice charges for preventing an ICE Officer from taking custody of an alien
defendant.
Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, 51, of Natick, who was appointed as
a Massachusetts District Court Judge in November 2017, and Wesley MacGregor,
56, of Watertown, a former Trial Court Officer since 1993, were indicted on one
count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and two counts of obstruction of
justice – aiding and abetting. MacGregor was also charged with one count of
perjury.
“This case is about the rule of law,” said United States
Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. “The allegations in today’s indictment involve
obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the
enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime. We cannot pick and choose the
federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law.
Everyone in the justice system – not just judges, but law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, and defense counsel – should be held to a higher standard. The
people of Massachusetts expect that, just like they expect judges to be fair,
impartial and to follow the law themselves.”
“When we as officers of the law are confronted with an abuse
within our system, we take those allegations seriously. Any conduct which
severs the underlying trust that the citizens of this Commonwealth place in
those who hold positions of power and authority is a stain on all who swear an
oath to protect and serve, with honor and integrity,” said Peter C. Fitzhugh,
Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) Boston. “The people of this country deserve
nothing less than to know that their appointed and elected representatives are
working on their behalf, while adhering to and enforcing the rule of law, not a
personal agenda. The special agents of Homeland Security Investigations remain
committed to upholding our promise to the public, without compromise.”
“The actions of the judge in this incident are a detriment to
the rule of law and highly offensive to the law enforcement officers of ICE who
swear an oath to uphold our nation’s immigration laws,” said Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations, Boston. “In order for our criminal justice
system to work fairly for all people, it must be protected against judicial
officials who would seek to replace the implementation of our laws with their
own ideological views or politically-driven agenda. I would also like to thank
U.S. Attorney Lelling for his local leadership and his continuous and faithful
support of the ERO law enforcement mission.”
10.)
Defendant- Appellant filed a MOTION TO ASCERTAIN HOW FEDERAL JUDGE
DIANE S. SYKES HAVE JURISDICTION OR ANY JUDGE IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, WHEN SHE
HAS ADMITTED BEING A DE FACTO ATTORNEY, ADMITTED TO CORROBORATING IN A PLETHORA
OF CRIMINAL TERRORIST CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS USING HER ROBE AND UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY
OBSTRUCTING SAID CASE FROM BEING TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO
RULE 26 PURSUANT TO THE BREYERS COMMITTEE REPORT, 239 F.R.D. AT 214-15. COURT
ORDER BEING A NULLITY
11.)
That
pursuant to the court order of Nov 29, 2021, Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes have
ADMITTED without a scintilla of falsity, being a DE FACTO ATTORNEY when she
DENIED said SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed Nov. 23, 2021.
12.)
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."
13.)
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.
14.)
In the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit No. 12-2870 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
LADMARALD CATES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:11-cr-00200-JPS-1—J.P.
Stadtmueller, Judge. ARGUED FEBRUARY 25, 2013—DECIDED JUNE 13, 2013 Before
BAUER, POSNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges
15.)
That the rules are in place for the
aforementioned reasons so as to eradicate Frivolous litigations and Criminal
actions by said attorneys who don’t respect or honor any Rules in any court,
. 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).
16.)
That the Federal Judges were complicit in an “ORGANIZED
TERRORIST CONSPIRACY” colluded with other RACIST AND PUPPET JUDGES who only
wore their robes to incite TERROR AND MAYHEM ON BLACK AND BROWN UNITED STATES
CITIZENS WHO COMPLAINED OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS perpetrated against them.
KENNETH F.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit
Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit
Judge
No. 11-3481
JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE, eta!.,
Defendants-Appellees.
In 1987
the State of Illinois ordered Joe Lawrence to pay child support. He did not
comply, and consequently the state revoked his driver's
license. He appealed the revocation to the Secretary of State, but
his appeal was denied. Lawrence also unsuccessfully sued his former employers, International Brands Corporation
and the Chicago Transit Authority, in state and federal court for embezzlement
and theft.
"The appellees were not served with process in the
district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the
appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded
that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the brief
and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(c).
17.)
That the aforementioned ORDER
was a VICIOUS LIE and DEFAMATION OF JOE LOUIS LAWRENCE’S CHARACTER his
driver’s license was never suspended and he was never terminated from the
Chicago Transit Authority but all Democrats used their positions and unlawful
authority as “Private Citizens” and De Facto attorneys to protect every racist
Democrat or White Nationalists where valid complaints were levied against
them.
A-
That hereto attached, Ex A, Sept. 17, 1987 Court Order,
States Attorney Richard J. Daley via Stacey Berman Asst States Atty. Order of -Non-Suit
where a Jury demand and Paternity Tests Excluded the Respondent but was altered
to reflect he was the father.
B-
That hereto attached, Ex B Nov 23, 1994 Letter from
Michael Cook, Manager from Personnel, “HE WAS NEVER DISCHARGED”
C-
Retirement Plan for CTA Employees, July 21, 2022, Ex C
someone from the CTA went into the Personnel database and DELETED a plethora of
information starting date, last date worked etc. But Normal Retirement Date (at
65) 4/1/26.
D-
That Judge Ronald Barkowicz helped his racist fraternal brethren
with members of the States Attorney authorized an illegal warrant for a Divorce
against the Respondent for Contempt of Court, he was never married to Francoise
and had not seen her, hereto attached Ex D.
E-
That Sheriff’s Deputies from Cook County informed the Respondent
he was set up and that the judge was dirty and was a former CTA attorney
working in workman’s compensation and that they are trying to get the judge to
keep the CTA from paying you any money they owe you while you were off injured
on duty, hereto attached Ex E, Motion to Disqualify Judge Bartkowicz
et al. Oct 13, 1994.
F-
That Judge Bartkowicz admitted to all pleadings in the Motion
Ref as Ex E wrote in his own handwriting Respondent appearing on the
call because of my prior association with the Chicago transit Authority See
Motion RB had the audacity to ask the Respondent how did he know, that he
worked for the CTA and ORDERED the Sheriff Deputies to take Respondents copies
of the Motion from his possession unbeknown to the judge, the records were supposedly
destroyed but copies were made and put up in a secure facility.
18.)
That on Sept. 19, 2019 a valid complaint was lodged against two
racist judges in the Federal Circuit, hereto attached Gr Ex A
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60604
Joe
Louis Lawrence Judicial
Misconduct Complaint #07-19-9004 and 90045
Charles
R. Norgle Sr. Robert M. Dow, Jr.
Complainant
RESPONSE
AND PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR REMAND DUE TO FRAUD OF ALL CLERKS,
JUDGES & PERSONS CULPABLE “FRAUD”
“OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” PARTICIPATION IN AN “ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY” AS A
“PRIVATE CITIZEN” FAKE JUDGE FRIVOLOUS DOCUMENT PURPORTED TO BE A COURT ORDER
FROM CHIEF JUDGE DIANE P. WOOD AS AN ALLEGED WHITE NATIONALIST (COURT ORDER DATED SEPT. 9, 2019)
19.)
That Federal Judge Diane S. Sykes and her army of Domestic
Terrorists want THE FBI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, EVERY COLORED PERSON
BLACK, BROWN ETC. TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND, that they don’t RESPECT any LAWS of
the United States Constitution that recognizes people of color as
Citizens of the United States and what they are willing to do in the legal
arena to PROVE TO EVERYONE, SHE AND HER domestic counter-parts are going to
continue to “LYNCH” any colored person with unjust applications of the laws
that speak up against or litigate against their racist Brethren;
A-
Because Black lives don’t matter in Chicago, many Black and
Brown persons only have titles in the Democratic Party so as to protect the
Anglo-Saxons controlling them telling them what to do.
B-
She and her counter-parts of Domestic Terrorists want people to
see Black Authority, African American Negros’s etc. are IMPOTENT where they are
concerned, and has stayed in their place like good boys and girls except Chief
of Police David Brown, he is definitely not of the inferior type, that is owned
by said Terrorists controlling the courts.
20.)
That the Nov. 29, 2021, Court Order amplifies the veracity of
said order being VOID, a NULLITY ---- 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)
22.)
That Appellant never
received Notice or Knowledge on any Sanction fees was ever owed, in that on Jan
7, 2025, Appellant paid the Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee, hereto attached as Ex
1, U. S. District Court receipt.
23.)
That Appellant reported
back to the District Court Clerk to ascertain why the Appeal had not been
Docketed per paying Ex 1, and learned that a tall Husky Lineman Hispanic
presented a Court Order as Ex 2, Court Order (August 30,2021) from the Court
of Appeals instructing Appellant that before an Appeal was to be Docketed a
$1000.00 had to be paid.
24.)
That Appellant
expeditiously returned and paid the $1000.00, hereto attached, Ex 3
receipt Jan. 10, 2025.
25.)
Appellant learned that a
Supervisor Lorenzo Deleted the Notice of Appeal/Jurisdictional Statement from
the Database showing that the Appellant timely filed the Appeal on Dec 26, 2024.
26.)
Appellant exhausted the
Chain of Command and obtained a Docket Sheet from Clerk Katie in the Court of
Appeals so as to ascertain what was on the document and learned that a Sanction
Order of $2500.00 that was never provided to the Appellant, Page 3 of
the Docket Sheet 01/13/2025 Received Notification from the U.S. District Court
…….regarding a partial sanction payment of $1000.00 which is falsely stated
because Ex 2 is the only Court Order that was ever presented which
demonstrates a Prima facie showing of a Certain Clerk in the Court of Appeals
with incredible influence was working with a District Court Supervisor
meticulously obstructing the laws violating Appellants Civil Rights trying to
make sure no judge ever receive knowledge of what was taken place in the
courts.
27.)
The Clerk in the
District Court was in full collaboration with a Court of Appeals Clerk because
nowhere in the District Courts Docketing Sheet is any payments received from
the Appellant.
28.)
That Appellant PAID the
unlawful sanctions of $1500.00 +
$1000.00 = $2500.00 but the Appellees had the Appellants unlawfully EVICTED
FROM THEIR HOME and not one person has been Prosecuted or Investigated for the
Criminal Civil Rights Violations perpetrated and Particularized pursuant to Fed
Rules Civ Pr. 8, 9., Ex 4.
29.)
That the Docket Sheet
for the District Court is fraught with egregious inconsistencies,
A- That nowhere in the Sheet does it reflect, the Appellant was
Restricted from filing any documents or was Sanctioned.
B- Page 6, Line 19, 12-13-2024 Case was
not a Mortgage Foreclosure case because it was vacated June 10, 2010, and
Affirmed by the Appellate Court Dec 30, 2011.
30.)
That
every Democrat in the Democratic Party who received the Summary Judgment has
admitted to the veracity of all Pleadings, Chief Judge, Attorney General of
Illinois, Governor Pritzker and former States Attorney Kim Foxx including every
attorney representing the Appellees for US Bank et al.
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
OF FRAUD
OF $50 MILLION DOLLARS
(Filed Feb 9, 2024)
Now comes Joe
Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se. in this cause respectfully represents to this
court the reasons and files herewith his Affidavit in support of Motion for
Default Judgment due to “Fraud” of $50 Million Dollars.
31.) That pursuant to Motions accompanied by
Affidavits said Plaintiff and the States Attorney failed to respond to said
Respondent’s Petition to Zero out Child Support due to Assistant States
Attorneys Prosecutorial Misconduct et al. (filed Oct 26, 2023) served on the
Petitioners via electronically and mailed via Priority Tracking
#9505-5156-4056-3301-7893- 63 delivered Oct. 28, 2023 at 2:52 pm in the
mailbox.
33.)
That pursuant to Judge Chivira a former Assistant States Attorney
tried to pretend she was not an attorney for the States Attorney used her
unlawful authority and acted as a “Private Citizen” by violating the Civil
Rights of the Respondent Denied said valid aforementioned Motion that was
properly agreed upon by the ASA via not objecting or denying any of the
Pleadings.
35.)
That pursuant to a Motion for Disqualification Instanter of Judge
for Cause et al. accompanied by
Affidavits said Plaintiff and the States Attorney failed to respond to
said Motion (filed Dec 26, 2023) served on the
Petitioners via electronically and mailed via Priority Tracking
#9505-5116-1093-3360-0084- 14 delivered Dec. 28, 2023 at 12:40 pm in the
mailbox.
36.)
That Colored judges are promoted and Appointed on their abilities
as Democrats Oppressing ethnic groups of Color hereto attached, Gr Ex A, Respondent’s
Motion for Reconsideration Vacate (Feb 5. 2024 Order) Eviction & Rule to
Show Cause et al.
37.)
That said judge of Color is following the exact Terrorist
Apartheid ways of Negros Judge Freddrenna Lyle as she came behind highly
qualified judges who Vacated a Foreclosure/ and Sale of said home in 2009 and affirmed by the
Appellate Court 2010 she allowed racist bank attorneys of the worse kind to
still come after said home illegally making it 14 years + as judge Freddrenna
Lyle allegedly was paid very well by Bank Officials and was PROMOTED to the
Appellate Court for her egregious crimes on senior citizens of Color not
fearing any admonishments because her crimes were on ethnic groups of her hue
and not of Irish or Polish ethnicity.
38.)
That hereto attached Gr Ex B, 4 Re Noticed Motions filed Feb. 7, 2024
demonstrating the due-diligence said Retired Senior Citizens who is having to
deplete their pensions and savings fighting to keep their home as heartless
judges and racism working intimately in said Diabolical Mortgage Foreclosure
Criminal Conspiracy.
A-
Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-610 where
allegations of complaint are not denied, there is admission of all facts
well-pleaded by adversary, and such admission, drawn from failure to plead, may
be considered as evidence. Hecht v. Hecht, App. 1 Dist. 1977, 7 Ill. Dec.
169, 49 Ill. App. 3d 334, 364 N.E. 2d 330.
B-
Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-612 Counsel never
Objected to the sufficiency of Petitioners pleadings, Objections to sufficiency
of pleadings either in form or substance must be made In trial court, and if
not so made, they will be considered waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. People ex rel. Deynes v. Harris, App. 1948, 77 N.E. 2d
439, 333 Ill. App. 280.
39.)
That
because the courts are under seize by certain racial and sexual fraternal
terrorists justice is only had by those the “Private Citizens” decide who is to
receive justice not in accordance to any United States Constitution or United
States Supreme Court Rulings Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution Prohibiting
Altisource, Cook County Sheriff’s or any Person from Removing said Possessions of
61 Years et al. served via electronically delivery Jan. 10, 2025, Appellees
have admitted to the veracity of all Pleadings demonstrating Terrorism and
violations of the Appellants Civil Rights (Sections 42 USC 1983) having them
unlawfully evicted because they litigiously articulated and particularized said
case was Vacated and Affirmed in the Circuit Court and State Appellate Court (Dec
30, 2011) 14 years ago.
A-
That
Racism, Corruption & Sexism where alleged certain homosexual and Lesbian
judges are untouchable with inferior Blacks or Colored People keeping their
mouths shut in authority; whereby, the Sheriff’s Police directed an
Appellant to file a Complaint against the judges with the Judicial Inquiry
Board, hereto attached, Dec 18, 2024 letter from Michael Deno, Executive
Dir & Gen Counsel he DENIED a prior Complaint but because said
individuals were Caucasian and of Law Enforcement, he was not sure if he had
jurisdiction.
40.)
That
every judge who became “Private Citizens” acting outside of their jurisdiction
and oath upholding Tyranny, Terrorism in the Courts have demonstrated a
Rebellion against the Federal Government, United States Constitution and laws
of the United States Supreme Court succinctly articulates how the State and
members of the Federal Government have used Hate, Racism and their Political
Affiliation making sure no Defendant- Appellant receive Equal Protection of the
Laws pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
41.)
That the Court Order picked up at the Clerks’ office Feb 14,
2025 from Pro se Clerk #5 was never emailed to the Appellant on its face is a
CONTRADICTION and fraught with FRAUD corroborating how Federal Clerks and Law
Clerks are engaging Terrorist Crimes, when the Motion for Summary Judgment was
filed
A-
Page 1 states, Motion for Summary Judgment et al filed Jan 28, 2025, by the
Pro Se Appellant hereto attached.
B-
Page 1 states, Emergency Motion for Default et al. filed Feb 3, 2025.
C-
That Page 2 of the Court Order is absent judges’
signatures and in no way reflects a court of competent jurisdiction to have
embraced said laws because none of the laws have any bearing on the present
case---BECAUSE ALL DEMOCRATS AND APPELLEES AS WELL AS JUDGES HAVE ADMITTED TO
THE VERACITY OF ALL PLEADINGS AS BEING TRUE.
42.)
Federal
Rule 55 provides
for a confusing two-step process for entry of defaults and default judgments.
Before entry of a default judgment, a default must typically be entered. Rule
55(a) provides: “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by
affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”
43.)
That Defendant-Appellant filed the MOTION FOR DEFAULT OF THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FILED JAN 27, 2025) ET AL FEB. 10, 2025, Clerk Katie directed
her colleague to intercept and file stamp said Motion, his reply was he has no
problem waiting on him and said Good Morning and has always been a professional
very courteous made it clear this document is going to be docketed right now
this morning.
A- That never did Katie ever
mention that a court order was entered Feb 3, 2025 which begs the question
whether if a Federal Clerk or Judges Clerk backdated a court order to Feb 3, in
an attempt to undermine and obstruct the Department of Justice from
investigating the racist corruption actively taking place in the Public Federal
Building by unlawfully SANCTIONING the Senior Citizens $5000.00 calling the
TRUTH of their PLEADINGS FRIVOLOUS.
44.)
That pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure RULE 8 (1) In
General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:
(A) State in short and plain terms its
defenses to each claim asserted against it; and
(B) Admit or Deny the allegations asserted against it by an
opposing party.
(2) Denials—Responding
to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the
allegation.
(3) General and
Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the
allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a
general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must
either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except
those specifically admitted.
(4) Denying Part
of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of
an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.
(5) Lacking
Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and
the statement, has the effect of a denial.
(6) Effect of
Failing to Deny. An allegation –other than one relating to the amount of
damages –is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is
not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required an allegation is
considered denied or avoided.
45.)
For an Order Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 103 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 75 L Ed 2d 632
(1983) Justice Brennen “The threshold standard for allowing punitive damages
for reckless or callous indifference applies even in a case, such as here,
where the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages because is
also one of recklessness. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that
actual malicious intent should be the standard for punitive damages because the
deterrent purposes of such damages would be served only if the threshold for
those damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for
liability in the first instance. The common-law rule is otherwise, and there is
no reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of {1983} of $40
Million Dollars;
46.)
Plaintiff-Appellees have not raised any affirmative defenses.
Summary judgment is
appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed
in a light most favorable to the movant or non-movant fail to establish a
genuine issue of material fact, thereby
1. Entitling the moving party
to judgment as a matter of law.
The purpose of summary
judgment is not to try a question of fact, but simply to determine whether
one exists.
When the party moving for
summary judgment supplies evidentiary facts which, if not contradicted, would
entitle her to judgment, the opposing party cannot rely upon his
non-compliance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures or a court order or a
complaint or answer if submitted alone to raise issues of material fact. A
counter Affidavit is necessary to refute evidentiary facts properly asserted by
affidavit Supporting the motion or else the facts are deemed admitted.
Here, Defendant-Appellant
has supplied affidavits, Court Orders, Certified Court transcripts and other
evidentiary material that establishes all of the elements necessary to entitle
it to recovery, including the amount of damages. Plaintiff-Appellees have
failed to submit any evidence in opposition to any Motions with Affidavits to any
Court to raise any genuine issues of material fact.
47.)
That pursuant to the textbook historical precedents relating to Section 42 USC 1983
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.
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 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 (4th 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).
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. Rprt. 778 (1975).
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), 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…….
Thus, Summary Judgment is proper.
FURTHER
AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
AFFIDAVIT
I Monzella Y. Johnson Pro Se being duly sworn on oath
states the aforementioned pleadings enumerated within said motion pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, 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 she verily believes the same to be
true.
Respectfully Submitted
Notary
____________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
Frogishtwo65@gmail.com
773 835-5849
IN
THE
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, } Appeal from the
United
As TRUSTEE for
securitized Trust }
States District Court for
2006-NC3, et al.
} the Northern District of
Plaintiffs
–Appellees
} Illinois, Eastern Division
V
}
No. 24 cv 12195
} No. 25-1118
}
Monzella Y.
Johnson
}
Defendant-Appellant
} Judge April Perry
Certificate of Service
I Monzella Y. Johnson, Defendant-Appellant,
certify that I have on this day Electronically Emailed said Motion et
al. to all parties recorded in said Notice via Email except Cook County Judges
via Courtesy Copies per Sheriff Police Directives to email them any and all
correspondence.
Dept
of Justice, US Atty
Gen Pam Bondi 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530
Attorney General
Kwame Raoul alexandrina.shrove@ilag.gov
555 West Monroe Suite 1300
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Cook County State’s Attorney Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
Eileen
O’Neil Burke timothy.evans@cookcountyil.gov
statesattorney@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
Cook County Eviction Superintendent Colin.Luce@ccsheriff.org
CCSO Evictions CCSO.evictions@ccsheriff.org
ccc.chancerycalendar12@cookcountyil.gov Presiding Judge S. H. Hall
Sheriff’s Police Molly Adams
molly.adams@ccsheriff.org
Potestivo & Ass., PC
Bryan G. Thompson, Poulami Mal
bthompson@potestivolaw.com
223 West Jackson, Blvd, Suite
610
Chicago, IL. 60606
Cook County Clerk, Iris Y. Martinez
CCCWebsite@cookcountycourt.com
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on Feb. 18, 2025 A Notice of Motion et al. has been filed in the United
States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit before the Honorable Justices.
Dated
Feb 18th, 2025
_________________________
Monzella Y. Johnson
Frogishtwo65@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment