NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Jerome A. Pintaro, et al. Plaintiff Case No. 23-cv-01425 v. Judge Thomas M. Durkin James D. Orel, et al. Defendants MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT "AS A MATTER OF LAW" CASE NO. 23-cv-01425; PINTARO, et al. v. OREL, et al., PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS 1. PURSUANT TO A VOID JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND ORDER OF SALE GRANTED BY THE 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE JAMES OREL, JUDGE ROBERT GIBSON, AND JUDGE BRYAN CHAPMAN, SAID COURT LACKING PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF TRUST; CASE NO. 2020CH000378; TITLED: CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST, PLAINTIFF v. JEROME A PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO 2. PURSUANT TO A VOID MONEY JUDGEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF JUDGEMENT, GRANTED BY THE 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE DOROTHY FRENCH MALLEN, JUDGE BRYAN CHAPMAN, JUDGE ANGELOS KAPPAS, AND JUDGE NEAL CERNE, SAID COURT LACKING JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER; CASE NO. 2018L001177 1
EVERY PERSON WHO UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS COUNT 1A COMPLAINT NO. 2020CH000378 CSMC 2018 SP3 TRUST v. JEROME A. PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO 1. A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE WERE FILED ON 4/24/2020 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, FIVE MONTHS LATER ON 9/11/2020, THE CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST WHICH WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY TRUSTEE AT THE TIME OF FILING, FILED AN ASSIGNMENT ASSIGNING ITSELF TO A TRUSTEE (See Exhibit 1.) CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST IS A GENERAL FIDUCIARY TRUST WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE OF DELAWARE AS A NON-PROFIT OR RELIGIOUS TRUST. THE TRUST WAS LISTED BY MOODY'S AS A PRIVATE TRUST WHICH MOODY'S INDICATED THAT THEY DID NOT RATE NOR FOLLOW. THE PARTY PLAINTIFF AT TIME OF FILING WAS "CSMC 2018 SP-3 TRUST" WHICH WAS FILED TO THE COURT IN NAME ONLY, WITHOUT ANY ELEMENTS OF A TRUST, LACKING A TRUSTEE, LACKING A TRUSTOR, LACKING A TRUST INSTRUMENT, LACKING BENEFICIARIES, LACKING ANY PROPERTY OR MONEY ENTRUSTED IN ANY TRUST INSTRUMENT FOR WANT OF A TRUSTEE, WITH NO NOTE ASSIGNMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGEE OF RECORD ING DIRECT, FSB, TO ANY OTHER INVESTOR OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, WITHOUT ANY UNBROKEN CHAIN OF TITLE FROM THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGEE OF RECORD, ING DIRECT, FSB, TO THE ALLEGED, FICTICIOUS, FRAUDULENT PARTY PLAINTIFF CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST, AN ALLEGED FIDUCIARY TRUST PLAINTIFF FILED WITHOUT ANY TRUSTEE AT THE TIME OF FILING. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITHOUT A TRUSTEE AND FIVE MONTHS LATER ASSIGED ITSELF TO AN ALLEGED TRUSTEE, 2.MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE (See Exhibit 2.) 2
IRA T. NEVEL LAW FIRM NAMED THE CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST AS PLAINTIFF OF RECORD WITHOUT ANY NAMED TRUSTEE TO LEGALLY ACT ON ITS BEHALF - AS A RESULT, THE JUDICAL PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE BY THE DUPAGE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, AND ALL COURT DECISIONS AND COURT ORDERS IN CASE NO. 2020CH000378 WERE RENDERED VOID, VOIDABLE, AND MOOT. 3. MOTION TO VACATE SHERIFF'S FORECLOSURE SALE ON JUNE 16, 2022 OF 118 SAINT FRANCIS CIRCLE, OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60523 (See Exhibit 3.) THE CIRCUIT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF, CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST, IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IRA T. NEVEL LAW FIRM ON APRIL 24, 2020. IT IS CLEAR ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ING DIRECT, FSB, WAS THE MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATOR AND FUNDING LENDER, (WHICH HAS CEASED ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2012,) AND DEFENDANT JEROME PINTARO, AS BORROWER, ON THE NOTE DATED MARCH 28, 2008 - CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION. 4. 735 ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUES 5/15-1509(c) MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 2-1401(F) PETITION (See Exhibit 4.) THIS COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF, CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST, IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IRA T. NEVEL LAW FIRM ON APRIL 24, 2020. IT IS CLEAR ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ING DIRECT, FSB, WAS THE MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATOR AND FUNDING LENDER, (WHICH HAD CEASED ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2012,) AND DEFENDANT JEROME PINTARO, THE BORROWER, ON THE NOTE DATED MARCH 28, 2008 - CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION. 5. COURT ORDER 2020CH000378-1675318644110 DENYING CHALLENGE OF THE COURT- JUDGE BRYAN CHAMPMAN DENIES TWO MOTIONS TO VACATE VOID JUDGEMENT FOR REASONS STATED ON THE RECORDS, RECORDS THAT DO 3
(See Exhibit 5.) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE FILED ON 12/27/2022 IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS STATED ON THE RECORD. THE THIRD PARTY PURCHASERS MOTION TO INTERVENE IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER 2-1401(F), FILED ON 1/17/23, AFTER HEARING, IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS STATED ON THE RECORD. 6. PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S REPLY TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DIMSISS COMPLAINT (See Exhibit 6.) FRAUD ON THE COURT OCCURS WHEN THE JUDICIAL MACHINERY ITSELF HAS BEEN TAINTED, SUCH AS WHEN AN ATTORNEY, WHO IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, IS INVOLVED IN THE PERPETRATION OF A FRAUD OR MAKES MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. FRAUD UPON THE COURT MAKES VOID THE ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS OF THAT COURT. IN BULLOCH V. UNITED STATES, 763 F.2D 1115, 1121 (10TH CIR. 1985), THE COURT STATED "FRAUD UPON THE COURT IS FRAUD WHICH IS DIRECTED TO THE JUDICIAL MACHINERY ITSELF AND IS NOT FRAUD BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS, FALSE STATEMENTS OR PERJURY. ... IT IS WHERE THE COURT OR A MEMBER IS CORRUPTED OR INFLUENCED OR INFLUENCE IS ATTEMPTED OR WHERE THE JUDGE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS JUDICIAL FUNCTION --- THUS WHERE THE IMPARTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY CORRUPTED." MAJD G. KHOURY - AN ILLEGAL SCAM 'STRAW BUYER' WITH THE DELIBERATE INTENT TO DISGUISE THE TRUE NATUE OF THE TRANSACTION, THE USE OF A FRAUDULENT, FICTICIOUS, AND FABRICATED BUYER'S NAME TO COMMIT MORTGAGE AND FORECLOSURE FRAUD BY THE CORRUPT DUPAGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND CERTAIN CORRUPT 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF, AND DUPAGE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS. A RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING REGARDING PROPERTY RIGHTS REJECTED BARRIERS THAT UNFAIRLY DENY PROPERTY OWNERS THEIR DAY IN COURT. “A PROPERTY OWNER HAS AN ACTIONABLE FIFTH AMENDMENT 4
IS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHEN PRIVATE LAND IS TAKEN WITHOUT COMPENSATION, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR FEDERAL COURT REVIEW. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING OVERRULED PRIOR SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT THAT REQUIRED A LANDOWNER TO FIRST EXHAUST PROPERTY TAKING CASES IN STATE COURT BEFORE SUING IN FEDERAL COURT. THE DECISION ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS THAT BELIEVE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THEIR PROPERTY, TO SUE DIRECTLY IN FEDERAL COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PREVIOUSLY, THESE PLAINTIFFS HAD TO FIRST PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS IN STATE COURT, UNDER REASONING IF A STATE COURT PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE REMEDY, THEN FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD ONLY HEAR CASES WHERE THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKEN PROPERTY. “THE COURT’S DECISION TO REJECT BARRIERS THAT UNFAIRLY DENY PROPERTY OWNERS THEIR DAY IN COURT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST AS SACRED AS ALL OTHER RIGHTS,” KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, NO. 17–647. ARGUED OCTOBER 3, 2018—REARGUED JANUARY 16, 2019— DECIDED JUNE 21, 2019 THE TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA, PASSED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT “[A]LL CEMETERIES . . . BE KEPT OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS.” PETITIONER ROSE MARY KNICK, WHOSE 90-ACRE RURAL PROPERTY HAS A SMALL FAMILY GRAVEYARD, WAS NOTIFIED THAT SHE WAS VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE. KNICK SOUGHT DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN STATE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE EFFECTED A TAKING OF HER PROPERTY, BUT SHE DID NOT BRING AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION ACTION UNDER STATE LAW SEEKING COMPENSATION. THE TOWNSHIP RESPONDED BY WITHDRAWING THE VIOLATION NOTICE AND STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE. WITHOUT AN ONGOING ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THE COURT HELD, KNICK COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IRREPARABLE HARM NECESSARY FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, SO IT DECLINED TO RULE ON HER REQUEST. KNICK THEN FILED AN ACTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER 42 U. S. C. §1983, ALLEGING THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED HER CLAIM UNDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMM’N V. HAMILTON BANK OF JOHNSON CITY, 473 U. S. 172, WHICH HELD THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MUST SEEK JUST COMPENSATION UNDER STATE LAW IN STATE COURT BEFORE BRINGING A FEDERAL TAKINGS CLAIM UNDER §1983. THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. 5
A PROPERTY OWNER MAY BRING A FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM UNDER §1983 AT THAT TIME. PP. 5–20. IN CONFLICT WITH "PRECEDENT AFTER PRECEDENT," SHE SAID, THE MAJORITY HOLDS THAT A GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION WHENEVER IT TAKES PROPERTY WITHOUT ADVANCE COMPENSATION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD ITS COMMITMENT TO PAY." COUNT 1B COMPLAINT NO. 2018L001177 PETER C. POWERS AND ROSEMARY POWERS v. JEROME A. PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO 7. MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGEMENT UNDER 735 5/2 - SECTION 2-1401(f) (See Exhibit 7.) THE LAW IS WELL-SETTLED THAT A VOID ORDER OR JUDGEMENT IS VOID EVEN BEFORE REVERSAL. "COURTS ARE CONSTITUTED BY AUTHORITY AND THY CANNOT GO BEYOND THAT POWER DELEGATED TO THEM. IF THEY ACT BEYOND THAT AUTHORITY, AND CERTAINLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF IT, THEIR JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS ARE REGARDED AS NULLITIES. THEY ARE NOT VOIDABLE, BUT SIMPLY VOID, AND VOID EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." Valley v. Northen Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct 116 (1920) FRAUD ON THE COURT OCCURS WHEN THE JUDICIAL MACHINERY ITSELF HAS BEEN TAINTED, SUCH AS WHEN AN ATTORNEY, WHO IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, IS INVOLVED IN THE PERPETRATION OF A FRAUD OR MAKES MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. FRAUD UPON THE COURT MAKES VOID THE ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS OF THAT COURT. IN BULLOCH V. UNITED STATES, 763 F.2D 1115, 1121 (10TH CIR. 1985), THE COURT STATED "FRAUD UPON THE COURT IS FRAUD WHICH IS DIRECTED TO THE JUDICIAL MACHINERY ITSELF AND IS NOT FRAUD BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS, FALSE STATEMENTS OR PERJURY. ... IT IS WHERE THE COURT OR A MEMBER IS 6
FUNCTION --- THUS WHERE THE IMPARTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY CORRUPTED." 8. JUDGE NEAL CERNE'S ACTION ORDER OF 8/3/2023 (See Exhibit 8.) 9. DISMISSED APPEAL 3-23-0374 (See Exhibit 9.) 10. DISMISSED APPEAL 3-23-0386 (See Exhibit 10.) 11. JUDGE NEAL CERNE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION (See Exhibit 11.) 12. 2018L001177; POWERS et al., v. PINTARO, et al. COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS FILED 10/17/2018 (See Exhibit 12.) COUNT II 18 U.S.C. § 1512 - TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY AND DIMITRI A. SAYEGH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS PARTIES TO A DUPAGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT SPONSORED CONSPIRACY, WHICH UNDER COLOR OF STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, AND USAGE OF ILLINOIS AND THE COUNTY OF DUPAGE, SUBJECTED, AND CAUSED TO BE SUBJECTED, PLAINITFF JEROME A. PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, TO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE LIABLE TO THE PARTIES INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER 7
ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY AND DIMITRI A. SAYEGH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY NAMED DEFENDANTS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNDER CASE NO. 23-cv-1425, PINTARO, et, al., v. OREL, et, al., ADHAM ALAILY AND DIMITRI A. SAYEGH, PARTY TO A DUPAGE COUNTY SPONSORED CONSPRIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINITIFFS JEROME A. PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED THEM UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, ADHAM ALAILY AN ILLINOIS LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THE CAPACITY OF A GOVERNEMENT 'ACTOR,' IN A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND WITNESS TAMPERING, ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING DEFENDANT DIMITRI A. SAYEGH, ALSO A GOVERNMENT 'ACTOR' PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD, ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY ALSO ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING A 'STRAW BUYER' IN NAME ONLY, WHO DOES NOT EXIST, A 'MAJD G. KHOURY' COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE 'DEFENDANTS' BY AND THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY, EGAN & ALAILY, EGAN & ALAILY, LLC, WERE BOTH PARTY TO VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1512 - TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS - ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY AND DIMITRI A. SAYEGH HAVING: (a)(1)(A) PREVENTED THE ATTENDANCE OR TESTIMONY OF PERSONS IN AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (a)(1)((B) PREVENTED THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER OBJECTS, IN AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (b)(1) KNOWINGLY, CORRUPTLY PERSUADED OTHER PERSONS, OR ATTEMPTED TO DO SO, ENGAGED IN MISLEADING CONDUCT TOWARD OTHER PERSONS WITH INTENT TO INFLUENCE, DELAY, OR PREVENT THE TESTIMONY OF PERSONS IN AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (b)(2)(A) CAUSED OR INDUCED PERSONS TO WITHHOLD TESTIMONY FROM AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (b)(2)(C) EVADED THE LEGAL PROCESS SUMMONING THAT PERSON TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS 8
CASE NO. 2010L001177; PETER C. POWERS AND ROSEMARY POWERS, AND CASE NO. 2020CH000378; CSMC 2020CH000378, ATTEMPTING TO DO SO (d)(1) INTENTIONALLY HARASSED PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO, AND MARILYN PINTARO, AND THEREBY HINDERED, DELAYED, AND PREVENTED, AND DISSSUADED PERSONS FROM ATTENDING OR TESTIFYING (f)(1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN OFFICAL PROCEEDING NEED NOT BE PENDING OR BE INSTITUTED AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (f)(2) THE TESTIMONY NEED NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE OR FREE OF A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE (g)(1) IN A PROSECUTION FOR AN OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION, NO STATE OF MIND NEED BE PROVED WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDING BEFORE A JUDGE OR COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (g)(2) THAT THE JUDGE IS A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES (h) THERE IS AXTRATERRITORIAL FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER AN OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION (i) A PROSECUTION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT WHICH THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING THE ALLEGED OFFENSE OCCURRED (k) WHOEVER CONSPIRES TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PENALTIES AS THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR THE OFFENSE THE COMMISSION OF WHICH WAS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY PRAYER FOR RELIEF: 1.) THAT THIS COURT DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE THE FRAUDULENT COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO. 2020CH000378, ON APRIL 24, 2020, PLAINTIFF: CSMC 2018-SP3 TRUST, PLAINTIFF v. JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO, DEFENDANTS, FILED BY THE LAW FIRM OF IRA T. NEVEL - PURSUANT TO A MOTION TO CHALLENGE THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER THIS SECTION 2-1401(F) PETITION PURSUANT TO 735 ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUES 5/15-1509(c), BE GRANTED TO 9
Fleepit Digital © 2021