THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS STATE.

DEPARTMENT OF CHANCERY DIVISION

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING
3442 NORTH ODELL AVENUE
VS. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60634

CASE NO. 10CH53781

KRZYSZTOF FRAK, EWA FRAK COURT ROOM 2803
J.P MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A
JUDGE; WILLIAM B. SULLIVAN
Court Date March 21, 2019. Time 2:30 pm.

MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT

IN LIGHT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Now comes to Krzysztof R Frak acting in public capacity of KRZYSZTOF FRAK and/or

FRAK, KRZYSZTOF reserves all its Rights and waive none, 810 ILCS 5/1-308

This Motion is within scope of Court Order Jan. 24, 2019 point #2 .

“live to file motion to cite applicable law which allowed defendant to have forensic audit of the

Note considering post-judgment stage of the foreclosure”.

In its respond and pleading to above structured sentence of order produced by plaintiff's

attorney Defendant has big concern whether The Judgment is post-judgment in light of Void

Judgment.

1 Of 8
* Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147,

affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or

subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process.

**“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law,

court is deprived of juris.” See Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

I. BACKGROUND

This law suit, complaint has been cited to 735 ILCS 5/15 according to court record.

Said law is not probate court law, however the Defendant is blamed to fail to prove its

“innocent” within 8 years. Recently, furthermore defendant has receive blame from court as to

not rise authenticity objections as to copy of the note permanently infested as a proof. By the

law of physic and/or sanity of the human mind defendant can not have any objection as to

genuine of document until is presented in real time and space. The real evidence “original

note” is first time produced on court date 12/12/2018. Defendant has rise its objection upon its

first hand look examination, thus is timely raised/ presented.

There is no doubt that sentence such as “it looks good to me” and “I reject your demand” in

respect to tangible evidence just presented is personal knowledge/opinion of the judge.

Prior to that, Defendant has filed in August 9, 2018 its INTERROGATORY TO BE ANSWER

UNDER THE OATH (discovery request process), however happens to be omitted/ clouded by

Judge effort who issue Order Sept. 12, 2018 production of Original Note.

2 Of 8
To the best defendant knowledge and research there is no law which require defendant to file

Motion for record to support already pending Court Order.

Furthermore since May 31, 2018 when plaintiffs party has change 7th time, Defendant

commenced numerous communication letter with new entity MTGLQ pursuant to 15 USC

1692 et al. In addition also see court filing August 9, 2018 Interrogatory To be Answer Under

The Oath. In said Interrogatory (court action) all first 30 points are in concern of the original

note. Furthermore defendant reserved its right to potential discovery. See page 2 text line 1st

and 2nd Quote “ Defendant reserve its right to follow-up (discovery) with its additional

question and/or request accordingly in respect to incoming answer and/or lack thereof”.

Therefore Judge/ Plaintiffs party argument “ defendant has not file any court action demanding

to produce original note” contradicts Judge Order itself.

No mention a fact that the Note borrower's signature wont match Mortgage signature and is not

same hand-writing at first glance.

For the purpose of this Motion defendant's cited case law is Code of Judicial Conduct

Canon 1/Rule 61 , Canon 2/Rule 62 (A), Canon 3/Rule 63 A (9)

The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI Illinois Constitution and/or

United States Constitution, Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed.

2D 1067 (1976).

"State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal

liberties and to uphold federal law."

3 Of 8
 *Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which his/her

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that

the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.

**Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of

recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse his/herself sua sponte under the stated

circumstances."Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

***Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has

been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal

Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's

personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge,

acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor

(provided that he is nota judge).

Rule 63 (C) (1)

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.

@Note: section 455 federal rule is akin to Illinois supreme Court Rule 63 C. section 455 covers “any justice,

judge, or magistrate in the United States.

4 Of 8
 II. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Appears to be that Foreclosure Court Orders 12/12/2018 is produced upon, and caused by

moral hazard of lack of action of judicial officer/judge in respect to defendant's concerns

expressed in its Letter Of Protest May 4, 2018. With all due respect if honorable judge William

B Sullivan have had saw not comfortable circumstance to act promptly with Rule 61, 62, 63

than signed Court Order 1/24/2019 point #3 is nothing but the proof of aggravating bias and

lack of impartiality, therefore ground for self-executing judge recusal, thus vacation of void

judgments. In such a court environment Plaintiffs attorney #61256 has courage to produce

misleading order point #3 that purported original note presented 12/12/2018 has been found to

be original, with no trial whatsoever. Judicial officer judge William B Sullivan on its bias in

plaintiffs favor has signed said misleading statement without hesitation. If there is a findings

upon objection there must be a trial, but there was no trial, in fact the “original note” document

trial has been rejected upon judge personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts (original

Note) concerning the proceeding .

IF THERE IS a finding in this matter as plaintiffs attorney stated then appears to be upon

ex-parte communication, and/or concealed privet/personal channel between plaintiff's

attorney/law firm and judge/public officer. Ether way this is deprivation of “defendant” rights

in due process of law.

As to (with all due respect) 1/24/2019 Court's Order point #2 “live to file motion...”

5 Of 8
appearers to be act of good intention of Judge. However in light of how Plaintiff's Attorney has

formulated sentence therein, obligates defendant to prove that Unicorns do exists. Defendant,

however has find what do exist is Canon Law which judge shall follow in its profession to stay

impartial in face of unchartered territory/issue progressing in real-time 12/12/2018 to deliver

appearance of justice.

Unfortunately all public officers such as attorneys appeared/plead in this case recently cause

the Judge to fail on its fiduciary duty in respect to Canon 2/Rule 62 appearance of justice/

impartiality of judge.

For a fact, due to false narrative that defendant is responsible/guilty and financially charge for

over 8 years pending lawsuit whereby it is Plaintiffs/Saxon who is not originator/creditor in

first place, change its entity 7 times (SAXON, OCWEN, NATIONAL STAR, RCN, DITECH,

SHELLPOINT, MTGLQ) infested 4 different Law Firms (PIERCE & ASSOCIATES,

HINSHAW CULBERTSON, POTESTIVO&ASSOCIATES PC, MCCALLA RAYMER )

pretend to be first-hand party of record within presidency of 4 Judges ( VALDERRAMA

FRANKLIN ULYSES, ROONEY JEAN PRENDERGAST, MULLEN MICHAEL TULLY,

WILLIAM B SULLIVAN ). How this record prove not otherwise. Is it not a Plaintiffs party to

whom burden of proof reside upon. Is it not Plaintiffs party who for over 8 years fails to bring

this claim to proven status. In Judge mind its irrelevant because all these, appears to be

presumption that something went wrong at inception of this law suit but there is no proof. Is it

not Plaintiffs Attorney who plead that this case is commenced pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15 where

presumption move everything. Is it not defendant's Counterclaim Motion/Respond on court

record filed March 26, 2018 conveniently mute/omitted to serve plaintiffs agenda. The

6 Of 8
Defendant's presumptions is not equal to Plaintiff's presumption, this is rule of law in court

room 2803. In Judge's biased mind it is the Defendant who benefit a lot for not paying

“mortgage” for “so long” . Fact to the matter is that defendant/defendant's family (descends

beneficiary) suffer immensely unrecoverable pain/traumatic disorder living from month to

month with “dead penalty” cursed by SAXON and its assignee and successors, aiding and

abetting by plaintiff's attorneys, lawyers, law firms and Judge. Defendant has great hope that

all individuals with theirs families include who participate(d) in this predatory foreclosure

acquire its own curse, cast by TTTT TTTTT TTT TTTTTTT and they become ascends beneficiary not only

for 8 years but for their lifetime and/or eternity. If any of these individuals has been damaged

and has claim against me and/or promises I made and/or personally know anyone who lawfully

executed as such, shall appear in court face to face and prove its damage he/she claim to have.

This little common law segue is obviously defendant's personal perception and expression

addressed to Public Court, same as judge privet expression and opinion “it looks good to me”

therefore must be genuine/original as plaintiffs attorney has concluded in Court Order

1/24/2019 point #3.

For official record defendant states that above ascending beneficiary produced more impression

of mutual collusion then appearance of impartiality and justice.

III. PRAYER

Defendant demand to expunge point 3 of court order 1/24/2019 with prejudice, impose

prompt sanction upon Attorney for deceptive self-creation of court intention. This self-creative

order is meant to be used as Estoppal order in Defendant's incoming complaint (acknowledge

7 Of 8
of which plaintiff's party/attorney has learn about around Jan. 17-18, 2019 therefor was fully

aware of its unethical practice) “ Fabrication/forge of evidence to deprive person's

rights/property” subject of but not limited to 720 ILCS 5/17-1 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and/or

4th amendment of this State Constitution and/or USA Constitution.

As to Judge Recusal subject, Defendant strongly belief that Self-executing Recusal under

Section 455 is embedded in Law for Judge protection in this matter, to not engaged in the

Federal Crime of interference with interstate commerce.

Therefore what is left, thus defendant pray for is vacate void judgment(s) entered 12/12/2018.

Without hope for appearance of justice respectfully submitted.

By:_______________________
Krzysztof R Frak. Pro Se

Krzysztof Frak
3442 N. Odell Ave.
Chicago, IL 60634
773-609-8175, ProSeLtg@Gmail.com

8 Of 8