Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rosee Torres, et vir, Petitioners v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

11

JL —

1

\

NO.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

IN THE

MAR I 1 mi

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFF'CF CF','I-'F C'. Fr-K

ROSEE TORRES and NOEL TORRES,

Petitioners

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a Caiif. Corp., WELLS FARGO

HOME MORTGAGE, INC., an Iowa Corp., INTERCOUNTY

JUDICIAL SALES CORP., an III. Corp., Mr. CAPITOL GROUP,

LLC a/k/a MR CAPITOL GROUP, LLC, MANLEY DEAS &

KOCHALSKI, LLC, an Ohio Corp., JOEL KNOSHER & EDWARD

PETERKA, Ind. & Agents of WELLS FARGO & MANLEY DEAS,

ROBERT METZ, Ind. & Agent of Mr. CAPITOL GROUP, LLC.,

Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

FROM SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

ROSEE TORRES and NOEL TORRES

Appellants-Petitioners, Pro Se

3546 West Beach Avenue

Chicago, IL 60651

1-773-384-9122

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Rule 14(l)(a)

(a) WHETHER Torres are entitled to protections of Amendments 5th, 6th, 7th-13th and 14th to

the Constitution?

(b)

WHETHER dismissal with prejudice of Torres' Complaint under Rules 8 and 12(b) was

erroneous and improper?

(c) WHETHER Torres'(i) prior settlement and Release,(ii) Certificate of Release; (iii) Satisfaction;

(iv) Judgment and (v) Dismissals with Prejudice constitute res judicata as to Appellees'

subsequent foreclosure claims?

(d) WHETHER Torres have federal claims for violations of Civil Rights Acts of 1964,1988, 1981,

1983 & 1985based on Wells Fargo denying application for purchase of 3542 West Beach and

3550 West Beach Avenue based on (i) race, color: Afro-American/Afro-Latino (ii) ethnicity:

Hispanic (iii) gender/female; (iv) elderly, (v) misclassified U. S. citizenship; (vi) disability?

(e ) WHETHER Torres are entitled a file an Amended Complaint based on new evidence and acts

by Respondents committed during Appeals, including but not limited to: (i) breaches of oral

promises from 2015 to November 2021 (ii) threats, violence, physical assaults and violence,

home invasion, destruction of property which terrorized and traumatized Torres?

(f) WHETHER plaintiffs Torres who never had a mortgage with Wells Fargo, have claims under

RICO, the False Claims Act, conspiracy and fraud re seventeen (17) fake, fabricated un­

authorized accounts/mortgages in Rosee Torres' name by ID theft, forgery, robo-signature(s),

altering and substituting blank forms from predecessor applications to purchase 3542 and

3550 West Beach, to create new fake mortgage on 3546 West Beach to defraud Torres and

federal government of $3-$5 million dollars?

(g) WHETHER plaintiffs Torres have a claim under Racketeer Influence & Corrupt Organization

Act (RICO) re Money Laundering, Conspiracy, and Fraud by alleged criminal enterprises?

(h) WHETHER federal judge Mary Rowland should have disqualified or recused herself as

a relative and attorney is employed during by Respondent Wells Fargo's law firm?

(N) WHETHER R. Torres' prior law firm and employer, Judge Nathan Howse & Judge R. Scott

Nevilles, have conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duties as judges denying Torres'

State Court Appeal re issues they settled with same parties prior to judgeship?

(j)

WHETHER trial court Judge Wm. B. Sullivan, former employee of Wells Fargo law firm, as

disclosed by Respondents, (i) should have recused self; (ii) can impose summary judgment &

sale for foreclosure on Noel Torres, who is not named or a party to mortgage at issue?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.

a-f

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

f-i

JURISDICTION

1

OPINIONS BELOW & OTHER RELATED CASES

2-3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4

ARGUMENT

9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.

29

CONCLUSION

29

CERTIFICATE(S) OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE - PROOF OF SERVICE

APPENDIX WITH INDEX (SEPARATE)

INDEX TO SEPARATE APPENDICES (APP. 1, A TO APP. R)

NOTE: MOTION TO FILE FORMA PAUPERIS & DECLARATION ATTACHED TO WRIT.

-i-

LIST OF PARTIES

(Rule 14(b)(1)

PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS

Rosee Torres and Noel Torres, Petitioners/Appellants

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a Calif. Corp., a/k/a &d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., an Iowa Corp.,

Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp., an Illinois Corp.,

Mr. Capitol; Group, LLC a/k/a MR Capitol Group, LLC, (No Corporate Disclosure to Torres);

Manley Deas & Kochalski, LLC., an Ohio Limited Liability Company, Attorneys for Wells Fargo

Joel Knosher at Manley Deas & Kowalski, attorney and agent for Wells Fargo

Edward Peterka at Manley Deas & Kochalski, Attorney and Agent for Wells Fargo

Robert Metz, Ind. & as Attorney and Agent of Mr. Capitol Group, LLC.,

-iii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

A. R. Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co., 124 N.E. 3d 962, 966 (III., 2018)

16

Airborne Beepers & Video v. AT&T Mobility, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir., 2007)..

2, 5, 25

Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 III. 316,168 N.E. 259 (1929)

19

Anchor Bank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F. 3rd 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011)

12

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)

11

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,129 S. Ct. 1937,1949,173 I. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)....

12

Attorney General of the State ofillinois v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 09-ch-26434..

-vi-

Bankier v. 1st Fed'l Savings & Loan Assn, 167 III. Dec. 750, 225 III. App. 3d 64, 588

N.E. 2d 391(1992)...................................................................................................

15

BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,127 S. Ct. 1955,167 L. Ed. 2d 929

(2007).....................................................................................................................

12

Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 944 (2009) citing 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1961(4)...

13

Bracey v. Gramley, USDC-ND of III. No. 96*6233 (June 9,1997)

12,13

Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115,1121 (19h Cir., 1985)

18

Burns v. Cineplex Odeon, Inc., No. 95-C-5280; 1996 WL 501742 @ *8 (N.D.I.L,

09-19-1996).........................................................................................................

16

Cabrera v. 1st Nat'l Bank of Wheaton, 324 III. App. 3d 85 (2nd Dist. 2005)

19

Canella v. Cordell Enterprises, 980 F. Supp. 272, 273 (N.D. Ill, 1997)

10

Case v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir., 2003)

9

Clerv. Illinois Education Association, 423 F.3d 726, 729 (7th Cir., 2005)

9

-a-

Cohen v. Blockbuster, 351 IN. App. 3d 772, 776-777. 814 N.E. 2d 933, 936-37

(1st Dist. 2004)(Abuse of discretion, de novo)..............................................

25

Cole v. U.S. Capitol, Inc., 389 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir., 2004)

10

Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 .E. 2d 482, 5040, 675 N.E. 2 584, 593 (IL.1996)

26

D. C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S., 462,103 S. Ct. 1302 (1983)

14

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald's. 546 U.S. 470,476 (2006)

19

Dowrick v. Village of Downers Grove, et al, 362 III. App. 3d 512 (2005)

19

Doyle v. Cross Hosp., 186 III.2d 104,109-110, 708 N.E. 2nd 1140,1144 (1999);

735 ILCS 5/2-619(c ) (Abuse of discretion).....................................................

24

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d 815, 822

(7th Cir., 2016).....................................................................................................

13

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 44 U.S. 280,123 S. Ct. 1517116 L. Ed.

2d 454 (2005)..........................................................................................................

13

GASH Associates v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir., 1993)

16

Haines v, Kerner, 404 .S. 519 (1972)

10

Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ. Of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical

School, 167 F.3d 1170,1173 (7th Cir., 1999).....................................................

10

In re Bontkowski, 785 N.E. 2d 126,131 III. Ct. App. (2003)

19

In re Sub Valley Foods Co.„ 861 F. 2d 106 (6th Cir., 1986)

15

In re the Village of Willowbrook, 37 III. App. 2d 393 (1962)

19

In re Wachovia "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing & Sales Practice Litiga­

tion, 5:09-md-02915-jf (USDC, Southern Calif. May 17, 2011 (Also Doc. 25, EX.3-B). iii, b, 5,14

In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., #2015-067, #AA-EC11-19 & 2013-132,

April 20, 2018 (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Doc. #25, EX. 4D............

-b-

iii, 3,14,15

In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., #AA-EC-2018-16 & #2018-026, April 20,

2018 (Office of the Comptroller of Currency) Doc. #25, EX. 4A, 4B, 4C)................

iii, 3,14,15

Industrial Coatings Group v. American Motorist Ins. Co. 276 III. App. 3d 799, 813

658 N.E. 2d 1338.1347 (1st Dist., 1995) (abuse of Discretion, de novo)..................

25

Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co., 4:2015-cv-02159 (USDC, Calif.)

15

Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968)

18

Kingsley v. Roeder, 2 III. 2d 131,117 N.E. 2d 82 (1954)

25

Kunik v. Racine County, 946 F. 2d 1574,1580 (7th Cir., 1971)

16

Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F. 3d 629, 632 (7th Cir 2013)

10

Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1981)

11

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S., 422,437 (1982) quoting Armstrong v.

Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).........................................................................

11

Long v. Shore Bank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 561 (7th Cir. 1999)

28

Lowe v. AB Freight Line, 175 III. 2d 176 (1997)

19

Lutheran Gen'l Hospital v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc. 959 F. Supp. 501--503 (N.D.111.1997)

10

Mathew v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 325 (1976)

10, 11

McCarter v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 130 III. App. 3d 97,100 (1985)

25

Mt. Mansfied Ins. Group,Inc. v. American Int'l Group, et ai, III. App. Ct., 1st Dist, Mar. 30,

2007...................................................................................................................................

18

Noel v. Hall, 341 F. 3d 1148,1163-1164 (9th Cir. 2003)

16

Novak v. St. Rita High School, 187 III. 2d 381 (2001)

18

Parker v. Parker, 950 So. 2d at 391 (FI. 2007).

28

Partipilo v. Partipilo, 331 III. App. 3d 394, 398,770 N.E. 2d 1136,1141 (1st Dist.); (Abuse

of Discretion, de novo)......................................................................................................

25

-c-

People ex rel Hartigan v. Moore, 143 III. App. 3d 410, 412-413 (1986).

15

People ex rel Village of Lake Bluff, 321 III. App. 3d 897, 900, 748 N.E. 2d 801,805 {2d

Dist., 2001)......................................................................................................................

People of the State of Illinois v. Fred Sterling, 357 III. 354,192 N.E. 229 (1934)

19

Quinones v. Score, 771 F. 2d 289, 291 (7th Cir., 1985)

16

Remerv. Interstate Bond Co., 172 N.W. 2d 425,439, (III. 1961)

15

Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C., 768 F. 3d 732, 734 (7th Cir., 2014)

14

Robbins v. MED-1 Sols, LLC, 13 F. 4th 652, 856 (7th Cir. 2021)

16

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,415-416, 44 S, Ct. 149 (1923); D.C. Court of

Appeals, 1998)v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 463, 476-82, 103 S.Ct, 130_ (1983) ..................

13,14

Scott v. Aldi, 301 III. App. 3d 459, 234 III. Dec. 665, 7033 N.E. 2d 526 (1st Dist., 1998)

25

Shelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Product Co.,338 III. App. 79. 86 N.E. 2d 875, 883-884 (1949)

19

Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F. 3d 400,402 (7th Cir.,2015)

12

State of Illinois (Attorney General) v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. #09-ch-26434

Swanson v. Citibank, 614 F. 3d 400,402 (7th Cir., 2010)

9

Tamaya v. Blagoyevich, 526 F. 3d 1074,1081 (7th Cir., 2008)

19

Torres v. Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp., #19-cv-00112 (N.D. of III) April 05-2019

Torres v. Metz, etal, 19-cv-6526 (USDC. N.D. of III)

lii, 17

b

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al 13-cv-05544 (USDC-IL) 2015

B, 5,16

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al, #19-cv-00112, N.D. of III (2019)

iii, 17

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, 2019-cv-04138 (USDC.NDIL) (2021)

2

-d-

U. S. v. Madigan, Michael, etal, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, 666(a)(1)(B), 1343,1346,1951,

1952, (a)(3), 1962(d), & 2 (2022).................................................................................

7

U. 5. v. Murphy, 768 N.E. 2d 1518,1531 ((7th Cir. 1985)

12,13

U. 5. v. Mahjan, 877 F. 3d 264, 271 (7th Cir., 2017)

U. S. V. Regina Taylor, 18 U,S.C., Sec. 1341,1343 & 1346; 15 CR 578 USDC-N.D. 111.2016)

6

14/15*****

U.5.A v. Wells Fargo Bank,

Valor v. Torres, 303 III. App. 3d 554, 557, 708 N.E. 2d 566, 568 (2nd Dist., 1999)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, Foreclosure & Sale, Chancery

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, 2016 ch-05738; Judgment: 02-26-2018)..............

1,2,3,5

26, 27,

Woolsey v. Wilson, 298 III. App. 3d 582 (3rd Dist., 1998)

19

United States v. Wells Fargo & Co., USDC of California, Northern District, #3-16-cv0479,Settled, Fines $480M (Fake Accounts) 05-2018...............................................

3, 15

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., USDC, Southern District of New York,

#12-cv-7527 Settled $1.2B 04-2016 and $81.8M. 11-2015..............................

3,15

Federal Statutes and Constitutional Laws Cited

6th Amendment - U. S. Constitution (Jury Trial)

22

7th Amendment-U. S. Constitution (Jury Trial)

22

13th Amendment-U.S. Constitution (Denial of Property by Race)

5,20

14th Amendment - U.S. Constitution (Equal Protection)

22

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) Rule 4(A)(i)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 8)a)(2)

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FCRP) Rule 12(b)(6)

9,10

Federal Rules of civil Procedure (FCRP) Rule 60 (Fraud)

15

-f-

Moore's Fed. Law Practice 2dd, p. 512Para. 60.23

18

National Mortgage Settlement (2010,2013)

3

12 U.S.C., Sec. 1024.1(a), 1024.41(b)(c)(g) etseq; 2605(f) RESPA.

11, 22, 24

12 U.S.C., Sec. 2505(f)

24

12 U.S.C., Sec. 2601-2617. Title 12, Ch. 27 (RESPA)

11,24

15 U.S.C., Sec. 41 etseq.

15 U.S.C., Sec. 805-813 Truth in Lending Act (Illegal Debt Collection)

23, 24

15 U.S.C.., Sec. 1601-1667 - Truth in Lending (Amended 1988)

23, 24

15 U.S.C., Sec. 1691 Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

23

15 U.S.C., Sec. 1692 et seq. (Fair Debt Practices Collection Act)

23

15 U.S.C., Sec. 6611 - Damages

15 U.S.C., Sec. 6801, Graham-Leach-Bailey Act)

23

18 U.S.C., Sec. 47 False Statements, Fraud, Unauthorized Acts

23

18 U,S.C„ Sec. 134, Defrauding federal Gov't Agencies (HUD, FHA,FDIC, IRS)

22

18 U.S.C., Sec. 242, Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law.

20

18 U.S.C., Sec. 371 - Conspiracy (Not Required to Proof)

16

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1002,1005,1028A, 1028 & 1031 - Fraud

19

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1334, Bankruptcy.

-vi-

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1340 - Mortgage Fraud

6

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1341 - Frauds and Swindles.

6,19

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1343-1346 - Conspiracy.

6,16

-g-

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1344-Bank Fraud Act (OCC)

15

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1345 - Injunctions Against Fraud

7,15

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1348,1349 - Securities 8i Commodities Fraud (IRA Accounts)

27

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1367 - Interfering with Civil Rights.

20,22

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1951 - Hobbs Act (Assaults, Fear, Blackmail & Extortion)

12

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1956 - Money Laundering, Criminal Activity

11

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1961, etseq.l962(c )1962(d). Racketeer Influence &. Corrupt

Organization Act............................................................................................

12,13

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1964(c) - Damages.

9,15

24 C.F.R., Sec. 1624.41(g)

24

28 U.S.C., Sec. 64

26

28 U.S.C., Sec. 158 & 2101 - Final Orders

1

28 U.S.C., Sec. 242 - Defraud Federal 8t State Governments & Torres

15

28 U.S.C., Sec. 351-364-Judicial Misconduct

26

28 U.S.C., Sec. 455 & 144 - Recusal of Judges.

26

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1254(1)

1

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1332 - Diversity Jurisdiction

1

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1334 - Bankruptcy Proceedings

-vi-

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1367(c ) - Supplemental Jurisdiction

1,19

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1915(d)(g) - Clearly Erroneous Decisions; pro se litigant's

Right to counsel...........................................................................................

29

28 U.S.C., Sec. 1956,1957 Money Laundering Act.

11

-h-

1

28 U.S.C., Sec. 2101 - Federal Jurisdiction re Appeal

28 U.S.C., Sec. 2506(b) - Mortgage Servicer Lacks Standing

31 U.S.C., Sec. 3725-3733, False Claims Act.

23

42 U.S.C., Sec. 1349

22

42 U.S.C., Sec. 1964,1968,1981,1983,1985,1986 - Civil Rights Acts

10,19,20,22,24

42 U.S.C., Sec. 2000(a) - Civil Rights Act

20, 22

42 U.S.C., Sec. 3601-3619 et seq, Fair Housing Act Amended 1988

22

LR83.25 et seq. -Attorney Misconduct, Disciplinary (Federal)

25, 26, 27

State Statutes Cited (Illinois)

735 ILCS 5/2-619(c) Genuine Issues of Material Facts

24

735 ILCS 1101-1501 et seq, - Illinois Mortgage fraud Law (Forgery, Fraud,

Robo-Signatures, ID theft, Unenforceable Judgments and Sales).............

28

735 ILCS 5/12-100, Article 46, Illinois Fraud Law.

29

735 ILCS 5/12-108(a), Statute of Limitations - 5 years

25,28

735 ILCS 5/13-215 - Fraudulent Concealment.

23,27

735 ILCS 5/13-205 - Statute of Limitations - Oral Contracts, 5 years.

25,28

735 ILCS 5/13-206 - Statute of Limitations - Written Contracts, 10 years

28

735 ILCS 1101 et seq., - Foreclosure Null & Void

25, 28

735 ILCS 5/13-1502.5 - Homeowner Protection: Right to Assert Defenses

25, 28

735 ILCS 5/15 -1506 - Unenforceable Summary Judgments 8t Sales.

25,29

735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b)(West) - Fraudulent Sales VOID

25, 29

-i-

740ILCS175/1: Illinois False Claims Act.

23, 27

750 ILCS 5/1-101,5/7a-102(A)(l)- Illinois Human Rights Act

28

750 ILCS 5/508 - Illinois Rules (Code) of Professional Conduct

25, 26, 27

775 ILCS 505/2 - Illinois Consumer Fraud 8t Deceptive Practices Act

25, 29

815 ILCS 505/2 Fraud.

25

Illinois Code of Civil Procedures, Rule 13-115

19,25

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 99.1

19

Illinois Supreme Court Rules 113,114 & 99.1 (Foreclosure Guidelines)

19

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (Misconduct: Attorneys/Judges)

26

Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 3 (No Security, Lien)

20

Uniform Commercial Code, Sec, 8 (Tangible instrument Must be Filed

Electronic Robo-Signature).....................................................................

20

Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 9 (Electronic Robo-Signatures NonNegotiable)...........................................................................................

20

Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 3-201(b), 309 & 419(d)

20

815 ILCS 5-5/2 - Consumer Fraud 8t Deceptive Practices Act.

25, 29

STATUTES AND RULES: (See above.)

OTHER (See above)

-J-

INDEX TO APPENDICES

7th Circuit Court of Appeals. #21-1818

APPENDIX 1;

Forma Pauperis & Declaration re Rosee Torres and Noel Torres

APPENDIX A:

AFFIRMED JUDGMENT RE MOTION FOR REHEARIN w/COSTS: 12-15-2021 &

MANDATE OF 12-23-2021 (APP. A & B) (DOC. #29, 30)

APPENDIX B:

ORDER: PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED: 12-15-2021 (DOC. #32,30)

APPENDIX C:

FINAL JUDGMENT W/SANCTIONS/COSTS - 11-29-2021 (DOC. #30)

APPENDIX D:

MOTION TO STAY EVICTION, DENIED -11-05-2021 (DOC. #27)

APPENDIX E:

ORDER: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED, 04-26-2021 (Doc. l,EX.l

APPENDIX F:

MOTION TO EXTEND PAGES - DENIED 06-23-2021 (Doc. 15)

U. S. District Court - Northern District

APPENDIX G:

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE, MEMORANDUM & OPINION; TORRES' COMPLAINT

DISMISSED #20-cv-04138 - Judge Mary Rowland, 03-30-2021 (Doc. #1, EX. 2);

(Doc. 62, 63)

APPENDIX H:

TORRES' MOTION FOR RE-HEARING/RECONSIDERATION, DENIED, 04-26-2021 **

Judge Mary Rowland: (Doc. 1, EX. 1).( APPEAL FILED

Illinois Supreme Court - #126393

APPENDIX I:

TORRES' PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, DENIED, 11-18-2020

APPENDIX J:

TORRES' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENIED, 02-09-2021

Illinois Appellate Court - 1st District #19-1718

APPENDIX K-l:

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. ROSEE & NOEL TORRES'; Torres' MOTION

For RELIEF OF FINAL JUDGMENT & SANCTIONS, REHEARING, DENIED,

06-30-2020; (Justices McBride, Howse & Ellis)

APPENDIX K-2:

Appellate Court Decides Case without Oral Argument, June 29,2020;

Appellate Court recalls Mandate re 19-1718 (Justices McBride, Howse & Ellis)

Circuit Court of Cook County, Hlinois -Chancery -#2016-ch-05738

APPENDIX L:

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. ROSEE & NOEL TORRES, SUMMARY JUDGMENT &

SALE OF 3546 WEST BEACH,, Judge Wm. B. Sullivan, Cook County Circuit Court,

Chancery, 02- 26-2018: 2016 ch-5738 (Doc. #1, EX. 7)

APPENDIX M:

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. ROSEE & NOEL TORRES: Torres' CounterClaim & Jury Demand Stricken with Prejudice, Denied; Torres' Response Denied;

Judge Wm. Sullivan, 2016-ch-5738

APPENDIX N:

TORRES SECTION 2-1401 PETITION, DENIED, Judge Sullivan 07-22-2019

(Attorney Geoffrey Pipoly of Mayer Brown, LLC., Not Attorney of

Record, No Appearance filed re 2016-CH-05738 )

Other

APPENDIX O:

In re Wachovia, USDC - California; 5:09-md-02015-jf: 05-17-2011

Judgement, Dismissed with Prejudice (Torres & Wells Fargo parties)

(Doc. 1, EX. 11)

APPENDIX P:

TORRES V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETAL, USDC-ND Dismissed with

Prejudice, Agreement by Parties: 2013-CV-5544,11-15-2015, Doc. 1, EX. 12

APPENDIX Q-l:

Release re Settlement - Rosee Torres & World Savings, 11-04-2004

& Settlement (Doc.#l, EX. 13); Settlement Check - $29,421.63 (+$579 cash as

as Down Payment on Torres Mortgage Applications for 3542 West Beach &

3550 West Beach, Mortgage Denied (To Be Applied to Torres IRA Account???)

APPENDIX Q-2:

Satisfaction: World Savings/Golden West Savings, Trustee & Rosee Torres,

03-01-2007 filed with 2016 CH 05738

APPENDIX Q-3:

Certificate of Release: World Savings & Rosee Torres, 04-12-2007

APPENDIX R:

TORRES V. JUDICIAL SALES CORP., #19-CV-00112 Dismissed without

Prejudice 04-05-2019; Judge Andrea Wood

•INDEX TO APPENDIX

•APPLICATION TO FILE FORMA PAUPERIS ATTACHED, PRESIDING BRIEF

JURISDICTION

Federal jurisdiction is applicable under violations of federal statutes and U. S.

Constitution under "Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Cited". (Also, see Doc, 1, pg. 2)

[X] For cases from federal courts:

[x] A timely Petition for Rehearing was denied on December 15, 2021, and a copy of

that Order denying hearing is attached as Appendix Exhibit A .(APP. A,B)

[x] The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals first decided, affirmed judgment on November 29,

2021. Order is attached as Appendix B. (Also Doc. #1, EX. 1} {APP. C)

Jurisdiction invoked under 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1254(1) & 28 U.S.C., Sec. 2101; 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1332

[X] For cases from state courts (Illinois) Supplemental Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C., 1367(c)

[x] Wells Fargo Bank; N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, Circuit Court of Cook

County, #2016-ch-05738, Summary Judgment for Wells Fargo, 02-26-2018 & Sale

of 3546 West Beach, 01-04-2019. Torres Appeal Brief, #21-1818, ( See Doc. 1, EX.

7 & 8-A). (APP. L)

w Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, 2016-ch-05738, Torres'

Sec. 2-1401 Petition DENIED, with Prejudice, 07-22-2019 (Wells Fargo attorney

Geoffrey Pipoly of Mayer Brown, LLC not on record. (Doc. #1, EX. 21) (APP. N)

[x]

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, Illinois Appellate Court,

#19-1718; Torres' Petition to Appeal DENIED 06-30-2020 (Doc. #1, EX. 8A)(APP.K-1)

[x]

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, Eviction attempt by

Wells Fargo Bank & Mr. Capitol Group during Appeal of #19-1718; 12-24-2019

Christmas Eve (Torres Brief, Doc. #1, EX. 9 #21-1818)

[x]

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee Torres & Noel Torres, Illinois Supreme Court,

#126393, Torres' Petition to Appeal DENIED, 02-09-2021 (Doc. #1, EX. 3) (APP.J)

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1257(a).& 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2101.

-1-

OPINIONS BELOW

Petitioners respectfully pray that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgments below.

[ X] For cases from Federal Courts: (District and Appeals)

(a) Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., et al; No. 21-1818; on Motion for ReHearing-Judgment re 2019-cv-04138 & 21-1818 Affirmed by 7th Circuit Court

of Appeals, 12-15-2021 (APP. A,B); Justices Brennan, St, Eve & Jackson-Akiwumi

(b) Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., et al; No. 21-1818 - Final Judgment by 7th

Circuit -11-29-2021 (APP C); Justices Brennan, St. Eve & Akiwumi (Also Doc. #1, EX.l)

(C ) Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,etc., et al; No. 21-1818 - Motion to Stay

Eviction Pending Appeal, DENIED 11-05-2021 (APP. D)

(d)

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., et al, No. 2019-cv-04138; Dismissed with

Prejudice, Memorandum & Order, 03-30-2021; Judge Mary M. Rowland (APP: G)

(e)

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., et al, No. 2019-cv-04138: Torres' Motion

to Reconsider DENIED, 04-26-2021; Judge Mary Rowland (APP. H)

(f) Torres v. Judicial Sales Corporation, et al, No.l9-cv-00112, Dismissal without

Prejudice, 0-05-2019, Judge Andrea Wood (APP. R)

[X] For cases from state courts (Illinois):

(a) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee & Noel Torres, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL;

Summary Judgment and Sale of 3646 West Beach 02-26-2018 & 01-04-2019; No 2016ch-05738 (Judge Wm. B. Sullivan & Judge Edward King) (APP. L)

(b) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee & Noel Torres, Torres' Counter-Complaint, Discovery

and Motion to Produce Documents,, Request, Mediation Request, Transfer Request,

Jury Trial Request, DENIED; Petition to Vacate Judgment and Re-hearing, DENIED, 07-222019, Judge Wm. Sullivan (APP. M)

(c)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee & Noel Torres, Torres' Appeal -Petition to Illinois

Appellate Court and Motion for Re-Hearing,, DENIED, 06-30-2020, No. 19-1718 (Justices

McBride, Howse & Ellis) (APP. K-l)(Appeal #19-1718 was pending)

(d) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee & Noel Torres, Torres' Appeal/Petition to Illinois

Supreme Court and Motion for Re-Hearing -DENIED, 11-18-2020: No. 126393;

Justice R. Scott Neville) (APP. I)

-2-

RELATED CASES/PROCEPINGS

Attorney General of State of Illinois v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. -09-ch-26434

In re Wachovia "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation,

Southern District of Calif., No. 5:09-md-02015-jf ;Settled 05-17-2011(Doc. #1, EX. 11) (APP. D)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Rosee & Noel Torres, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL;

Case No. 2016-CV-05738; Summary Judgment 02-26-2018; Sale 01-04-2019 (APP. L)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rosee & Noel Torres, ill. Appellate Court, No. 1:19-1718;

Appeal by Torres DENIED, 06-30-2020 (APP: K-l))

In re Rosee Torres and Noel Torres, US Bankruptcy Court, Discharged;

Torres v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc. et al; USDC-Northern District of IL;, Case No.

13-CV-5542; Dismissed with Prejudice by Agreement of Parties, 11-15-2025 (APP. P)

Torres v. Robert Metz, et al, USDC- Northern District of IL; Case No. 1:19-cv-06526;

Dismissed ; Judge Eugene Chang,, filed 10-01-2019

Torres v. Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp., etal, Case No. l:19-cv-00112; Dismissed

Without Prejudice, Judge Andrea Wood: 04-05-2019 (EX. J)

United States of America, Dept, of Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency v. Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A., #AA-EC 2018-16 & 2018-026, settled 04-20-2018 (Doc. 25, EX. 4-B)

United States of America, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

#2018 BCFP-0001; Consent Order 04-20-2018 (Doc. 25, EX. 4-D)

United States of America v. Wells Fargo & Co., USDC of Calif. Re fake accounts; #3-16-cv-0479;

Settled 05-2018 (Doc. 25, EX. 4-C)

United States Dept, of Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., USDC-SD of New York, #12-cv-7527,

Settled 04-2016

-3-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the District Court Dismissal on and judgment on November 29,

2021 (APP. C) which was affirmed by the 7th Circuit on December 15, 2019 and denial of

Petitioners'Motion for Re-hearing (APP. A, B). Petitioners NEVER had a mortgage with

Respondent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (hereinafter

"Wells Fargo") or merged 2004 World Savings, but produced fake mortgage (Doc. 1, EX. 16)

and blank forms re Rosee Torres' application to purchase 3542 West Beach (Muslim owned)

and 3550 West Beach (Black owned)(Complaint Doc. 1, EX. #5 & EX. 15). Wells Fargo, having

access to above, stole Rosee Torres' identity (ID theft), created and forged, robo-signed name

to seventeen (17) fake World Savings forms to collect and embezzle $3,000,000 to $5,000,000

from federally guaranteed agencies. (Doc. 1, pg.8,9, EX. 16-20; 5 of 17 EX. 16-20) Both Torres

are bilingual of Afro Hispanic/Latino/Caribbean descent, senior citizens, female (Rosee), dis­

abled (Noel), both under medical care (extended after agents of Respondents' three physical

assaults in 2021, break-ins and home invasions by armed persons terrorizing and traumatizing

Petitioners they misclassified as "illegal, un-documented aliens" subject to deportation with no

rights in America, although both are U.S. born citizens of Puerto Rican descent. Respondents'

act to enforce acknowledged existing "Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only Policy" (not

abbreviating with "N" word) 7th Circuit failed to correctly address altogether. (Doc. 1, pp. 9,11,

13,14,17,22) Motion for Stay eviction 11-4-2021 was denied 11-5-2021. (Doc. 26,27)

Defendants and their agents discriminated further used anti-semitic terms in

addressing Petitioners based on the surname "Torres" which is Spanish Sephardic Jewish

-4-

. <"

>

surname, and addressing the Jewish expulsion from Spain in 1492 and reasons why same

group should be "kicked out of America." Denial of property by ace violates 13th Amendment.

V

Wells Fargo, with assistance from co-respondents, illegally created 17 fake, fabricated

subprime, predatory mortgages ranging from $175,000 to $250,000 (five attached to Doc. l,pp.

8-9; EX. 16-20), and created a new fabricated mortgage on Petitioners' residence which was

paid in full, omitting petitioner Noel Torres on newly created mortgage, but including him on

the fabricated foreclosure, judgment and sale, (a) 2004 Settlement with World Savings (Doc. 1,

EX. 13); (b) 2007 Certificate of Release, prior to Wells Fargo merger with World Savings and

Wachovia 2011 settlement with Wachovia & World Savings USDC of California, in which

Petitioner Rosee Torres and Wells Fargo were parties, In re Wachovia, etc., No. 5:09-md-02015jf (Doc. 1, EX. 11); (c) Agree Dismissal with Prejudice on Wells Fargo's promises (last promise in

2021, breached) Torres funds included and to be returned in federal settlements described

below, acceptance and honoring of prior settlements and orders, and prior payments credited

to Rosee Torres' IRA accounts under World Savings and Wachovia Mortgage: Torres v. Wells

Fargo, USDC-NDJL,, No. l:13-cv-05542: 3546 West Beach, Chicago, IL. (Doc. 1, EX. 12)

Wells Fargo filed foreclosure in the Circuit Court of Cook County, on one of 17 robosigned forgeries of fabricated subprime, predatory mortgages on April 26, 2016, obtained a

summary judgment on February 26, 2018 and ordered sale of 3546 West Beach by Intercounty

Judicial Sales, Inc. on January 4, 2019. (2016-CH-05738) (Doc. 1, EX. 7) The property was sold to

Mr. Capitol Group, LLC., (hereinafter "Mr. Capitol") an out-of-state mortgage company not

licensed or registered in Illinois. (Doc. 1, pg. 6) Wells Fargo and Mr. Capitol ordered eviction of

-5-

Petitioners on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2019. (Doc. 1, EX. 9) Attempted break-in and

home invasion by agents of Wells Fargo and Mr. Capitol on Christmas day December 25, 2019

was thwarted. Mr. Capitol was a "flipper" for Wells Fargo. (Doc. 1, pg. 19,30; Reply, Doc. 25,

p.l) Respondents disclosed enforcement of existing systemic, institutionalized racism.

Wells Fargo's defense in not producing original contract, recorded lien, assignment,

Indorsement, payments and tax credits was loss of documents due to a "computer glitch",

which defense the Court accepted. (Doc. 1, pp. 7,10,26; Reply, Doc. 25, pp. 1,3,EX. 1,2A-2D)

Petitioners' Motion to Reconsider and vacate judgment was DENIED on July 22, 2019.

(Doc. 1, EX. 21) No appearance was filed in Circuit Court by Wells Fargo attorney Geoffrey

Pipoly of Mayer Brown. (Doc. 1, pg.30 & EX. 21). Wells Fargo and Mr. Capitol revealed and

disclosed to Petitioners that Presiding judge, Wm. B. Sullivan and/or relative was an attorney

for Wells Fargo in 1992. (Doc. 1, pg. 29 & EX. 8-B) (Reply: Doc. 25, p. 5) This alliance

guaranteed victory by "owning the courts and clerk of the Illinois courts and the clerk of the

Recorder of Deeds office" and ensuring enforcement of Respondents' "Nigger Removal Plan"

and "Whites Only Policy" (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7,11,13,14,16,17; Reply: Doc. 25, pp. 1,9-10)

with this connection (Doc. 1, EX. 8-B) Respondents disclosed to Petitioners that one of their

forgers of deeds at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds had since been indicted for violations of

18 U.S.C., Sec. 1340,1341,1343 and 1346. : U.S.A. v. Regina Taylor, USDC,-ND, 15 CR 568. On

March 3, 2022, a Respondent's agent informed Petitioners that another major contributor to

Illinois Appellate Judge David Ellis' (attorney under former Michael Madigan of Illinois House of

Representative) insider/court connection, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, was indicted

-6-

for corruption: U.S.A. v. Michael Madigan, etal, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, 666(a)(6))B), 1343,1346,

1951,1952(a)(3), 1962(d) & 2. Former disclosures include California Attorney General Khamala

Harris (now Vice President) investigation and win re Wells Fargo allegations of criminal identity

theft (Doc. 25, EX. 1) and that former Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf was also indicted on similar

charges and had since left the company. However, these will not stop thousands of fabricated

foreclosures and evictions. Torres seeks injunction re fraud herein. 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1345.

Petitioners timely appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which appeal was DENIED on

February 09, 2021. (Doc. 1, EX. 3) It remained unfiled by Court/clerk until January 11, 2021.

(Doc. EX. 4) Mandate was issued and filed January 8, 2021 before denial. (Doc. 1, EX. 5)

Petitioner, Rosee Torres, was not only employed by one of the judges in that Order (Nathaniel

Howse) by his law firm Howse Howse Neville & Gray, and one of their attorneys, former judge R.

Eugene Pincham (Ret'd, now deceased) who settled the case with World Savings in 2004 on

same property/issue. (Doc. 1, pg. 29-30 & EX. 13)(Repiy Brief: Doc. 25, pp. 4-5)

Petitioners appealed to Illinois Supreme Court and that was DENIED on February 9,

2021.

(Doc. 1, EX. 3) One of the judges in that Order also was R. Scott Neville, from the law

firm of Howse Howse Neville & Gray who once employed Petitioner Rosee Torres and assisted

in the 2004 settlement on same issue. (Doc. 1, pg. 29-30, & EX. 13)(Reply: Doc. 25, pp. 4-5)

State and federal District court erred in failing to address this issue. (Doc. 1, pp. 29)

Petitioners filed Complaint against all Respondent/Appellees in USDC-ND and case

assigned to Judge Mary Rowland, who ordered case dismissed with prejudice per Memorandum

and Order of March 30, 2021, with sanctions on April 26, 2021. (20-cv-04138)(Doc. 1, p. 12, EX.

22)

(APP. 1 & 2) David Rowland is attorney for Respondent, Wells Fargo. (Doc. 1, EX. 22)

-7-

Petitioners timely appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-1818, which

was DENIED & Judgment. (APP. A, C) Timely filed Petition for Rehearing was also DENIED on

December 15, 2021. (APP. B) Petitioners now appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.

Per Respondents, Respondents assured victory and dismissal in USDC court under Judge

Mary M. Rowland due to David Rowland being employed as attorney for Respondent, Wells

Fargo at Seyfarth Shaw. (Doc. 1, pp. 29 & EX. 22; Reply, Doc. 25, pp. 11) (APP. G, H) District

Court and 7th Circuit did not address this conflict of interest. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-12,29)

From 2016 through January 2022, Respondents and their agents used intimidation,

threats and harassment to force Petitioners to abandon their residence at 3546 West Beach,

which include but not limited to the following: (a) threats of eviction and forced abandonment

of property; (b) threats of physical violence, last assaults in June and November 2021; (c)

threats of deportation; (d) threats of arrest and imprisonment in one of Wells Fargo's private

prison; (e ) refusal to pay property taxes to purchase 3546 West Beach in a "scavenger sale" and

auction; Rosee Torres paid all taxes from 1999-2022; (f) threats to turn off water to render

property at 3546 West Beach "uninhabitable" to force Petitioners to abandon (g) Altering

property insurance in name of Respondents Weils Fargo & Mr. Capitol, with their attorneys

knowledge and consent, to commit arson; Rosee Torres pays insurance, "no mortgage" (Doc. 1,

EX. 10) (h) damaging Petitioners'credit completely; (i) embezzling Petitioner Rosee Torres'

down payment of $30,000 on 3542 and 3550 West Beach and IRA account as retaliation for

"attorneys fees", blackmail and extortion, plus court sanctions by the judiciary to prevent

Petitioners from further litigation and informing state and federal agencies (U. S. Department of

-8-

Justice, U. S. Attorney, State Attorney Generals, FBI, OCC, CFPB, HUD, FHA, Federal Reserve) of

their acts and misconduct.(Doc. 1, pp. 10-11; Doc. 25, p. 4) Petitioners continue to iive under

fear for their lives, extreme emotional distress and medical care from three physical assaults,

two break-ins and home invasion while Petitioners slept, by armed agents of Defendants,

destruction of property, terrorizing and traumatizing Petitioners to force eviction. A motion to

stay pending appeal filed November 3, 2021, denied November 4, 2021. (Doc. 26,27, APP. D)

ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 10 and 14(h), Petitioners request the Supreme Court

to allow the Writ for the following reasons:

1. The District Court and Appeals Court's dismissals of the Complaint is inconsistent

and contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a) and 12(b)(6) and courts own prior

decisions, which require only a notice pleading rather than specific facts, and

dismissal only where no set of facts can be proved.

A.

Federal Rules 8(a) & 12(b).fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 8(a) establishes a system of notice

pleading requiring only that the Plaintiff provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Cler v. Illinois Education Association,

423 F.3d 726, 729 (7th Cir., 2005). Where notice pleading is sufficient, a complaint cannot be

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless no relief may be granted" under any set of facts that could

be proved consistent with the allegations." Case v. Milewski, 327 F. 3d 564, 567 (7th Cir., 2003).

Notice pleading allows for a limited set of facts in complaint, which favors Petitioners and prior

7th Circuit decisions. (Doc. p. 4; Doc. 25, p. 13) Torres seek damages. 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1964(c)

Petitioners' notice pleading complies with the District Court, and 7th Circuit prior

decisions. Swanson v. Citibank, 614 F. 3d 400,402 (7th Cir., 2010) (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5)

Whether language in a complaint 'can be interpreted" as deficient is immaterial...

Complaints are construed favorably to their drafters... A complaint need not

-9-

Narrate all relevant facts or recite the law. All it has to do is set out a claim for relief.

... A plaintiff need not put all the essential facts in the complaint.. A court should

ask whether relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established

Consistent with the allegations. Canella v. Cardell Enterprises, 980 F. Supp. 272, 273

(N.D. III. 1997) (Doc.1, p. A)

On motion to dismiss, the court must focus on the issue(s) of whether the plaintiff remains

"entitled to offer evidence to support the claims," whether than whether the plaintiff will

ultimately prevail. Cole v. U. S. Capitol, Inc., 389 F. 3d 719, 724 (7th Cir., 2004). (Doc. 1, pg. 4)

Furthermore, the Court should read the complaint liberally and "accept" as true all well pleaded

factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom I the plaintiffs

favor. Lutheran General Hospital v. Wendy International, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 501, 502-503 (N.D.

III. 1997) Lavalais v. Village o Melrose Park, 734 F. 3d 629, 632 (7th Cir., 2013) (Doc. 1, pp. A,B,

4) Likewise, a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief. Hentosh

v. Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, 167 F.3d 1170,1173

(7th Cir., 1999). (Doc. 1, pp. B, 4)

B.

Due Process. As to procedural treatment of pro se litigants in Civil cases, Supreme

Court reversed a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of FRCP. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4) District and 7th Circuit

inconsistent with Supreme Court re failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983, stating:

{AJIlegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however in-artfully pleaded,

Are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot

say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold

to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears

"beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 402 U.S. 419 (1972).

Petitioners have identified their protected interests and the courts must determine

how much due process is due a civil pro se litigant, which in Petitioners' case, the courts failed

to do, even though Petitioners met the U. S. Supreme Court test. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424

U.S. 319, 335 (1976)

-10-

The U.S. Supreme Court also stated "that every civil litigant [is entitled] to hearing on

the merits in every case. Petitioners deserve a minimal due process granted a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner. “Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S., 422,437 (1982)

quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965); Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1981)

The District Court and 7th Circuit dismissal and decision is also inconsistent and

contrary to a ruling by another 7th Circuit judge, Richard A. Posner, which states:

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the

risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used

and the probable value , if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards

and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the

fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural

requirement would entail. Mathew v, Eldridge, Id. at 335

Petitioners private interests in the loss of not only their home at 3546 West Beach, but the

purchases of 3542 West Beach and 3550 West Beach, which values at this time would be over

$1 million, loss of stolen IRA of over $25,000, loss of down payment of $30,000, loss of credit;

(c ) the risk and loss of properties already loss described in no. "a"; government's loss of $3 to

$5,000,000 by Defendants' in their conspiracy to reap profits by submitting 17 fraudulent

mortgage claims to federal agencies, preserving the impartiality of the judges and from

corruption and kickbacks which protect homeowners. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,

(RESPA), Title 12, Ch. 27 of 12 U.S.C., Sec. 1024.31-41 and Sec. 2601-2617. (Doc. 1, pp. 22-23)

Defrauding government, Money Laundering Act, violating 28 U.S.C., 1956,1957. .

It is well established that "a claim has factual plausibility when plaintiff pleads factual

contents that allow the court to withdraw reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged" which ruling the District Court & 7th Circuit erroneously fails to address

re 100's of direct contact by non attorney Respondents to intimidate, threaten, terrorize and

-11-

home invasions by armed parties with no documentation and no masks despite the Covid-19

virus in 2021, 3 physical assaults and injuries sustained in 2021, violating Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.,

1951 as set forth on page 8 of Statement: threats of eviction, arrest, incarceration, deportation,

turning off water, arson re insurance to force Torres out. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

129 S. Ct. 1937,1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)(quoting Bell v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 127

S. Ct. 1955,167 L. Ed.2d 929 (2007). {Doc. 1, pp. A, 3; Doc. 25, p. 8,) Petitioners fear for their

lives even upon preparing this appeal. The District Court and 7th Circuit must accept all well

pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff

{Petitioners]. Anchor Bamk FSB v. Hofer, 649 F. 3d 610, 613 (7th Cir. 2015) Petitioners'

Complaint contains sufficient factual information with supporting documents to establish

standing in the District Court. Silha v. ACT, Inc. 807 F.3d 169,173 (7th Cir. 2015) (Doc. 1, p. 3)

If Petitioners are not permitted a trial and/or amended complaint as to misconduct by

Defendants which took place during and appeals and from 2018-2021, they will have lost all

rights, including statute of limitations on oral contracts breached by defendants during period.

The 7th Circuit and District Court's decisions are inconsistent with prior decisions. The

Cook County Judicial System is a criminal enterprise (20 CH 05738). Bracey v. Gramley, USDC-IL

No. 96-6233 (June 9,1997); U. S. v. Murphy, 768 N.E. 2d 1518 (7th Cir., 1985). (Doc. 1, p. 29)

Plaintiffs Torres' Complaint complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 12(12(b)(6). The

District Court and Appeals Court ruling(s) are inconsistent with and contrary to prior decisions.

2.

The District Court and Appeals Court's dismissals of the Complaint as to allega­

tions under RICO, fraud, conspiracy that are outside state court proceedings and

is inconsistent with and contrary to prior federal decisions, statutes, U.S.

Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court.

A. Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act "RICO") : Plaintiffs Torres'

claim under "RICO" requires that a pattern of racketeering by defendants include (1) conduct

-12-

(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity, all with which Plaintiffs

alleged. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13} Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d

815, 822 (7th Cir, 2016) 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1961 etseq, 1962(c ) and (d). (Doc. 1, pp. lx, 2,4,13,16)

For purposes of the statute, "enterprise" includes "any ... legal entity" as well as "any

union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." Boyle v. United

States, 556 U.S. 938, 944 (2009).(citing 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1961(4). To qualify as an "association in

fact" an enterprise must have at last three structural features: II) a purpose; (2) relationships

among those associated with the enterprise, and (3) longevity sufficient to permit these

associates to continue to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Wat 946. "An association in fact

enterprise is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a

source of conduct." Id. (citations omitted) It is a continuing unit that functions with a common

purpose. Id. at 948. The Supreme Court has clarified that an enterprise need not be limited to

business-like entities. Id. It "need not have a hierarchical structure or a chain of command ...

(m)embers of the group need not have fixed roles ... the group need not have a name, regular

meetings, dues, established rules and regulations, disciplinary procedures, or induction or

initiation ceremonies." Id. The District Court and 7th Circuit declared the Circuit Court of

Cook County an enterprise in prior decisions: Bracey v. Gramley, Id; U. S. v. Murphy, Id.

It is an error to believe that the state court foreclosure of 3546 West Beach and

Plaintiffs' application to purchase 3542 and 3550 West Beach are so intertwined that it would

foreclose federal litigation because Exxon Mobil Corp. v Saudi Basic industries Corp. 44 U.S.

280,125 S. Ct. 1517,161 L. Ed.2d 454 (2005) shows that Rooker-Feldman doctrine asks what

injury the plaintiff asks the court to address, not whether the injury is "intertwined" with

something else. See 544 U.S. at 291. (Doc. 1, pp. B, 1, 2, 39) The State and Federal court and

-13-

appeals erroneous assumes and asserts that Rooker-Feldman applies to Repondents' refusal to

accept mortgage application for 3542 West Beach and 3550 West Beach due to Petitioners'

race, color, ethnicity, gender, age and disability, retaining the $30,000 down payment and

security after failing to return or place in Rosee Torres' IRA account, promised (one of multiple

broken promises) by Wells Fargo as late as 2021. Also, Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C.. 768

F.3d 732, 734 (7th Cir., 2014). Because plaintiffs seek damages for acts and conduct outside the

state court litigation which acts and conduct caused independent injury, the District Court has

subject matter jurisdiction on federal statutes and U. S. constitutional violations which neither

Rooker-Feidman or any other doctrine can block. The Courts and erroneously apply RookerFeidman & D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman. 460 U.S. 463,476-82,103 S. Ct. 130 (1983)

Petitioners have alleged that Defendants continued hundreds of direct contact with

multiple promises up to and through 2021, on all which Petitioners relied, which were breached,

but too late to be included in the State or federal courts or appeals. This included lies that

Petitioners' claims were included in Federal/U.S. Department of Justice cases then pending, for

fraud, discrimination, etc.,: with Petitioners agreeing to withhold litigation until after the

conclusion of these matters, since World Savings and Wells Fargo had already settled with

Rosee Torres by Release of November 2004 (Doc. 1, EX. 13): (a) In re Wachovia Corporation

"Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing & Sales Practice", which included World Savings,

Wachovia Wells Fargo Bank and Rosee Torres, USDC of California, No. 5:09-02015-jf, Settlement

and Dismissed with Prejudice, May 17, 2011, (Doc. 1, EX. 11; APP. O); (b) breach of U.S.A. v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., National Settlement Agreement, Doc. 25, EX. 3-A; (c) Wells Fargo's

settlement of "Pick-a-Payment loans including World Savings & Wachovia Mortgage, (Doc. 25,

EX. 3-B) breach of U.S.A.. Dept, of the Treasury v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., #AA-EC-2016-66 &

-14-

#2016-077, Consent Order, April 20, 2018, Doc. 25, EX. 4-A; (d) U.S.A., Department of the

Treasury, Comptroller of Currency "In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.," Consent Order,

Civil Money Penalty, April 20, 2018, # AA-EC-2018-16 & 2018-026, Doc. 25, EX. 4-B; (e) U.S.A.,

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, "In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Consent

Order of April 20, 2018, #2018-BCFP-0001, & 2016-CFPB-0015, Doc. 25, EX. 4-D2 & Doc. 1, pp.

9-10. (f) U.S.A. v. Wells Fargo & Co., USDC-Calif., 3-16-cv-0479 (5-2018); (g) U.S.A. v. Wells

Fargo Bank, #12-cv-07527 USDC, SDNY (11-2015). Torres seeks damages. 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1964(c )

B.

Rule 60,60(b) - Fraud. The District Court and 7th Circuit erroneously failed to

address there prior decisions in favor of Petitioners, that fraud makes null and void even the

state foreclosure and sale from fabricated mortgage (governed by federal statutes). There are

exceptions to fraud; In re Sun Valley Foods Co, 801 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1986); Remerv. Interstate

Bond Co., 172 N.W. 2d 425, 439 (III. 1961); 15 U.S.C., Sec. 41 etseq.; 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1257 (2006).

(Doc. 25, p.9)This is applicable to 3546 West Beach and denied purchases of 3542 8i 3550

West Beach based on Petitioners' race, color, ethnicity, etc. Forgery, ID theft, robo-signatures

on 17 unauthorized accounts, are crimes under People ex rel Hartigan v. E&E Harding, Inc.,

153 III.2d 473, 607 N.E.2d 165,180 III. Dec. 271 (1992); 28 U.S.C.,. Sec. 242,18 U.S.C., Sec. 1344.

...Make or alter document apparently capable of defrauding another in such a manner

that it imports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different

provisions or by authority by one who did not give authority or issues or delivers such a

document knowing it to have been made or altered. 720 ILCS 5/17-1; Jabbari v. Wells

Fargo & Co., 4:2015-cv-02159. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-16; Doc. 25, p. 9, EX. 1, -A, 2-B)

Tampering with public records is a criminal offense. Bankierv. 1st Fed'l Savings & Loan Assn,

167 III. Dec. 750, 225 III. App. 3d 864, 588 N.E. 2d 391 (1992). Injunction. 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1345.

C. Conspiracy. Defendants and each of them acted in a conspiracy to defraud Peti­

tioners of their home, IRA, down payments federal agencies of millions of dollars in false claims

-15-

and unjustly enrich themselves, violating federal statutes. Proof not required. 18 U.S.C., Sec.

371,1343-1346. (Doc. 1, pp 18-20) Defendants and each of them were willing participants in

their conspiracy to commit fraud to unjustly enrich themselves under color of law, to which

conspiracy can be inferred. Quinones v. Score, 771 F. 2d 289, 291, (7th Cir., 1985); Burns v.

Cineplex Odeon, Inc., No. 95 C 5280,1996 WL 501742 @ *8 (N.D. III. 09-03-1996); Kunik v.

Racine County, 946 F.2d 1574,1580 {7th Cir. 1971) (Doc. 25, p. 8)

3.

The Dismissals by the District Court and Appeals Court under res judicata

are erroneous and inconsistent with both State and federal law, including

prior decisions by 7th Circuit, all Respondents in privity under collateral estoppel.

The District Court and Appeals Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction in which

state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion. GASH

Associates. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726,728 (7th Cir. 1003); accord Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,

1163-1164 (9th Cir., 2003) The 7th Circuit ruled against its own prior decisions. (APP. C)

Plaintiffs again defend their action under the doctrine of res judicata, and again the 7th Circuit

erroneously ruled against its own prior decision(s) in that prior judgment was rendered In

Torres v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., No. l;13-cv-05542. (Doc. 1, EX. 12) (APP. C, pg. 3)

Robbins v. MED-1 Sols, LLC, 13 F.4th 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2021)

At issue is whether Petitioners

received a final judgment on the merits, since Petitioners were denied a jury trial or any trial in

both State and federal cases, denied both substantive and procedural due process., even

though same parties are involved and/or became involved after judgments, as required. (Doc. 1,

pp. A, 9. 9) A &R Janitorial v. Pepper Constr. Co., 124 N.E.3d 962,966(111.2018) (APPC,pg.

3) Also, the 7th Circuit failed to take into consideration that Petitioners' Complaint involves

violations of federal statutes and U. S. Constitution (civil rights violations as to race, color, AfroAmericans, Hispanics-Latinos, incorrect ethnicity and nationality, elderly, females and disabled),

-16-

which grants jurisdiction in federal court, stated in Order by Illinois Supreme Court, by Judge

Nathaniel Howse whose law firm settled case on same issues with World Savings/Wells Fargo in

2004 for Petitioner Rosee Torres', also former employee of law firm, former employer and

attorney who settled case.

(Doc. 1, pp. 29, EX. 8-A; Doc. 1, EX. 13) Petitioners argue this is a

breach of fiduciary relationship, conflict of interest and unethical, addressed in Section 6.

Federal District Court under Judge Andrea Wood dismissed Petitioners case without

prejudice. USDC-ND of Illinois on April 5, 2019: No. 19-cv-00112. (APP. R) Petitioners then

refiled in federal court because of violations of U. S. Constitution and federal statutes.

The 7th Circuit and District Court's decisions are inconsistent with and contrary to federal

decisions and erroneously failing to address the above federal issues in their entirety and

erroneously deciding that Petitioners are res judicata but defendants are not.

The State Supreme Court, federal district court and 7th Circuit all have inconsistent

decisions: )a) State Supreme Court stated that Petitioner's 2013 action was res judicata, but

erroneously failed to state that Defendants' foreclosure of 2016 was res judicata. (Doc. 1, EX. 8A, pg. 1} (b) Illinois Supreme Court is in error in same document that Petitioners did not

provide counter-affidavit as to discrimination, which was included in the Answer and CounterComplaint which the Judge denied, (c) The state Supreme Court granted Petitioners filing of

jury trial in appeal #l-19-cv-0338, which Judge Sullivan in state court denied with no

opportunity for discovery, mediation. That same order erroneously threatened Petitioners with

sanctions and their claims frivolous, agreeing with Respondents that "they owned the courts

and clerk's office". Petitioners' allegations that Defendant Wells Fargo embezzled IRA funds and

were also dismissed, the court erroneously relying on the State court's denial of discovery,

denial of counter-complaint, missing documents in record, and defendant Wells Fargo's lack of

-17-

production on a fake "computer glitch" (Doc. 25, EX. 2-A to 2-D), with threats of eviction, arson,

arrest, imprisonment in one of Wells Fargo's private prisons, deportation (Torres are U.S. born

citizens), and committing violence by physical assaults, two break-in and home invasions as

from June 2021 to November 2021 to force Petitioners to abandon both their home and their

appeals, the latter too late to put in State appeal.

(Doc. 1, pp. 19-20; Doc. 25, EX. 2-A to 2-D)

Wells Fargo further intimidated Petitioners by providing Petitioners with documentation,

volunteering information that state Judge Sullivan and/or his relative was employed by Wells

Fargo law firm, Seyfarth Shaw (Doc. 1, p. 29, EX. 8-B), and that federal Judge Mary Rowland's

relative, David Rowland, was employed attorney at Wells Fargo law firm, guaranteeing

sanctions, blackmail and extortion against Petitioners. (Doc. 1, EX. 22; APP. A to F)

The District court and 7th Circuit's decision of res judicata is erroneous and inconsistent

with 7th Circuit's prior decisions and other jurisdictions that a fraud upon the court is not a final

decision at all, and never becomes final as to summary judgments, applicable to 2016-ch05738). Kenner v. C.LR., 387 F. 3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Fed'l Law Practice, 2d, P. 512, Para.

60.23; Bulloch v. United States, 786 F.2d 1115,1121 (10th Cir. 1985). (Doc. 1, pp. 25)

The District Court and 7th Circuit's decisions are contrary and inconsistent with the

doctrine of collateral estoppel, which elements Petitioners have met: (a) A legal relationship

existed and still exists between the parties; (b) Petitioners relied to their detriment on

multiple representations and promises (all broken and breached) up to November 2021 by

Defendants of existing facts; (c) reliance(s) were based on Defendants' legal and financial

superiority; (d) unconscionability, no general restrictions on breaking promises. Novak v. St

Rita High School, 197 lll.2d 381 (2001); Mt. Mansfield Ins. Group; Inc. v. American Int'l Group,

Inc., etal, III. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 30, 2007). This ruling applies to not only matters that were

-18-

actually litigated, but to matters that should have been litigated. Woolsey v. Wilson, 298 III.

App. 3d 582, 3rd Dist. 1998 which also applies to Defendants fraudulently switching documents

from 3546 West Beach to 3542 West Beach and 3550 West Beach and fabricating and creating a

foreclosure, as alleged. Dowrick v. The Village of Downers Grove; et al, 362 III. App. 512

(2005); Cabrera v. 1st Nat'l Bank of Wheaton, 324 III. App. 3d 85 (2nd Dist., 2005). (Doc. 1, p.25)

Defendants' scheme to defraud Petitioners and Federal government of millions of $$$

extended to rents, sales, purchases to Asians, Middle-Easteners (Arabs), Muslims, and LGBTQto

enforce its "Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only Policy" as to discrimination by race, color,

gender, ethnicity, age, disability, etc., through courts (attorneys and judiciary) violated U.S.

Constitution and civil rights statutes. Civil Rights Acts of 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1964,42 U.S.C., Sec.

1981(a), 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983,42 U.S.C., 1985,42 U.S.C., Sec. 1986. Dominos Pizza v. McDonalds,

546 U.S., 470,476 (2006); Tamayo v. Blagoyevich, 526 F. 3d 1074,1081 (7th Cir. 2008); In re

Bontkowski, 785 N.E. 2d 126,131 III. Crt App. (2003). Racist acts further violated 18 U.S.C., Sec.

1002,18 U.S.C., Sec. 1007, Sec. 1010, Sec. 1012, Sec. 1021, Sec. 1031, Sec. 1037.(Doc. 1, p. 18)

The District Court and 7th Circuit erroneously failed to apply Supplemental Jurisdiction

as to state claims allowed by federal statute. 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1637; 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1341. (Doc. 1,

p. 18)

No Illinois foreclosure guidelines were addressed. IL. Sup. Crt Rules 113,114 8t 99.1.

Under Illinois law, the entire proceeding or attempts or success in obtaining such an

order or judgment by fraud is VOID. People of the State of Illinois v. Fred F. Sterling, 357 III.

354,192 N. E. 229 (1934); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 III. 316,168 N.E 2d 259

(1929); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 III. App. 2d 93 (1962); Shelly Oil v. Universal. Oil

Products, 338 III. App. 79, 86 N. E. 2d 875, 883-884 (1949). (Doc. 1, pp. 25-26) All Respondents

"in privity" by collateral estoppel. Lowev. AB Freight Lines, 175 ill. 2d 176 (1997).

-19-

4.

Respondents violated multiple sections of Uniform Commercial Code:

Respondents violated Sec. 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code by failing to secure their

fabricated mortgage, foreclosure, summary judgment and sale by not filing or recording a con­

tract, lien, assignment, indorsement or allonge. UCC, Sec. 3; Respondents violated Sec. 8 of

the Code by not filing tangible, original instrument, only electronic robo-signature. Respondents

violated Sec. 9 of the Code in that robo-signatures are non negotiable. The fabricated mortgage

re 3546 West Beach and applications for 3542 and 3550 West Beach by electronic, did not in­

clude Noel Torres as a party to forged mortgage, but included him in foreclosure, summary

judgment, rigged sale by Intercounty from Wells Fargo to Mr. Capitol Group, by (corrupt)

court, in conspiring TO DEPRIVE Torres of property, violated Sec. 3-201(b), 309 and 419(d).

5.

The District Court and the Appeals Court's dismissal of the Complaint as to

violations of Civil Rights Acts is inconsistent with State and Federal statutes

as well as prior decisions by the 7th Circuit and of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Petitioners have alleged discrimination by defendants as to Petitioners' race, color, AfroAmerican/Black, Hispanic/Latino, female, elderly, disabled violations of the Civil Rights Acts of

1964,42 U.S.C., Sec. 1964, 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1981,1983,1985,1986, 2000(a). (Doc. 1, pp. x, 4,11,

12,16,17, 21 8c 29). The District Court and 7th Circuit are erroneous in declaring that these

matters must be in State Court or that they are res judicata when multiple acts and discovery

took place after the judgments to and through 2021 and during the appeals. These federal

statutes grant jurisdiction in federal court. (Doc. 1, pp. 4,11,12,16,17,18,21 & 29)

Further interference of civil rights acts by Respondents'agents which took place from

2020-2021,too late to include in the Complaints of anti- Semitic plus racial slurs to Petitioners re

the Sephardic Jewish surname of "Torres", that Petitioners should be "kicked out of America

like being kicked out of Spain in 1492," violating 18 U.S.C., Sec. 242 8c 1367; 13th Amendment.

-20-

The 7th Circuit erred in deciding that the issue of race was unrelated to Petitioners'

issues of vacating and abandoning 3546 West Beach and refusal to provide mortgages for

purchases of 3542 West Beach and 3550 West Beach in a newly gentrified neighborhood

because of Petitioners' race (Blacks, Afro-American, Hispanics), ethnicity, color, and need to

enforce its "Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only Policy" revealed as late as November

2021 during 2 home invasions/break-ins and physical assaults, terrorizing and traumatizing

Petitioners who are still under medical care from said acts, ordering "all Niggers and Spies out in

ten minutes", considered a hate crime. (APP. E) (Doc. 1, pp. 4,11,12,16,17,18,21, 29)

Petitioners alleged that Defendants' agents acknowledged in Spanish and English to Rosee

Torres, who speaks both Spanish and English, that Defendants were acting under Wells Fargo's

"Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only” Policy". The District Court and 7th Circuit were

biased in addressing Rosee Torres' race as "Afro-American" married to an Hispanic in favor of

and cover for Defendants, as both Petitioners are of Puerto Rican/Cuban descent.

(APP. A,E)

Defendants also applied anti Semitic slurs re the Sephardic Jewish surname "Torres".,

demanding to know the names and addresses of Jewish attorneys helping Petitioners.

Both state and federal court failed to consider that the fabricated mortgage, fore­

closure, summary judgment in state court was for Case No. 2016 ch-5738, re 3546 West Beach,

was for account #0027028734. (Doc. 1, EX. 16)

Account # for purchases of 3542 West Beach

and 3550 West Beach was 0483107462. (Doc. 25, EX. 5) Fifteen other fraudulent accounts in

which numbers are switched are in Doc. 1, EX. 17-21) Doc. 1, p. 8, Doc. 1, EX. 6-21) District

Court and 7th Circuit erroneously joined all three properties together —ownership of

Petitioners' Due Process was violated 3546 West Beach in which foreclosure and judgment

was issued to the application for purchase of 3542 West Beach and 3550 West Beach

-21-

in which no issues or judgments were discussed or entered. Defendants provided no original

documents, contracts, liens, or assignments in state or federal court based on the defense of

documents being lost or destroyed in a "computer glitch, " the courts allowing Defendants' to

submit computerized, undated, un-executed, un-initialed blank World Savings forms. (Doc. 25,

EX. 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2D; This was a cover-up as to the fraudulently fabricated and altered docu­

ments Wells Fargo conducted on a mass basis to evade and violate RESPA. Title 12, Ch.

27,12 U.S.C. 2601-2617.(Doc. 25, EX. 2-E) Again, petitioner Noel Torres was not named on

negligently and carelessly not named on the fabricated mortgage, summary judgment and sale

of 3546 West Beach, the forged documents, but named on the summary judgment and sale of

3546 West Beach all courts erroneously ailed to address. Petitioner not permitted to buy, rent

or sale to non-whites. (Doc. 1, pp. 1,2, Doc. 1, EX. 8-A, 16; APPS, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K-l, L)

Petitioners have alleged Defendants and each of them by their misconduct and in a

conspiracy to defraud Petitioners and Federal government of millions, violated the Fair Housing

Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601-3619, amended in 1988 & 1995 etseq; 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1349,

1985; Civil Rights Act off 1964, Title 42, H.21; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000(a). (Doc. 1, pp. 16-18)

Defendants outrageous conduct interfered with Petitioner' civil rights. 18 U.S.C., Sec.

1367, Ch. 85; 18 U.S.C., Sec. 134. (Doc. 1, pp. viii, 18)

6.

Petitioners 'Substantive and Procedural Due Process were violated

when denied jury trial, discovery and equal protection.

Petitioners' constitutional rights were violated when they were deprived of their

right to a jury trial guaranteed under 6th & 7tf1 Amendments and equal protection under the 14th

Amendment in both State and Federal District court as alleged in the Complaints and appeals.

(Doc. 1, pp. vii, 8,9,10,11,12) Both courts failed to address these issues. The courts' denial of

-22-

Petitioners' Procedural due process was a violation of federal U.S. Constitution. (Doc. 1, pp. 812) The Courts violations of Petitioners; substantive due process while defendants acted under

color of law also violated the U. S, Constitution. (Doc. 1, p. 12)

7.

District Court has jurisdiction re fraud and multiple other federal statutes.

a.

False Claims Act. The state court's fake, fabricated foreclosure on 3546

West Beach was a mere cover-up in denying Petitioner, Rosee Torres', mortgage for 3542 West

Beach and 3550 West Beach, which would deny Petitioners tight to overturn a state court

claim/judgment in federal court, while at the same time including Noel Torres in the fabricated

foreclosure even though he is not named or a party to the fabricated mortgage. Defendant,

Wells Fargo and its defendant conspirators, fake, sub-prime predatory mortgage, summary

judgment and sale are false claims which comes under the jurisdiction of the District Court. 31

U.S.C., Sec. 3725-3733 (Doc. 1, p. 19-20); 740ILCS175/1

b.

Fair Debt Practices Collection Act (FDPCA). Defendants' acts of ruining

Petitioners' credit by extremely abusive, oppressive and unconscionable conduct alleged above

violated FDPCA. 15 U.S.C., Sec. 1692(i), Sec. 806, 807, 808; Title V of the Graham Leach Bailey

Act; 15 U.S.C., Sec. 6801 etseq.; 15 U.S.C., Sec. 1692(h(, Sec. 809, 810, 811, 812; 18 U.S.C., Sec.

Ch. 47, (Doc. 1, pp. 20-22J Fraudulent Concealment is that Petitioners never had mortgage with

Wells Fargo, which evidence of mortgage it failed to produce 735 ILCS 5/13-215.

c.

Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Defendants have destroyed Petitioners'

Credit, having acknowledged to Petitioners that Afro-American/Blacks are poor credit risks and

the bank had problems selling homes in neighborhoods where blacks and Hispanics resided,

a reason for enforcing their "Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only Policy" with the aid of

cooperative judges, court clerks, auctions and out of state, unregistered or licensed mortgage

-23-

companies (Mr. Capitol Group) specifically steering cases. This included Defendants' agents

presenting Petitioners with documents indicating that they were able to sell 3542 West Beach

and other local sales for nearly one half million dollars based on Petitioners' move, evicted or

abandonment, an amount they could not get from a non-minority family. (Doc. 1, p. 22)

Petitioners would be denied discovery, unable to produce said documents. Defendants violated

federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 15 U.S.C., Sec. 1601 etseq.; RESPA.(Doc. 1, pp. vii, 22-23)

d.

Truth-in-Lending Act.

Defendant Wells Fargo intentionally, willfully

and maliciously failed to disclose its "Nigger Removal Plan" and "Whites Only Policy" or the

"computer glitch" which it claimed destroyed all documents which pertain to minorities as a

protected class, as Petitioners, in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act and RESPA. 15 U.S.C.,

Sec. 1601 etseq. Regulation X, 12 U.S.C., Sc. 2505(f); 12 C.F.R., Sec. 1024.41(a); No 'loss miti­

gation review, 12 C.F.R., Sec. 1024.41(b)(c); prohibition of sales, by mortgage servicers as ****C

Wells Fargo, 12 C.F.R., Sec. 1024.41(g); prohibiting rental, sales and purchases by race, color,

ethnicity, gender, age, etc., 24 C.F.R, 1026 et seq.; 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1981. (Doc. 1, p. 22-24)

8. .District Court and 7th Circuit failed to consider Illinois statutes.

including, but not limited to Illinois Mortgage foreclosure Act.

A.

Genuine Issues of Material Facts Remain. The lower courts failed to

enforce State and District Court statutes in effect which protect Petitioners, as to the genuine

issues of material facts which remain throughout. Doyle v Cross Hospital, 186 III. 2d 104,10910, 708 N.E. 2d 1140,1144 (1999); 735 ILCS 5/2-619(c). (Doc. 1. pp. vi, p. B)

B.

Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Act, (i) Defendant Wells Fargo intentionally

failed to produce original contract, original lien, indorsement, assignment or allonge, falsely

claiming computer glitch" as to 3546 West Beach, when it actually had no contract or

-24-

mortgage with Petitioners, which was fraudulently concealed, (ii) Defendant also failed to give

default date in its fabricated foreclosure as required by the Act. It failed to provide or give grace

period as required by the Act. (iii) Defendant failed to give Petitioners 10 day notice prior to

sale, notifying Petitioners by phone explaining Petitioners did not speak English. _The State

foreclosure is therefore NULL and VOID. Kingsley v. Roeder*_2 III.2d 131,17 N.E. 2d 82 (1954);

735 ILCS 1101 etseq; 735 ILCS 5/15-1506 & 1508(b) (West); Sec. 13-115, Code of Civil Proce­

dures. (Doc. 1, pg. 26); (iv) Petitioners' filed counter-complaint in state court in 2016 (2016ch-05738) to comply with seven (7) year statute of limitations re judgments and five (5) year

statute of limitations re fraud, which court dismissed. 735 ILCS 5/12-108(a). (Doc. 1, p. 27)

McCarter v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 130 III. App. 3d 97,100 (1985); Consumer Fraud &

Deceptive Act, 815 ILCS 505/2; (v) The trial court violated Act when it refused to grant

Petitioners' request to transfer case to another judge or federal court. Partipilo v. Partipilo, 331

III. App. 3d 394, 398,770 N.E. 2d 113,114 (1st Dist., 2002). (vi() The trial court violated act when

it refused Petitioner's request for Discovery, Petitioners' right, based on "it was too time con­

suming" and defendants' records lost in disputed "computer glitch". Industrial Coatings Group

v. American Motorist Ins. Co., 276 ill. App. 3d 799, 813, 658 N.E. 2d '1338,1347 (1st Dist., 1995):

Cohen v. Blockbuster, 351 III. App. 3d 772,776-777, 814 N.E. 2d 933,936-937 (l5t Dist.2004)

This was an abuse of discretion and inconsistent with prior rulings. (Doc. 1, p. 27)

C.

Conspiracy. Under Illinois law, direct proof is not required in a conspiracy.

(Doc. 25, pp. iii, 11) Scott v. Aldi, 301 III. App. 3d 234 III. Dec. 665,703 N.E. 2d 526 (1st Dist.,

1998) Nor is it required under federal law when violating U. S. Constitution under 7th, 13th & 14th

Amendments. Airborne Beepers & Video v.AT&T Mobility, 499 F.3d 663,667 (7th Cir. 2007)

The 7th Circuit erred in failing to address Conspiracy adequately or at all. Respondents violated

Fraudulent Concealment Act, as Petitioners had no mortgage.

-25-

9.

Unethical conduct by Attorneys and Judiciary at issue.

A. Judge Mary Rowland. The District Court and Appeals Court erroneously failed to

consider the conflicts of interest, lack of fairness and impartiality as to District Court judge Mary

M. Rowland's relative, David Rowland, was employed as attorney for defendant, Wells Fargo,

which Defendant disclosed was their guarantee of victory. Judge Rowland should have recused

herself in this case, but did not. (Doc. 1, pp, 12,29, EX. 22; Doc. 25, p. 5,13); Fed'l Rules of

Professional Conduct, LR83.28-50.1. Undue and impartiai judicial influence are grounds for

review. Connick v. Suzicki Motor Co., 174 III. 2d 482, 500, 675 N.E. 2d 584, 593 (III. 1996).

(Doc. 25, p. 10; p. 29)) 28 U.S. C., Sec. 455 and 144; 28 U.S.C., Sec. 64; Sec. 351-364.

B.

State Appeals Judges Nathaniel Howse and R. Scott Neville. The latter should have

recused themselves rather than rendering decisions of DENIAL on same issues in which they

were attorneys and/or in same law firm which settled the case or Rosee Torres in 2004. (Doc.

1,13) and assisted in obtaining Certificate of Release in 2007, as well as law firm who employed

Rosee Torres, a court reporter, translator (Spanish- English),and paralegal with law firm -- a

conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duties, outright misconduct, unethical and betrayal.

(APP. 13) IL Code of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3(a), 8(a). (Doc. 1, p. vii, 29,30; Doc. 25, p. 5)

APP. 8-A.; Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137; 28 U.S.C., Sec. 351-364, 28 U.S.C., Sec. 455 & 144.

C.

State Trial Court Judge Wm B. Sullivan. The judge and/or his relative was an

employee/attorney for Wells Fargo's current attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw in 1992, according to

Wells Fargo, which is a conflict of interest and not impartial in 2016-ch-05738. (Doc. 1, APP. 8-B)

(Doc. 25, p. 5) This is judicial misconduct. 28 U.S.C., Sec. 351-364; 28 U.S.C., Sec. 455 & 144.

D. Attorneys Edward Peterka & Josh Knoesher of Manley Peas & Kochalski, LLC.

Both attorneys negligently failed to research and filed false pleadings as the fabricated

-26-

mortgage, obtaining a summary judgment and sale of 3546 West Beach from false documents.

In state Court (2016-ch-05738) and appeal 19-1718. This violates Illinois Code of professional

Responsibility, Rules 3.3(a) and 8(a). {Doc. 1, p. 28)

E.

Attorney Robert Metz. Attorney filed appearance in federal court for Mr. Capitol

Group, LLC although he is not registered/licensed to practice in federal court. (Doc. 6,16) He

filed no Disclosure Statement regarding his client, Mr. Capitol Group, LLC, a mortgage company

without a disclosure statement, is not registered in the State of Illinois. This attorney is subject

to discipline in violation of federal law. (Doc. 1, p. 30) LR83.28 - 50.1. Mr. Metz presented

himself at 3546 West Beach in November 2021, representing Andrew Smith of Mr. Capitol who

broke into Torres' residence at 3546 West Beach, Chicago and attacked Rosee when kicking

door into her and physically attacked Noel on porch of the residence, violating IL. Rule 3.3, id.

F.

Geofrev Pipolv of Mayer Brown. This attorney represented Wells Fargo and filed

Order(s) without having to file appearancejn state court, in violation of Illinois Code of

Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3(a) and 8(a). (Doc. 1, p. 30) APP. 21.

10. Respondents profit from violations of Security Fraud

All Respondents profit from the illegal embezzlement of Rosee Torres' down pay­

ment on 3542 and 3550 West Beach which Respondents promised as late as February 2021

would be transferred to her IRA account. They lied. Violations of by fraudulent concealment

and securities and Commodities fraud are alleged. 735 ILCS 5/13-215; 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1348,1349.

11. Newly Discovered Evidence after Summary Judgment or Dismissal

Petitioners have newly discovered evidence after the state court Summary

Judgment and sale of February 26, 2018 and January 4, 2019,, after the Appeals and denials of

Illinois Appellate Court and Supreme Court and after District Court and 7th Circuit decisions,

-27-

much supplied by Respondents during appeals and from offices of Petitioners' prior attorneys

which were not accessible when discovery and/or amended complaint not granted and

documents to which Petitioners had no access. Several of Petitioners' former attorneys are

since deceased. The Court granting discovery and amended complaint I consistent with 7th

Circuit and other circuits and erred in not granting same: Parker v. Parker, 950 So. 2d 1391 (Fla.

2007;/ Long Shore Bank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548,561 (7th Cir., 1999). (Doc. 1, pg. B)

12. Illinois Statutes Applicable to Petitioners' Claims

The State, District and Appeals courts erroneously failed to apply Illinois statutes and

Laws and guidelines to Petitioners' case, including Respondents failure to follow guidelines of

Illinois Foreclosure Law. 735 ILCS 1101 et seq. Petitioners allege that Illinois Fraud Law applies

to Respondents misconduct and illegal, criminal acts detailed above. 735 ILCS 5/12-11000.

Petitioners filed their litigation to be within the 5-year statute of limitations for the multiple

breaches of oral promises made by Respondents from 2015 to 2021. 735 ILCS 5/12-108(a) and

the 10 year statute of limitations on written contracts 735 ILCS 5/13-206. Petitioners did not the

guarantees or receive the Homeowners Protection Rights as to notice, right to jury trial, right to

discovery, right to mediation (although Wells Fargo falsely claimed of a "mediation", failed to give

default date re foreclosure complaint, failed to Reply to Petitioners' Motion for Stay of eviction

and physical violence (Doc. 26, 27) by Respondents and their agents, during State and federal

court, in violation of 735 ILCS 5/15-1502.5. The State and Federal appeals courts erred in not

finding the Respondents' acts and judgment re fake foreclosure, sales, denial of mortgage and

purchases of other property, fraudulent and void, retaliating by sanctions by partial judiciary for

seeking the court's assistance. Respondents use their superior financial and business status as

tools to deprive Torres and others of protected classes of their property.

-28-

735 ILCS 5/12-100; 735 ILCS 5/15-1506; 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b)(West) 815 ILCS 5/1-505/2.

Respondents' acts and misconduct are violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1101, 5/7a-102(A)(l). Respondents should not be allowed to foreclose on victims under the

defense of a "computer glitch" as reason it cannot produce documents evidencing a mortgage.

(Reply, Doc. 27, EX.2-B, 2*C, 2-D) Respondents should be accountable for emptying accounts and

fabricating and altering mortgage documents. (Reply, Doc.27, EX. 2-A, 2-E)

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

a.

The United States Court of Appeals has entered decisions in conflict with decision of

not only another United states Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court on the same important

matter but its own decisions, and has decided important federal questions in ways that conflict

with state court decisions of last resort.

b.

It has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and

sanctioned with such a departure of lower courts as to call for an exercise of this court's super­

visory power granting pro se petitioners rights to the judicial system. 28 U.S.C., Sec 1915(d)(g).

c.

The state court and the united States Court of appeals have decided on Genuine

questions of law that have not been, but should be, settled by State, Federal (USDC-ND) and 7th

Circuit court, as those decisions conflict with decisions of this court.

CONCLUSION

• The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully su

Respectfully submitted:

RoseeTor/es, pro se. Petitioner

Appellant

tfptj Torres, pro se, Petitioner

u

pellant

-29-

VERIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that the Writ of Certiorari was by them subscribed, and the

contents therein are correct and true to the best/jftheir information,knowledge and belief.

Date:

March 1

2022

99500

ROSEE TORRES & NOEL TORRES

Petitioners-Appellants - Pro Se

3546 West Beach Avenue

Chicago, IL 60651

1-773-384-9122

-30-

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ROSEE TORRES & NOEL TORRES, Petitioners

VS.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC., ET AL, Respondents

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that all parties required to be served have been served with copies

of the Writ for Certiorari via U. S. Priority Mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of March, 2022:

♦United States Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, Washington, D.C 20002 (original & one)

♦Seyfarth Shaw, LLC., Attorneys at Law, 233 South Wacker Dr., S. 8000, Chicago, IL 60606

♦Manley Deas & Kochalski, Attorneys at Law, 1555 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, OH 43204

♦Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa, Attorneys at Law, 330 North Wabash Avenue,

Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60611

♦Robert Metz, Attorney at Law, 17 North Wabash Avenue, #660-B, Chicago, IL

60602

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), we certify that the document contains 29

pages, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d),

11 point type. Appendix not included and separately bound.^/ We declare under penalty of

perjQry thaMhe foregoing is true and correct. Executed

3*

y

Ro^eg^orres, Petitioner/Appellant

r^oel^Tornes^ Petitioner/Appellant

3546 W. Beach Ave., Chicago, IL 60651

3546 W. Beach Ave., Chicago, IL 60651

1-773-384-9122

1-773-384-9122