Motion to Compel Responses to Rquest for Production - …



HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia, Sui Juris

the natural living woman

c/o U.S.P.O. Postmaster, c/o temporary mailing location

PO Box Nine-Zero-Four-Five-Two, near San Jose,

at Santa Clara County, on California, [zip code exempt]

DMM Reg., Sec 122.32, Public Law 91-375, Sec. 403

Tel: 408-830-6266

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Appellate Division, Admiralty Law Form, Limited Civil Jurisdiction

191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113

|Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© |) |Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825 |

|Appellant and Plaintiff |) |Trial Court Case No.: 1-10-CV-179733 |

| |) | |

|vs. |) |Dei Gratia© vs WACHOVIA |

| |) | |

|WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB (dissolved corpora ficta) |) |Appellant and Plaintiff Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living |

|Respondent/Defendant |) |woman: Gives Notice to Clerk in Accordance with C.C.P. § 170.3(c)(4) |

| |) |that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello failed to file a consent or answer to |

| |) |Objection to Judge for Disqualification for Cause, such that the Clerk |

| |) |now has a statutory duty: |

| |) |“the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to |

| |) |appoint a replacement of the recusal” |

| |) |[C.C.P. §§ 170.3(c)(4), 170.3(c)(5), 431.10 thru 431.70] |

| |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

| |))| |

| |))| |

Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 –

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Notice to Clerk C.C.P. § 170.3(c)(4)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Appellant and Plaintiff HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman, Gives Notice to the court Clerk in Accordance with C.C.P. § 170.3(c)(4) that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello failed to file a consent or answer to the “Appellant Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman’s, Objection to Appellate Panel Member Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause, to be filed Instantor: Count 1: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello with subject matter of proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex. 53 thru 56, investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY); Count 2: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello with subject matter of proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex 53 thur 56); Count 3: 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. §  1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Due Process; See Ex 50, 51, 52; Count 4: Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A), C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Affidavits of Truth Ex. 5 thru 11, Bias or Prejudice; See Ex 50 thru 56; Count 5: Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Affidavits of Truth Ex. 5 thru 11, Bias or Prejudice; See Ex 50, 51, 52; Count 6: 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. §  1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Equal Protection Under the Law; See Ex 50, 51, 52; Count 7: Calif. Const. Art. 1 §§ 1, 7; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law; See Ex 50, 51, 52; Count 8: Unreported and Undisclosed Acceptance of Bribes in Violation of PC § 93; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50; Count 9: Bribery in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 201; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50; Count 10: Scheme to Defraud, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Ex. 51, 52, 53 thru 56” that was personally served upon Judge Vincent J. Chiarello in courtroom 85, and the time to Answer has past.

(4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello had a duty to answer the Affidavit by either a consent, or a general denial, or an answer “to each numbered paragraph, as a material fact, with either Admit, Deny, or Deny for Want of Knowledge in accordance with C.C.P. § 431.30.”

(b) The answer to a complaint shall contain:

(1) The general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant.

(2) A statement of any new matter constituting a defense.

(c) Affirmative relief may not be claimed in the answer.

(d) If the ... If … verified, …, the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant. ...

(e) If the defendant has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him or her to answer an allegation of the complaint, he or she may so state in his or her answer and place his or her denial on that ground.

(f) The denials of the allegations controverted may be stated by reference to specific paragraphs or parts of the complaint; or by express admission of certain allegations of the complaint with a general denial of all of the allegations not so admitted; or by denial of certain allegations upon information and belief, or for lack of sufficient information or belief, with a general denial of all allegations not so denied or expressly admitted.

(g) The defenses shall be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.

Additionally, the exhibits served in support of the Objection to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause include: Exhibits 53 thru 56, the relevant sections of the last four Form 700 financial disclosure forms of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, the 2014 form titled: “Appellant/Plaintiff’s Demand for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, filed 2/09/2015, pages 1, 5: Schedule A-1 Investments page: Wells Fargo & Company.” that documented Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s financial conflict of interest with the instant case, and separately his spouses’ financial conflict of interest with the instant case; and Exhibits of immunity to state court jurisdiction, titled: Appellant Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman’s: JUDICIALLY NOTICED EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC NOTICE AND AN OFFICIAL ACT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPELLANT S SECURED PARTY CREDITOR STATUS: Exhibit designated as Exhibit W: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK of Secured Party Creditor Status of Appellant, Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, and; Exhibit designated as Exhibit Y: Correspondence from STATE OF NEW YORK To Appellant, and; Exhibit designated as Exhibit X: Check to Appellant “Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, …A SOV[EREIGN]”, and; Exhibit (designated as Exhibit Z: Envelope To “Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, … A SOV[EREIGN]”.; and Affidavits of Truth, (separately judicially noticed but filed with recusal motion,) “Appellant/Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Prima Facie Evidentiary Affidavits in Support of Objection to JudgeVincent J Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause: 1) Exhibit 2: Affidavit of HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©; 2) Exhibit 3: Affidavit of William Bullock Stewart III©; 3) Exhibit 4: Affidavit of Robert C. Cutright; 4) Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Walter James Kubon; 5) Exhibit 6: Affidavit of Wayne Springfield©; 6) Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Raymon E. Tate III©; 7) Exhibit 8: Affidavit of Matt P. Jacobsen©” which each documented the previous recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello in an unrelated case involving the Defendant and the Cross Complainants, including the undersigned, and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s bias against the Defendant and the Cross Defendants herein; Ex. 50 Case brief and case law on public perception of bias as a mandatory reason for recusal, titled “Appellant/Plaintiff’s Demand for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 50: Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1441 (2009) 14 pages”, and which required mandatory recognition as judicially noticed Evidence exhibits pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 201, which documented a public perception of bias, and Ex. 1, email from County Auditor documenting payments from other than employer of record to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello which was attached to the Objection and that evidenced bribery of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello pursuant to United States v. Kemp and the impeachment proceedings of Judge Porteous, and Ex. 51, 52, which documented a previous self recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello in an unrelated case and case number, and admission by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello to a lifetime bar to presiding over cases in which the undersigned is a party, were never rebutted and were defaulted by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, titled: “Appellant/Plaintiff’s Demand for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 51: Affidavit of CROSS COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubreé Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III, Aubreé Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione’s CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 (2013) 12 pages” and “Appellant/Plaintiff’s Demand for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 52: Affidavit Nihil Dicit (no recourse default) against and Tacit admissions of, all members of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, who failed to answer within 30 days, with an opposing Affidavit to the original Affidavit filed March 27, 2013 by CROSS COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie A. Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione© (aka Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, Anthony Victor Guancione III©) CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES SELF DISQUALIFIED / RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 (2013) 10 pages”. The public perception of bias and prejudice of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello against the Appellant herein, is a mandatory recusal pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Judge Vincent J. Chiarello failed to rebut that all of the United States Code (U.S.C.), including Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 applied to the motion to disqualify for cause.

§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

An order to strike is not an answer to the Affidavit of recusal pursuant to C.C.P. § 431.30.

The Clerk now has a statutory duty such that “the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal” Judge Vincent J. Chiarello. Failure to perform the clerk’s statutory duty may result in civil and/or criminal claims against each and every responsible individual.

Appellant requests to be sent a certified copy of the clerk’s notification to the presiding judge, at the following address: POB 90542, San Jose, CA 95109; such that the liability for failure to comply with the requirements of C.C.P. 170.3, are established and determinable. If the clerk performs their statutory duty to notice the presiding judge then the liability and statutory duty rests with the presiding judge to appoint a replacement for the recusal.

VERIFICATION

The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of the UNITED STATES, and by the laws of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.

Date: August 17, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©_______

Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, Appellant

the natural living woman, Secured Party Creditor

-----------------------

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download