Motion To Disqualify Judge (170.1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 1
KAREN M. ROZIER
DAVID E. ROZIER, SR.
7957 DAHLIA CIRCLE
BUENA PARK, CA 90620
(714) 512-5740
Propria Personas

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY

KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, an Individual
DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR., an individual
Plaintiff,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
successor by merger to LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAMP 2007RP1, et. al;
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor in
interest to BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION as successor by merger to LASALLE
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAAC
2007RP1, et. al
OCWEN LOAN SERVCING, LLC
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY
JOHN DOES 18-50
Defendants.

Case No. 30-2012-00601310-CU-OR-CJC
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
SHEILA FELL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 170.1
SECOND REQUEST

Date:
Time:
Dept: C22
Trial Date: February 2015

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER respectfully requests Judge Sheila E. Fell be disqualified
under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 170.1 (a)(6)(C): For any reason A
person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be
impartial. Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would
believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law.
The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc., 170.1(a)(6)(C), providing for
disqualification for bias or prejudice is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative
judgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the
importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an
actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's
impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of
the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal
view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not
provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge ought to consider how his or her
participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street. Plaintiff will show that the
average person off the street believes that Judge Fell has show bias directed towards Plaintiff.
Plaintiff concurs.
INTRODUCTION
Judge Sheila Fell has been active in the case since March 18, 2013 [Docket Item # 185] and
her participation is ongoing. This is Plaintiffs second request. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

first request is attached hereto as Exhibit (1). Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation made
in that motion as though it were restated here in this motion.
Plaintiffs earlier request to disqualify Judge Fell was denied in October 2013. A true and
correct copy of that order is attached as Exhibit (2). It should be noted that with this order, Judge
Fell decided to punish the Plaintiff someone who is approved for a fee waiver by overturning
Judges Derek Hunt earlier ruling. U.S. Bank previously requested the Court to force Plaintiff to pay
the bond in February 2013 but Judge Hunt denied their request and stated on the record that the
bond did not have to placed until the day before trial, which at the time was set for Sept 23, 2013
1
.
Judge Fell ordered Plaintiff to pay the $5,000 bond immediately or lose the courts protection. That
smacks of retaliation and extortion. Plaintiff was able to acquire the funds to pay the bond only by
reaching out to the populace.
Plaintiff is not the only person who believes the judge is biased. Plaintiff reviewed The
Robing Room, an online site that rates U.S. judges. Its website can be found here:
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 Plaintiff read the comments
rating Judge Fell. Plaintiff noticed that Judge Fell is ranked quite high by lawyers (8.7) but low by
People (3) as of the date of this motion. A more careful analysis of the ratings reveal that Judge Fell
received ratings of either 1 or no rating, with negative comments by the People and one rating
of a 10 by a party who prevailed at settlement. A true and correct copy of the Robing Room
comments are attached hereto as Exhibit (3). Judge Fells bias against Plaintiff can be seen by the
following:

1
Trial is now set for February 2015.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Example #1. Retaliation
U.S. Bank previously requested the Court to force Plaintiff to pay the bond in February 2013
but Judge Hunt denied their request and stated on the record that the bond did not have to placed
until the day before trial, which at the time was set for September 23, 2013. After Judge Fell allowed
all Defendants to default several times and continued to change due dates for the BAR-represented
Defendants benefit, she granted the Defendants a six-month delay over Plaintiffs objections.
2
.
Plaintiff accused Judge Fell of bias and the Judge decided to force the Plaintiff to pay the $5,000
bond immediately or lose the courts protection.
Example #2. Ruling Against the Law
Judge Fell ruled that US Bank did not have to submit their Discovery answers under oath. US Bank
submitted its Discovery answers with no oaths attached. After Plaintiff complained, US Bank sent in
oaths unattached to any Discovery and not dated the same day as any of the Discovery items.
Plaintiff refused to accept this as legal Discovery. Judge Fell ruled that it was valid. Perhaps that
may be acceptable in family court where the parties know each other, but I am a Plaintiff fighting
two trillion-dollar strangers who I claim I have no relationship with. I deserve that they be required
to submit every statement under oath. Plaintiff is appealing her ruling. That appeal was filed on
May 10, 2014.
Additionally, although I have repeatedly informed her that the BAR attorneys are providing
testimony without being sworn in, she continues to allow that practice.

2
Trial is now set for February 2015.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Example #3. Refusing to Cooperate With Other Judges
Judge refused to continue a December 11
th
hearing despite being asked to do so by a Los Angeles
Superior Court judge. After being made aware of the issue, Judge Fell continues to allow the
Defendant to profit from the results of that December 11, 2013 voidable hearing.
Example #4. Allowing and Encouraging Fraud Upon the Court
Judge is aware that material issues of fact and controversy remain. Judge is aware that Defendant
US Bank committed Fraud Upon the Court by repeatedly claiming that my 4,206 square foot home
is only 2,096 square foot
3
. Judge is aware that the present value of my home exceeds the alleged
debt claimed by US Bank. After being made aware of the clear fraud, Judge chose to allow the fraud
to stand rather than exercise her judicial duty once being made aware that a crime was being
committed. She granted US Bank Summary Judgment based on a series of wrongful acts, all which
are under appeal. I believe that makes the Judge accomplice to the criminal act which therefore
disqualifies her from presiding over the remaining case.
Judge is aware that US Banks only involvement in the case was because they agreed to pay any
award against Bank of America. Judge refused to allow Plaintiff to bring any specific charges against

3
Judge Hunt issued the injunction after the Orange County Tax Assessor verified that my home is twice US Banks
claim. An independent California appraiser verified that my house is worth twice US Banks value as well. Instead
of being interested in ruling on the merits of the case, Judge Fell gave every indication that she wanted to put the
highly educated African American pro se Plaintiff in her proper place, which she must feel is penniless and
homeless. I would call her a racist, but I suspect that race is only a part because I graduated from Harvard and the
very best she could do was her crappy school. Plaintiff unfortunately encounters that too frequently, usually from
people working above their innate abilities. I suspect she is abusing her position to deal with her on weakness, but
I can show that she is biased which is sufficient grounds for the court to remove her from my case.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

US Bank but instead allowed US Bank to litigate a case that was not being litigated. Judge did not
require US Bank to bring a counterclaim but instead allowed it to enter false and fraudulent
evidence with her series of illegal or incompetent rulings.
Example #5. Showing Favoritism to BAR Agents Over Pro Se litigants
Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are guilty of accepting bribes and
will be disqualified from the case, removed from office for conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute) and imprisoned for
bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services 18 U.S.C. Section 1346.
According to her financial forms, she takes money from the BAR. That in and of itself would not
disqualify her if her fees were reasonable and if she refrained from making statements and
committing acts that indicate she prefers hearing cases where the parties are represented by BAR
members. Judge Fell made very clear statements that if the Plaintiff wanted justice in her
courtroom, Plaintiff would not get it unless she hired. Plaintiff is willing to testify under oath about
the help Judge Fell gave others as Plaintiff was taking copious notes. Given the reality of todays
litigation landscape, the time and money the state of California has spent making our courts
accessible to the ordinary citizen, and the Pro Se guidelines, her statements bring the entire
judiciary into disrepute.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written, verified statement with the
clerks office objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting
the basis for the disqualification. CCP 170.3(c)(1). Copies of the statement must be served on all
parties or on any of their attorneys who have appeared. CCP 170.3(c)(1); see McCartney v
Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334, 1340, 273 CR 250 (statement in reply to opposition to
disqualification statement does not satisfy notice requirements of CCP 170.3). A copy must be
personally served on the judge who is alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her courtroom clerk,
provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(1).
At this time Plaintiff believes that Judge Fells rulings disqualify her. Plaintiff argues that
specific statements taken in context of Judge Fells off-bench activities, particular findings, and
particular rulings reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset, including a willingness to slant the law in
favor of the California BAR attorneys and or well-financed Defendants. Judge Fells statement telling
Plaintiff she should have hired a lawyer showed a biased and prejudiced mindset that may be
clearly discerned by any reasonable person who has knowledge of the facts and the law. As Plaintiff
refuses to hire an attorney, Judge Fell has made it perfectly clear that Plaintiff will not receive a fair
hearing or trial in her courtroom. By her actions, Judicial Office Fell has demonstrated she will
assist BAR attorneys while denying clarification to this Pro Se Litigant. In order to disqualify a
judge, his/her prejudice must be against a party [Karen Rozier] to the action; . . . Evans v Superior
Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P 662; Kreling v Superior Court (1944) 63 CA2d 353, 146 P2d 935.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are guilty of accepting
bribes and will be disqualified from the case, removed from office for conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute) and imprisoned for
bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services 18 U.S.C. Section 1346.
JUDICIAL CANON OF ETHICS:
I. CANON 2 A. Promoting Public Confidence, A judge shall respect and comply with the law
and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The comments shown the Exhibit (3) evaluation indicate
that her behavior is not promoting public confidence. Additionally, the timing of her
deciding to require Plaintiff to place the bond early smacks of retaliation.
II. Canon 3 B. A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests,
public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in
the law.*: The law is clear that all Discovery must be given under oath. In this instant
case, Judge Fell allowed very liberal Discovery over the Plaintiffs objection. Specifically,
she waived the very important requirement that the answers be provided UNDER
OATH! Given that she waived the requirement for the BAR represented BANK, her
action cannot be considered in the best interest of the public.
III. C. Administrative Responsibilities section (1) (1) A judge shall diligently discharge the
judges administrative responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or
prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of administrative
duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(i) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex,
gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital
status, or socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (ii) sexual harassment.: The
crafters of this document including the phrase including but not limited to when
describing the types of discriminatory behavior judges should avoid precisely because
they wanted them to avoid all types of discriminatory behavior. When Judge Fell leaned
forward and took pleasure in informing Plaintiff that she would treat Plaintiff more
harshly than she would treat the BAR attorneys, she violated the Canon with both her
speech and gesture. As evidence by Exhibit (3), her act concerned members of the public
enough for them to express their concerns.
IV. (2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and shall
cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.:
Judge Fell was informed multiple times that Los Angeles Superior Court Renee Fenton
Korn requested to have the December 11, 2013 hearing postponed. Rather than
cooperate with the Los Angeles court, Judge Korn elected to conduct the hearing and to
allow the Defendant to profit from my excusable absence. She continues to allow them
to profit from her refusal to cooperate with a superior case.
V. G. Practice of Law. A judge shall not practice law. On May 1, 2014 Judical Officer Korn
gave legal advice to the lawyers presenting the cases before mine. She told them what to
file. She helped the lawyers through the case. When I asked her to explain her ruling to
me, she would not. I did not ask for legal advice. Once the transcript is ready, the court
will see that Judge Korn only in my case worked hard to confuse me as to which of
the two motions she was hearing. She appears to be helping the opposing side because
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

she must not want to see a lawyer lose a case to a Pro se litigant for fear that other Pro
se litigants will try to have their cases heard in her courtroom.
It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in
the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous corresponding statute--Sec. 170,
subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been construed to require bias in fact, with the
enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify a California judge for cause was no
longer required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in evaluating
recusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States
(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a bent of
mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S.) In the case United Farm
Workers of America v Superior Court (1985, 4th Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.
Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C) (Judge disqualified if person aware of facts might
reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes the disqualification standard
fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of
the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the
judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man
or woman would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated.
To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their
confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. The reason for
the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased unless the judge so
admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are not furthered when a judge who is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

reasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case. (emphasis added) Catchpole v
Brannon (1995, 1st Dist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal Rptr 2d 440.
Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes
63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer
(Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the
purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP
and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
CONCLUSION
A reasonable person looking at the current bench in the Plaintiffs case can see bias and
prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of the law by Judge Fell. She is not aiming for
substantial justice. As evidence by the comments in the Robing Room, at least two other parties
looked at her behavior and concluded that she was acting irrationally and against the publics
interest. As discussed above, the Court has ample cause to disqualify Sheila Fell from the case.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judge Fell and anyone under her
supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C) et seq and that every one of her orders be

EXHIBIT 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
K A R E N M. R O Z I E R
D A V I D E. R O Z I E R , SR.
7957 D A H L I A C I R C L E
B U E N A PARK, C A 90620
(714)512-5740
Propria Personas
I N TH E SU PE R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I FO R N I A
O R A N GE C O U N TY
K A R E N MI C H E L E R O Z I E R , an I ndividual
D A V I D E U GE N E R O Z 1E R ,SR ., an individual
Plaintiff,
vs.
B A N K O F A ME R I C A , N A TI O N A L A SSO C I A TI O N as
successor by merger to L A SA L L E B A N K N A TI O N A L
A SSO C I A TI O N as Trustee R A MP 2007RP1, et. al;
U.S. B A N K N A TI O N A L A SSO C I A TI O N as successor in
interest to B A N K O F A ME R I C A , N A TI O N A L
A SSO C I A TI O N as successor by merger to L A SA L L E
B A N K N A TI O N A L A SSO C I A TI O N as Trustee RA A C
2007RP1, et. al
O C WE N L O A N SE R V C I N G, L L C
R E SI D E N TI A L FU N D I N G C O MPA N Y
J O H N D O E S 18-50
D efendants.
C ase N o. 30-2012-00601310-C U -O R -C JC
PL A I N TI FF'S MO TI O N TO D I SQU A L I FY J U D I C I A L
O FFI C E R SH E I L A FE L L PU R SU A N T TO C.C.P. 170.1
Date:
Time:
Dept: C22
Trial Date: April 28,2013
20
lof 12
Plaintiff K A R E N M I C H E L E R O Z I E R respectfully requests Judicial O fficer Sheila E . Fell be
disqualified under the C alifornia C ode of C ivil Procedures (C C P) Section 170.1 (a)[6)(C ): "For any
reason ... A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able
to be impartial." Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances
would believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law.
The standard for disqualification provided in C ode Civ. Proc, 170.1(a)(6)(C), providing for
disqualification for bias or prejudice is fundamentally an objective one. I t represents a legislative
judgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the
importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an
actual bias. R ather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's
impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of
the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal
11
view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not
12 provide the applicable frame of reference. R ather, the judge ought to consider how his or her
participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.
14 INTRODUCTION
15
Judicial O fficer Sheila Fell has been active in the case since March 18, 2013 [Docket I tem #
16
185] and her participation is ongoing. Former Plaintiff D A V I D E U GE N E R O Z I E R , SR. filed a 170.6
motion requesting that she be disqualified but his motion was denied; subsequently Judicial O fficer
17
Fell dismissed Mr. R ozier as a Plaintiff against his and Plaintiff K A R E N 's objections. I t has become
18
apparent that she is biased, even ignoring the law and changing decisions to benefit the D efendants
19
2 of 12
20
which are represented by B A R attorneys. She can not be objective in her decisions. Plaintiff
requests that a new Judicial O fficer be assigned from outside of this Judicial O fficer s' influence.
Plaintiffs objections were sent to Judicial O fficer Fell via letter and Plaintiff requested that
she voluntarily disqualify herself from the case. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached
hereto as E XH I B I T 1. U pon hearing of D efendant U.S. B ank's plan to schedule an E x Parte motion in
front of Judicial O fficer Fell before I could submit my 170.1 motion, on the morning of O ctober 1,
2013 I contacted Judicial O fficer Fell's office about my letter. Judicial O fficer Fell's C lerk [H eidi]
informed me that Ms. Fell never acts on letters as they are usually done outside of normal
procedure. Plaintiff did provide all parties with copies of the letters. Plaintiff again is following the
letter and intent of the law while the C alifornia B A R attorneys are being allowed to violate the
wording and intent of the same law. Judicial O fficer Fell reports income from the O range C ounty
B A R A ssociation, A ssociation of B usiness Trial Lawyers, and Celtic B A R A ssociation. H er bias
10
against Plaintiff can be seen in the following:
11
Example #1. Most Recent Incident: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute Order/ Nunc Pro Tune to
12
correct Minute Order
Time: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11AM
14 Place: D epartment 22
15
A ttendees: Judicial O fficer Sheila Fell; R ick B urns; A licia D ubois; Plaintiff, David E . R ozier, Sr.; Yaron
16
Shaham; Frank K im; John and Jane Does.
17
Circumstances: Judicial O fficer Fell instructed Plaintiff to hire and pay a C alifornia licensed B A R
18
attorney and have that attorney sign all of Plaintiffs original work, a violation of her right to benefit
19
O PPO SI TI O N TO MO TI O N TO STR I K E - 3 of 12
from and be recognized for her efforts. Judicial O fficer Fell admitted that she had made a major
error with the Minute O rder Plaintiff was protesting. H er mistake caused Plaintiff to file four (4)
R equest for E ntry of D efaults and supporting D eclarations after each of the D efendants defaulted on
its requirement to answer by A ugust 30, 2013. Judicial O fficer Fell then insulted and attempted to
intimidate the Plaintiff into hiring a C alifornia B A R attorney. A fter denying Plaintiffs request for an
E x Parte R equest for N unc Pro Tune O rder on a technicality, the C ourt issued a N unc Pro Tune order
nevertheless. D ue to Judicial O fficer Fell's mistakes, all D efendants received thirty additional days to
respond to a complaint despite all parties prior agreement when all answers would be due. U.S.
B ank's counsel of record, a C alifornia B A R attorney, agreed to file his answer by the agreed to
A ugust deadline. A t the demurrer hearing. Judicial O fficer Fell was also quite clear that if she ruled
against B ank of A merica's request for reconsideration she would not grant them any extension to
file their answer and their counsel of record - a C alifornia B A R attorney, agreed to the terms.
Plaintiff stands by her assertion that the A ugust 27
th
Minute O rder was no mistake. I t accurately
reflected the events as Plaintiff and all of her witnesses recalled them. Judicial O fficer Fell only
changed her ruling after D efendants each of them defaulted and the Pro Se Plaintiff immediately
12
requested a default judgment. Judicial O fficer Fell and those under her influence have gone out of
13
their way to harm the Pro Se Plaintiff. For instance, at the same September E x Parte hearing,
14 Judicial O fficer's C lerk R ick B urns loudly referred to the Pro Se Plaintiff as "one of those fee waiver
cases" in the crowded courtroom. To Plaintiffs knowledge, he has not been disciplined for his
15
breach of professional duty but remains in a position to exert tremendous influence on the outcome
of Plaintiffs case. That is clearly unacceptable, and to a reasonable observer, smacks of bias,
17 disrespect and prejudice. For the record, Plaintiff is an A frican-A merican.
18
19
-4 of 12
20
Plaintiff immediately requested financial information on Judicial O fficer Fell after her irrational
behavior at the September 2013 E x Parte. That is how Plaintiff discovered that Judicial O fficer Fell
derives income from the C alifornia B A R A ssociation and Trial L awyers A ssociation. A true and
correct copy of her filings are attached hereto as E X H I B I T 2.
Additional Event and Probable Cause:
Time: May 10, 2013
Place: D epartment 22
Persons: V arious
O ccasion: E x Parte H earing
Circumstances: Plaintiff did not sue D efendant U.S. B ank or make any allegations against U.S. B ank.
Plaintiff repeatedly objected to D efendant U.S. B ank's sideways request to be added to the litigation
10 and Judicial O fficer D erek H unt repeatedly denied U.S. B ank's entry into the case. The D efendants
skillfully used C alifornia 170.6 and the nation's 69
th
largest law firm Locke Lord LLP against me to
11
remove the case from Judicial O fficer H unt to Judicial O fficer James J. D iC esare, one of the few
O range C ounty Superior C ourt Judges that admits to owning stock in MO R GA N STA N L E Y SMI TH
13 B A R N E Y in his C alifornia Form 700 filing. I objected to the move to Judicial O fficer D iC esare without
knowing his financial holdings but solely based on his written work and the case was eventually
14
moved to Judicial O fficer Fell in March 2013.
15
A t the May 10
th
hearing, we debated the inclusion of U.S. B ank as a D efendant and then-
16
Plaintiff D A V I D E U GE N E R O Z I E R , SR., my husband - the uncompensated builder of the property
with a recorded lien that precedes U.S. B ank's alleged interest as well as the Trustee of the Trust
18 that owns the property subject to the dispute, extensively. When Judicial O fficer Fell ruled that
19
5 of 12 -~ JUl .
2U
Plaintiff K A R E N would be required to add U.S. B ank as a D efendant, she also stated that Plaintiff
K A R E N could sue U.S. B ank for all of U.S. B ank's wrongdoing. A fter Plaintiff filed her third amended
complaint and added substantial evidence of wrongdoing against U.S. B ank, Judicial O fficer Fell
changed her ruling and limited Plaintiffs actions against U.S. B ank for the wrongdoing of B ank of
A merica including barring any claims of conspiracy. Plaintiff never alleged that U.S. B ank was
involved in the wrongful sale without alleging conspiracy. Judicial O fficer Fell forced Plaintiff to add
U.S. B ank but prohibited Plaintiff to also introduce all evidence of their wrong-doing and make any
allegation supported by evidence. This is a clear violation of D ue Process, Plaintiffs Civil and basic
H uman R ights.
The average person looking at this situation would see a bias by Judicial O fficer Fell toward
the Plaintiff. A dditionally, Judicial O fficer Fell has repeatedly shown bias in her willingness to grant
the C alifornia B AR attorneys Ex Parte motions without requiring them to show any emergency, a
violation of C alifornia law. E xamples of abuse of the Ex Parte Motion and clear preferential
11
treatment to the C alifornia B A R attorneys include:
12
1. June 3, 2013 - D espite a clear written Minute O rder, D efendant was allowed to force this
non-emergency E x Parte motion on an emergency basis with no repercussion. A t the
14 hearing, Judicial O fficer Fell clearly ruled one way. She would later change her ruling for no
explainable reason other than incompetence, corruption, or bias.
2. A ugust 20, 2013 - Ex Parte to vacate trial scheduled for September 23, 2013. The trial date
16
was set back in February 2013. U.S. B ank and R esidential Funding C ompany failed to seek
17 Discovery before the D iscovery cut-off despite being represented by C alifornia B A R
attorneys versed in the Discovery process. N o D efendant was required to show cause for
18
19
-60112
their failure. E x Parte held on date D efendants' C alifornia B A R attorneys knew Plaintiff
would be unavailable to oppose. Judicial O fficer Fell delayed the trial from September 23,
2013 until A pril 28. 2013 on an E x Parte basis without a compelling reason.
3. September 14, 2013 - Plaintiff filed her timely R equest for D efault against D efendant B ank
of A merica. D espite them being in default, Judicial O fficer Fell agreed to hear their E x Parte
Motion to understand the court's clear written Minute O rder. A t the same time, Judicial
O fficer Fell refused to hear Plaintiffs request for a N unc Pro Tune O rder based on a
procedural technicality. Worse, Judicial O fficer Fell and her clerk R ick B urns attempted to
humiliate the Pro Se Plaintiff for filing a defective request for a N unc Pro Tune O rder when it
was they who should have rightfully been embarrassed for their sloppy and incomplete
work. I nstead of ameliorating the situation, they issued yet another incomplete minute
order with the N unc Pro Tune order, again failing to specify the understood and agreed
upon deadline of 5 P.M. September 26, 2013. That was a fatal error that granted D efendant
B ank of A merica much leniency on when to file their answer and one which has caused
Plaintiff economic and emotional harm. Judicial O fficer Fell was clearly lecturing Plaintiff on
12
her "inadequacies" with respect to courtroom rules and behavior. Plaintiff is left wondering
13
if perhaps the problem is her adherence to deadlines, decorum, protocol, and procedure.
14 Plaintiff does not believe she will receive a fair hearing or trial with Judicial O fficer Sheila
Fell or anyone under her influence.
15
4. October 2, 2013: D espite not being able to show harm, D efendant U.S. B ank is being allowed
to bring forth an E x Parte Motion to change a previous court's ruling. Specifically, Judicial
17 O fficer D erek H unt ruled that the trial bond was due payable before the trial. D efendant U S
B ank requested and received a trial delay of six months. N ow they are being allowed to ask
18
19
in -
7 of 12
20
the court O N A N E ME R GE N C Y BASIS to require Plaintiff to pay a bond more than six months
prior to the scheduled trial. There is no basis in law for them to be allowed to ask for this
relief on an emergency basis, but Judicial O fficer Sheila Fell entertains their every ridiculous
request. There is also no basis in law for Judicial O fficer Fell to be allowed to show leniency
to the C alifornia B A R attorneys for missed deadlines and shoddy work, forgive herself and
her C lerk for their incomplete and defective Minute O rders and then ridicule and attempt to
harass and intimidate the Pro Se Plaintiff into hiring a C alifornia B A R attorney when
Plaintiff highlights the absurdities.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE IS THE GROUNDS OF DUE PROCESS
10
A t this time Plaintiff does not argue that Judicial O fficer Fell's rulings disqualify her,
11
although Plaintiff does argue that her rulings are wrong and will be reversed on appeal. Plaintiff
12
argues that specific statements taken in context of Judicial O fficer Fell's off-bench activities,
13
particular findings, and particular rulings reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset, including a
willingness to slant the law in favor of the C alifornia B A R attorneys and or well-financed
14
D efendants. Judicial O fficer Fell's statement directing Plaintiff to hire a C alifornia B A R attorney
showed a biased and prejudiced mindset that may be clearly discerned by any reasonable person
16
who has knowledge of the facts and the law. A ny objective person can see the prejudice will be
directed towards the Plaintiff thus: "I n order to disqualify a judge, his/her prejudice must be
17
against a party [K aren R ozier] to the action;. . . " E vans v Superior C ourt (1930) 107 C A 372, 290 P
1Q
662; K reling v Superior C ourt (1944) 63 C A 2d 353,146 P2d 935.
19
8 of 12
It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. B ias or prejudice towards a lawyer in
the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous corresponding statute-Sec. 170,
subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been construed to require bias in fact, with the
enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify a C alifornia judge for cause was no
longer required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in evaluating
recusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States
(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a bent of
mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S.) I n the case United Farm
Workers of America v Superior Court (1985,4th D ist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal R ptr 4.
C ode Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C ) (Judge disqualified if person aware of facts might
reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes the disqualification standard
fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of
11
the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the
judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. R ather, if a reasonable man
or woman would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated.
To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their
14
confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. The reason for
15
the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased unless the judge so
admits. I n addition, public perceptions of justice are not furthered when a judge who is
reasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case, (emphasis added)" Catchpole v
17
Brannon (1995,1st D ist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal R ptr 2d 440.
18
19
:-9of 12
10
HER BIAS AGAINST THIS PRO PER PLEADINGS IN UNWARRANTED
If Plaintiffs pleadings were facially defective or of such poor quality that they were
disrupting the court's usual business, Judicial O fficer Fell's angst still would not be warranted. I n
the case at hand. Plaintiffs pleadings have been quite adequate. Plaintiff admits that she was not
familiar with the court's internal process to request a N unc Pro Tune order to correct - for the third
time - Judicial Fell and her C lerk's mistake. I f anything, it is the Plaintiff who should be complaining
as she has been forced to generate extra motions and requests (including four requests for defaults)
due to Judicial O fficer Fell's errors. H er errors also gave both D efendants an additional thirty-days
to respond to Plaintiffs request, time not owing. H er decisions to publically shame the Pro Se
Plaintiff for refusing to hire and pay a C alifornia B A R attorney to "sign his name" on Plaintiffs work
is completely unacceptable in light of her clear association with the C alifornia B A R A ssociation and
C alifornia Trial L awyers A ssociation.
11 Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers.
12
Haines v. Kerner 92 Set 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (llth C irl990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes
13
63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th C ir. 1991)." It it
14 entirely wrong that the Pro Se Plaintiff should be held to the highest standard while Judicial O fficer
Fell at the same time doesn't even require low-side compliance from the C alifornia B A R attorneys.
I t is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer
(Puckett v. C ox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth C ircuit U SC A ). A nd, Justice B lackin, C onley v. Gibson, 355
17
U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal R ules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in
1 fi
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the
19
20
" . : "-_ 10 of 12
91
purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." A ccording to R ule 8(f) FR C P
and the State C ourt rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
CONCLUSION
A ny reasonable person looking at the current bench in the Plaintiffs case would see bias
and prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of the law by Judicial O fficer Fell.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judicial O fficer Fell and anyone under her
supervision be disqualified under C C P 170.1 (a) (6) (C) etseq. Plaintiff requests that the Presiding
Judge of the Superior C ourt of C alifornia, Central Justice Center, Santa A na, C alifornia assign the
Plaintiffs case to another department within the court, or in the alternative ask the Judicial C ounsel
to assign an independent Judicial O fficer to this case.
10
I n the best interest and for respect of the court this request for disqualification must be
11 granted. The C alifornia legislature made reasonable decisions in these rules for disqualification and
the rules must be followed.
12
13 D A TE D : October 1, 2013
14
By,
15
K aren Michele R ozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per
16
17
18
19
2Q
11 of 12
71
10
DECLARATION OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND IGNORING OF THE LAW
I , K A R E N MI C H E L E R O Z I E R , declare I am a resident in C alifornia over the age of 18 years of age. I
am the Plaintiff in this matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the state of C alifornia, and can and will testify to such in any court or
hearing.
E xecuted in the state of C alifornia, in the C ounty of Orange, C alifornia.
D A TE D : October 1, 2013
By,
11
K aren Michele R ozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
12 of 12
20
Hfff
September 28, 2013
The Honorable Sheila Fell, Department C22
Superior Court of California County of Orange
Central Justice Center
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, A 92701
Re: 30-2012 00601310-CU-OR-CJC, Rozier vs. Bank of America, N.A.
Dear Judge Fell,
I am in receipt of the 09/17/2013 Minute Order. I called Mr. Burns on Friday September 20,
2013 but he was not in the office. I was going to submit another Nunc Pro Tune request to correct
this Order, but since both Defendants made it clear that they understood the due date of
September 26, 2013,1 didn't see the pressing need.
First, please accept my apology for my insistence that I did not have to file a motion along
with my earlier Declaration in Support of Request for Nunc Pro Tune Order and Proposed Order.
You were absolutely right. I was supposed to submit moving papers of some sort.
Now that the hard part is out of the way, I respectfully request that you voluntarily
disqualify yourself from my case for bias. I was planning to deliver this letter to you earlier in the
week, but I was told that your courtroom was dark all week. I was surprised since it was over a
month ago you postponed my trial in my absence, a trial which was scheduled for this week. Given
the court's load and constraints, I would have thought the free time would have been used on
other cases. I'm glad I waited the extra time because Defendant Bank of America has again failed to
answer by the agreed deadline and I have filed another Request for Default.
That is not the main reason I am glad I waited before writing. Yesterday, I received your
financial disclosure forms, and they further compel me to request your voluntary and immediate
disqualification. After your behavior the other day, I became so suspicious that I decided to dare to
follow my own advice and "follow the money", or in this case, "the sphere of influence." I believe
your bias extends to your Clerk Rick Burns, though I am unsure of the motivation of his bias.
Page 2 of 3
I endured your personal bias against me for as long as I could, but I was not expecting you
to instruct me to hire a California BAR attorney at the last Ex Porte, the one I requested as a Nunc
Pro Tune prior to Defendant Bank of America submitting its request despite being in default status,
(in my opinion, of course). I did not expect you to be so vocal about me "paying a lawyer to sign
his name", just as I was not expecting your Clerk Rick Burns to declare to the open Courtroom that
I was "one of those fee waiver cases."
In my view you both have shown clear bias against me personally.
I could not figure out why I was being shown such utter disregard and disrespect
previously, but given your affiliation with the ORANCE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION and
ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS since at least 2007,1 have my suspicions and legitimate
concerns. At the last Ex Porte, it was quite clear that you were relaxed with every case in front of
you but quite tense when my case was called. I do not believe that I have done anything to cause
you concern and feel that I am more than reasonable, professional, calm, prepared, and
competently presenting my case, but for some reason you harbor clear animosity towards me.
I simply do not trust your Clerk. He has made too many mistakes that have caused me harm
and none that have caused the Defendants harm, in my opinion.
I do not make this request lightly or impulsively. As you recall, my husband and co-Plaintiff
DAVID EUGUENE ROZIER, SR. ("David") initially filed a 170.6 motion against you before you sat for
the case but we were refused another judicial officer; You later ruled that David was not allowed to
be a party to the case even though he is the uncompensated builder of the property with a
recorded lien, was also illegally harassed and threatened with the sole purpose of persuading him
to leave his home by Defendants Bank of America and Residential Funding Company, and is the
Trustee of the Trust that owns the property. Interestingly enough, you ordered that the Trust's case
a case where the Trust was in fact paying the court's fees to be dismissed, again with clear bias
against my entire family. Given that we had just removed our cases from Judicial Officer DiCesare
[hand-picked by the Defendants; heavily invested in MORGAN STANLEY SMITHBARNEY] and were
still new to you, I did not have cause to ask for your removal and so I accepted you as a Judicial
Officer. Now that I have been in your courtroom and watched you interact with several litigants in
Page 3 of 3
various stages of litigation, I doubt that I am receiving fair treatment in your courtroom by either
you or your Clerk. Since realizing your relationship with professional lawyer associations, I am even
more concerned, and with clear cause.
My bias is reasonable under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).
I will highlight a few specific examples for you in the following pages. I am writing you
directly because I am hoping that you will voluntarily disqualify yourself from the case and not
require me to publicize these and other instances in the form of a motion. Thank you.
Grounds for Removal
Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written, verified statement with the clerk's office objecting
to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the basis for the disqualification.
CCP 170.3(c)(l). Copies of the statement must be served on all parties or on any of their attorneys who have
appeared. CCP 170.3(c)(l); see McCartney v Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334,1340,273 CR 250
(statement in reply to opposition to disqualification statement does not satisfy notice requirements of CCP
170.3). A copy must be personally served on the judge who is alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her
courtroom clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(l).
With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,
Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant
Copy to:
Frank Kim, BRYAN CAVE, LLP for (DEFAULTED) Bank of America, N.A.
Yaron Shaham, Severson & Werson, APC for U.S. Bank, N.A. and Residential Funding Company
Events In Support of Request for V oluntary Disqualification
E vent#1:
Time: May 10, 2013
Persons: V arious
Occasion: Ex Parte Hearing
Circumstances: I did not sue D efendant U .S. B ank or make any allegations against U .S. B ank. I
repeatedly objected to D efendant U . S. B ank's sideways request to be added to the litigation, making no
formal request but insinuating their way into the litigation. Judicial O fficer D erek H unt repeatedly denied
U . S. B ank's entry into the case but the D efendants skillfully used C alifornia 170.6 and the nation's 69
th
largest law firm Locke Lord L L P against me to remove the case from Judicial O fficer H unt to Judicial
O fficer James J. DiCesare, one of the few Orange C ounty Superior C ourt Judges that admits to owning
stock in MO R GA N STANLEY SMI TH B A R N E Y in his C alifornia Form 700 filing. I objected and the case
was eventually moved to you. We debated this extensively, and when you initially ruled that I was
required to add U . S. B ank as a D efendant, you stated that I could sue U .S. B ank for all of U . S. B ank's
wrongdoing. I repeated the words several times to be sure. A fter I filed my amended complaint and added
substantial evidence of wrongdoing against U .S. B ank, you changed your ruling and limited my actions
against U .S. B ank for the wrongdoing of B ank of A merica even though I have never alleged that U .S. B ank
was involved in the wrongful sale without alleging conspiracy. I recognize that you feel that I need to
move the court for leave to amend my complaint to add the additional charges and parties even though I
maintain that you were quite clear on May 10
th
that since you were forcing me to add U.S. Bank as a
D efendant that you would also grant me the opportunity to also introduce all evidence of their
wrong-doing and make any allegation supported by evidence. My take-away from this unfortunate
encounter is that from now on, I will ask to have the C ourt R eporter recite any order so to prevent future
misunderstanding. Since I obviously cannot trust my memory or notes, my husband's memory or notes,
or any of the witnesses' memories or notes, I will ask the C ourt R eporter to repeat all orders to ensure we
all understand them. I have filed a complaint against her (which I 'm sure landed on deaf ears) but the
reality is that her transcript is garbage - more part of the fraud on the A merican people. I already know
who is paying her to be in the courtroom - B ank of A merica, the same entity I suspect paid Federal
Judicial O fficer C atherine B auer, former Senior C ounsel for their B ankruptcy litigation/ now routinely
ruling in their favor against homeowners from the bench. David said you two looked very similar the very
first time he saw you. H e has great instincts.
E vent # 2
Persons: Shelia E . Fell; R ick B urns; Alicia D ubois; K A R E N MI C H E L E R O Z I E R , D A V I D E U GE N E R O Z I E R ,
SR .; Yaron Shaham; Frank K im; John and Jane Does.
Event: Changed R uling to B enefit D efendant
C ircumstances: A t the A ugust 14
th
D emurrer, you clearly ruled against U .S. B ank, ruled against B A N A ,
and granted U S Bank's motion to strike. I intended to challenge your ruling but later understood that I
merely needed to move the court for leave to amend the complaint and add new D efendants. You however
seem to have forgotten what you ruled though I had three non-related witnesses in the court. Mr. K im
Page 1 of 3
Events In Support of Request for V oluntary Disqualification
[B ank of A merica] asked you to take their demurrer under consideration while Mr. Shaham [U .S. B ank]
agreed to have his answer to the court by A ugust 30, 2013. There is a reason why Harvard U niversity
paid me to attend there fine university, and it's not because I can't remember what happened from one
moment to the next! I have already accused your C ourt R eporter Alicia D ubois of having strong bias
towards the entity paying her regularfy - B ank of A merica, so it troubles me that two days after I
contacted her about getting a copy of the transcript you claim you reviewed, she still hasn't returned my
call.
I do not feel any fairness, equity, or adherence to law and procedure in D epartment 22 and do not
wish for you to hear my case. I do hope you disqualify yourself as I would prefer to fight my present battle
and not get distracted fighting you and your Clerk.
Event #3: Ex parte A pplication to V acate Trial D ate
Time: A ugust 20, 2013 at 8:30 A . M. (est.)
Persons: Yaron Shaham, C ounsel for U .S. B ank/ R esidential Funding; Frank K im, C ounsel for B ank of
America.
Circumstances: Despite knowing that Plaintiff was unavailable and fully aware of Plaintiffs objections,
U .S. B ank brought an E x Parte Motion to continue the trial. You allowed the D efendants to apply E x Parte
to vacate the trial date, without requiring D efendants to state the nature of the emergency which would
have permitted them to bring an E x Parte application under C alifornia law. I find that particularly
troubling since you stated in English on A ugust 14
th
that you would not entertain an Ex Parte motion to
vacate the trial date. Then, in my absence and in violation of C alifornia law, you granted the D efendants
application on an Ex Parte basis and gave them an additional six months when all they asked for during
my presence at the A ugust 14
th
hearing was one month. That is unconscionable, in my opinion.
B I A S: A llowing the D efendant's counsels, your C alifornia B A R peers, to play by rules known only to
members of the B A R .
Rule 379 Ex parte applications and orders
e) [Affirmative factual showing required] A n applicant shall make an affirmative factual showing in a
declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate
danger, or any other statutory basis for granting ex parte relief rather than setting the matter for hearing
on noticed motion.
N o actual bias required. A ctual bias need not be present. Roitz v Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Co., supra, 62 CA4that 723. I f an average person could entertain doubt about the judge's impartiality,
disqualification is mandated.
I wrote this section prior to knowing your relationship to the B A R s, so I stand firm that I have clear cause
for bias.
Page 2 of 3
Events In Support of Request for Voluntary Disqualification
Event #4: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute O rder/ N unc Pro Tune to correct Minute Orders
Time: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11 AM
Place: Department 22
Persons: Shelia E. Fell; Rick B urns; Alicia Dubois; K A R E N MICHELE ROZIER, D A V ID E U GE N E ROZIER,
SR.; Yaron Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.
Circumstances: You instructed me to hire and pay a California licensed Bar attorney and have that
attorney sign all of my original work, a violation of my right to benefit from and be recognized for my
efforts. A fter you admitted that you made a mistake, a mistake which resulted in my filing four (4)
R equest for E ntry of D efaults and supporting Declarations after each of the D efendants defaulted on its
requirement to answer by A ugust 30, 2013, you had the impudence to insult me. Due to your mistakes,
you gave all D efendants thirty additional days to respond to a complaint despite all parties being aware of
the true facts, which is that Yaron Shaham directly said that U . S. Bank's answer would be filed by
A ugust 28, 2013 and also that you were clear that if you ruled against Bank of America's demurrer, you
would not grant them any extension to file their answer. I stand by my assertion that the A ugust 27*
Minute Order was no mistake. It accurately reflected the events as I and all of my witnesses recalled
thembefore Frank K im, Bank of America's Counsel - spoke to your Clerk Rick B urns.
I ^mediately requested financial information on you your Clerk. I discovered that since at least 2007 and
every year since, you reported income from the follow.ng two entities: ORANGE COU NTY BAR
ASSOCIATION and ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS. As I am a Pro Se Utigant and not
contributing to your honoranum, I , Plamtiff K A R E N MI C H E L E R O Z I E R , do not beHeve I have recede I
;i
Deration from you to t*. point or that you are capable of bemg unfa, and uncased when faced w>th
a Pro Se Litigant, specifically, me.
Time: Saturday September 28, 2013 at 4:20 P.M
conflict of interest.
With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,
Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant
Page 3 of 3
flBPHSslP ^fflft*
<
^fr">BBp"^Rs?^wB?"fl8B^^^' ^SB^ "^BP* ^^^BP
SCHEDULE D
Income - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Nar
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
> NAME OF SOURCE
fE/At-
X NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S) DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
C omments:.
FPPC Form 700 (2006/2007) Sch. D
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
SCHEDULE D
Income - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM
Name
700
> NAME OF SOURCE
0PM fie c.ootfry &A. fc^ti
ADDRESS
OB,^^ MUffiy
BUSINESS ACTMTY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE
DATE (mn, a/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF <3FT<S)
/ ' s^ *3ftO VAlZ-ldU^j MtyLtr
/ I s . _____
/ / $
> NAME Of JbRCE
ADDRESS
DATE (met, / . < -57) VALUE ^DESCRIPTION OF G1FT(S>
; , s 5"50 l/yl^lOL^7 Mf5^t^7
/ ^ S
"^ r
> K- ME Of 'URGE
A.>DREK:-
BUSINES5 ACDV5TY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE
DATE [nv ivyi VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S)
1 / ' * ., -- :
1 '
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mmMtfyy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
.
;
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GtFTfS)
/ /
C ornmer"-:
FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. 0
FPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
SCHEDULE E
Income -Gifts
Travel Payments, Advances,
and Reimbursements
700
CALIFORNIA FORM
Name
Ski(A; Bill
Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box.
You are not required to report "income" from government agencies.
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE
h ; A- 2-#n 6 /v
iff applicable)
TYPE OF t-.YMENT: (must cheek one) ] Gift JP] Income
DESCRIPTION:
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND : ;ATE
_J_L!i>_L
susiN?: E; AC ; ivfTY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
S):.J_J I.
TYPE Of PAYMENT: (must check one)
;.
DLiiCKi' "ON:
(if -'J ' < \
Gift |S| Income
-firr fetWdl
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
DATE(S):. .AMT: $_
TYPE OF fWYMENT: (must check one) D
Glft
D Income
DESCRIPTION:
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
DATE(S):. .AMT: _
(It applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n
Gi
ft D Income
DESCRIPTION:.
C- mn ents:
FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. E
SCHEDULE D
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
Name
Income - Gifts /, -
f
^-
^vlZC-lA r&il
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
t 1 v /( JA /A f/ \ I/ / f LA I f f
lv>-' f t^^y Cw'rt- ^ ~''v>- Ls\ *Sr L.i^.'Of
. I / I \ 0( *i*\ 1D \ \ i)Sh
1 1
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS fSus/ness Address Acceptable) 7
i/ f / Oî 5 i 4 -aLc) llu^f'^.
'N^kM
$
> NAME OF SOURCE
/ /
> NAME OF SOURCE
* NAME OF SOURCE
> NAME OF SOURCE
; /
Comments:
FPPC Form 700 (2009/2010) Sch. D
FPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT-OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SEP 19 ztiOfil
CALIFORNIA FORM
SCHEDULE D
Income - Gifts
700
AMENDMENT
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
-TO
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE
'Z<?Cf
DESCRIPTION OF 6IFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
DATE {mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
-co-
rn
> NAME OF SOURCE X NAME OF SOURCE
-re/A t.
ADDRESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
CJ
~crr
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
Verification
ADDRESS
Print Name JO.
or
Statement Type Q2007/2008 Annual QAssuming QLeaving
nnual QCandidate
I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement, I
have reviewed this statement and to the best of my knowledge the
information contained herein and In any attached schedules is true
and complete.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date Signed.
Signature.
i, day, yfer)
Comments:
FPPC Form 700 Amendment (2007/2008) Sch. D
FPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SEP 18
SCHEDULED
Income - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM
ÂCTICES CQMMIo
AMENDMENT
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE ,
leo? '
DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF.SOURCE
DATE- (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S),
> N A ME O F SOURCE:
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, .IF ANY, OF SOURCE
2.0$ 7
DESCRIPTION OF GIFt(S).
> N A ME OF SO U R C E
ADDRESS
DATE (mm/dd/yy) V A L U E D E SC R I PTI O N OF 6IFT(S)-
> NAME 01= SOURCE
A D D R E SS
B U SI N E SS A C TIV ITY, I F A N Y/ O F SO U R C E
Verification
Print
Statement Type . [~].2007/200g. A nnual .["]. A ssuming O leaving
. Candidate , " . ; " .
1 have, used all reasonable diligence in .preparing 'this statemeTvt I
have reviewed this statement and to, the best of my knowledge the,
informatidn contained herein and in any attached schedules; is true
and complete.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date Signed
Comments:
FPPG Form 700 Amendment (2007/3008) Sen, D
SCHEDULE D
Income - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRITION OF GIFT(S)
* NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
> NAME OF SOURC
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVIT-V, IF ANY, OF SOUR
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESRIPTION OFl FTf S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
> NAME OF SOURCE * NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
FPPC Form 700 (2008/2009) Sch. D
FPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov
SCHEDULE E
Income - Gifts
and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
FAI R POLI TI CAL PR ACTI CES COMMISSION
Name
You are not required to report "income" from government agencies.
NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE
/fîiuLL&jlM&Zs!. (Md[ Ir^MJlA^'^
ADDRESS '
CITY AND STATE*
< kuiC tLticriitii 0 r^d-iu A aMm\
r
HA,- <?/ ,/)ff. , 1 .ur,i35(00
(If applicable}
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) G Gift [jg Income
nporpipT,. &u
/
i\ biLfeen'u?Mf foe iOj/g/
^9 êiuiMtfjr ptf r-fi>r>Lnf
r r
NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
n*TP(5)- / / - / / AMT f
(ff applicable}
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) [j Gift D Income
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
nATP(<!)- / / . / / AMT $
(II applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n Gift D Income
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
(If appUcaDle)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) G Gift G Income
FPPC Form 700 (2008/2009) Sch. E
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC uvww.fppc.ca.gov
SCHEDULE E
Income - Gifts
and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
Name
You must mark either the gift or income box.
Mark the "501(c)(3)" box for a travel payment received from a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization
or the "Speech" box if you made a speech or participated in a panel. These payments are not
subject to the $440 gift limit, but may result in a disqualifying conflict of interest.
NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)
Association of Business Trial Lawyers
Orange County
CITY AND STATE
Orange County, CA
BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE |~~] 501 (c)(3)
Education - Legal
nm
. 09, 17, 12 .09, 23, 12
Aifr
.
t
3,000.00
(if g t)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) 0 Gift fj Income
0 Made a Speech/Participated in a Panel
fj Other - Provide Description
* NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)
Celtic Bar Association
Orange County
CITY AND STATE
Orange County, CA
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE fj 501 (c)(3)
Legal Group
naTC(c)
.01, 01, 12 12, 31, 12
4 UT
.
t
100.00
(if git)
> NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE f_J 501 (c)(3)
nATF(<?)- 1 1 - 1 1 AMT- $
(H gift)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n
Gift
D Income
f_] Made a Speech/Participated in a Panel
QOther - Provide Description
* NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE fj 501 (c)(3)
DATF(<;)- 1 1 . 1 1 AMT $
(if gift)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) 0 Gift fj Income
fj Made a Speech/Participated in a Panel
QOther - Provide Description
Various meetings where refreshments were served.
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) fj
Gift
D Income
fj Made a Speech/Participated in a Panel
fj] Other - Provide Description
Comments:
FPPC Form 700 (2012/2013) Sch. E
FPPC Advice Email: advice@fppc.ca.gov
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/275-3772 www.fppc.ca.gov
SCHEDULE E
Income - Gifts
and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM
700
Name
You are not required to report income from government agencies.
You may mark the box 501(c)(3) for a travel payment received from a nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organization. When the payment is a gift it is reportable but is not subject to the $420 gift limit.
NAME OF SOURCE
Ct^M u4 //i^6"7"n&(. Uk&&&
QfAMM QOdM\ S\
CITY AND STATr
(tTMLMJltlJMty, OA
1
fj 501 (c)(3)
JL&clU3i - 1~&] LL
HATRSV \ bl\ < \ l!V. \ 0,3iA,lO AMT. * 3O00- <?
(If applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) fj Gift |^f Income
nPsrRiPTinN- I fifUV? jwfÎf till , L&AMMA
. .' J -
1
drii -PeT&Mj. par-hzLpstAi f"
1 r
* NAME OF SOURCE
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Q501 (c)(3)
DATF(S)- 1 1 - 1 1 AMT- $
(If applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n Gift fj Income
nFRHRIPTinN-
^ NAME OF SOURCE
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Q501 (c)(3)
nATF(fi)- 1 1 - 1 1 A M T $
(If applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) QGift QIncome
r>F.sORlpTir)N-
+NAME OF SOURCE
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Q] 501 (c)(3)
r)ATF(S)- 1 1 - 1 1 A M T $
(If applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) fj Gift [jj Income
nPSHRIPTIOM-
Comments:
FPPC Form 700 (2010/2011) Sch. E
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/275-3772 www.fppc.ca.gov

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3
12/8/13 "The Robing Room: CA State Judges
www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 1/3

Home
FAQs
Contact
Privacy Notice
Legal Notice

Hon. Sheila B. Fell
See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Orange County See Comments
Attorney Average Rating: 8.7 - 4 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating: 6.0 - 2 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:
Register
Add your own rating
E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address
Zip
Occupation
Criminal Defense Lawyer
Add a comment only
Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.
General Rating Criteria
* Temperament No Opinion (1=Awf ul,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship No Opinion (1=Awf ul,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness No Opinion
(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly
industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation No Opinion (1=Awf ul,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality No Opinion
(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on
Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters No Opinion (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge No Opinion (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling No Opinion
(1=Completely Inf lexible,10=Very
Flexible)
Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)
* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation
No Opinion
(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely
Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail No Opinion (1=Pro-Def ense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions No Opinion
(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very
Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-def ense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-def ense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-def ense)
Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)
* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation No Opinion
(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely
Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions No Opinion (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination No Opinion (1=Pro-def endant, 10=Pro-plaintif f )
Comments

View Detail
View Detail
View Detail

Submit
What other s have said about Hon. Sheila B. Fell
Comments
Litigant
Comment #: CA4506
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She is very dependent on her law clerk, and very inconsistent with her rulings. She makes many
mistakes.
Send e-mail to this poster 11/8/2013 1:47:29 PM
Other
Comment #: CA4411
Rating:2.0
Comments:
After sitting and watching proceedings in Judge Fell's courtroom, I had to ask someone who knows
her: "Does she have possible dementia?" Her continued forgetfulness regarding her previous
statements and the changing of her minutes from previous court dates was perplexing, to say the
least. Then, there is her clerk, Rick. He actually opines and rules with her. This is all very suspect
and concerning. Her bias permeated the room: she allows the banks to default over and over again,
and continues to rule against the homeowner who brings motions to dismiss on a continual basis,
but the banks continue to be given more time. I am seriously not attacking her -- my intent here is
to question her health, as when a judge continues to err on the side of the bank, and they clearly
are in default of not filing on time and fraud has been noted, it is curious how the case continues? I
worry about her health and the safety of homeowners in her courtroom. Especially because of Rick,
her clerk, as he is acting as a judge throughout the entire proceeding. When a judge asks her clerk
"what did I mean by that statement I made," one has to question if she forgets or whether she even
made the statement in her findings? Thank you for the time taken here to comment, as it really is a
concern. She is seemingly a very sweet woman, but the way I've seen her react to this plaintiff is
remarkably unprofessional in nature. Something is just not right -- her appearance on the bench and
her smile just do not match the results, and her appearing to be disoriented with regard to the case
is of grave consequence to the truth.
Send e-mail to this poster 10/20/2013 9:21:54 AM
Other
Comment #: CA3275
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Very positive experience. Supported settlement, and we did. Has a head and a heart. Good
disposition, calm, patient and listens well. Restored my faith in the justice system.
Send e-mail to this poster 1/23/2013 11:38:58 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
Comment #: CA1342
Rating:9.3
Privacy & Terms
Type the text
View Detail
View Detail
Rating:9.3
Comments:
Great civil judge, both in trying to get people to settle--as echoed in another review--and an
excellent trial judge who is not afraid to pull the trigger in bench trials. Friendly demeanor, too.
Criminal Defense Lawyer
Comment #: CA130
Rating:9.6
Comments:
Had trials before her when she sat as a judge in family law and now as a civil judge I have had
many more cases before her and I find her very fair - in fact, she forces civil attorneys to be civil to
each other, something most civil attorneys can't do. So, yes, she is a very good, fair judge and she
wants the cases to settle if they can and will give you the time you need to reach a settlement.

Motion To Disqualify Judge (170.1)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Motion To Disqualify Judge (170.1)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Вам также может понравиться