Plead Paper CRC 50 Pages Statement Disqualification Gannon

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
David Chey; Soon Chey 3741 Avenue Sausalito Irvine, California 92606 Telephone Number: (949) 262-1499 As a citizen In pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, SOUTH HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) YOUNG CHEY; and DOES 1 through 20, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____ )
Case No.: 30:2008:00219380 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO CLERK OF THIS COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION. Soon Chey, David Chey files this disqualification for cause under the 1
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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
Authorization of Section 170.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. This statement is based on the attached points and authorities, the attached declaration, attached exhibits, and the complete file and records of Case Number: 30:2008:00219380
Dated:
August 4, 2010
____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per
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
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I, Soon Chey, am the surviving joint tenant under the authorization of Civil Code Section 683 of the State of California to a single family dwelling unit located in Orange County, California commonly known as 3741 Avenida Sausalito, and is more particularly described as Assessors Property Tax Parcel/ Account Number: TRACK: 7535, LOT:41, PARCEL#: 44926210 Civil Code Section 683 of the State of California, Joint Tenancy provides: (a) A joint interest is one owned by two or more persons in equal shares, by a title created by a single will or transfer, when expressly declared in the will or transfer to be a joint tenancy, or by transfer from a sole owner to himself or herself and others, or from tenants in common or joint tenants to themselves or some of them, or to themselves or any of them and others or from a husband and wife, when holding title as community or otherwise to themselves or to themselves and others to one of them and to another or others, when expressly declared in transfer to be a joint tenancy, or when granted or devised to executors or trustees as joint tenants. A joint tenancy in personal property may be created
by written transfer, instrument or agreement. At all times, I, Soon Chey have held a joint tenancy interest by with right of survivorship, with my husband, Young Chey Ph.D., now deceased.
I allege that judicial officer Robert C. Gannon and private actors WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and their ATTORNEY OF RECORD LAW FIRMS, ADORNO & YOSS ALSO KNOWN AS ALVARADO & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. SORICH, MIGUEL A. DUARTE, STEVEN LAWRENCE, DENNIS OCONNELL have engaged in the commission of the violation of the above offenses in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1343, fraud and swindles and fraud by wire, radio, or television. Title 18 United States Code Section 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror, and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241 Conspiracy against rights, Penal Code Code Section 368 Crimes against elder or dependent adults, a criminal conspiracy to violate Penal Code Section
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
182 Subdivision 4, Penal Code Section 115 Procuring of offering false or forged instrument for record, and Penal Code Section 115.5 Filing false or forged documents relating to single-family residences; punishment; false statement to notary public to and have subjected me to and have made me the victim of the theft of my single family dwelling unit. For having committed the public offense of failing to disclose and receiving gifts over the lawful amount under Section 170.9 The Code Of Civil Procedure Of The State Of California. For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section 93 Bribery. For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section 98.6 Peversion Obstruction of Justice. For having committed the public offense of violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1962 Racketeering based on the predicate acts of bribery and violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 18 U.S.C. 241, Penal Code Section 98.6 Peversion Obstruction of Justice, Penal Code Code Section 368 Crimes against elder or dependent adults Intentionally and willfully violating the stay to engage in the conspiracy to violate Soon Cheys, David Chey's constitutional rights to due process and to engage in the theft of possession of the property. On July 27, and 28, 2010 Judge Robert C. Gannon, held proceedings on a case removed to bankrupty court - under the authorization of and without a lawful order of remand under the authorization of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9027 - in the conspiracy to violate Soon Cheys David Chey's constitutional rights to due process and to engage in the theft of possession of the property.
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 5
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
Before 1984 Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California was based on an actual bias/ bias in fact. After 1984 the Section
170.1 was amended by the Legislature to add Section 170.1(a)(6)(C). Section 170.1(a)(6)(C) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California provides: A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. In Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 237 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 440] to determine the appearance of bias and partiality, the court applied the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct as the objective test to make that determination. Canon 2, Subdivision A. of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides: 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. Canon 3, Subdivision B. Paragraph (2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides: 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.* In Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, 398 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 466], the Supreme Court of the State of California held, a judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1079, 1091-1092), bias (Kennick v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1990) 50 Cal.3d 297, 327-331 [267 Cal.Rptr.293, 787 P.2d 591, 87 A.L.R. 4th 679]), abuse of authority (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications
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
(1975) 13 Cal.3d 778, 786-795 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209]), disregard for fundamental rights (Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49 Cal.3d 826, 849-854), intentional disregard of the law (Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 14 Cal.3d 678, 695-698), or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty (Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 545-546 [247 Cal.Rptr. 378, 754 P.2d 724, 76 A.L.R 4th 951]), is subject to investigation
In Cannon v. Commission On Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal.3d 678, pp. 694-695, 537 P.2d 898, 122 Cal.Rptr. 778 (Cal., Jul 10, 1975) the court stated, Petitioner completely ignored proper procedures in punishing for a contempt committed in the immediate presence of a court, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1211. [FN15] This, without more, constituted an act of bad faith in each instance. Petitioners explanation that she cannot be deemed to have failed to comply with section 1211 because that section does not provide a time when the order is to be made is without merit. (See In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [120 Cal.Rptr. 914].) It does not appear in any instance that petitioner made any effort to make a proper order at any time at or after the time the attorneys were cited. (4) Compliance with section 1211 is a jurisdictional requirement, and an order which assumes to punish summarily a direct contempt of court is void unless it shows on its face facts sufficient to constitute a legal contempt. FN15 Section 1211 provides in pertinent part: When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily; for which an order must be made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as therein prescribed. Arthur v. *Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.2d 404, 409.) Petitioner was an experienced judge, with more than nine years on the bench before the Ridgeway matter, and she had at hand reference works which dealt with proper contempt procedures. (Cf. Spruance v.
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
Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 13 Cal.3d 778, 800-801.) *695 The term bad faith implies that the judge intentionally committed acts which he knew or should have known were beyond his lawful power. (Citation.) As so used, bad faith entails actual malice as the motivation for a judges acting ultra vires. The requisite intent must exceed mere volition; negligence alone, if not so gross as to call its genuineness into question, falls short of bad faith. Bad faith also encompasses acts within the lawful power of a judge which nevertheless are committed for a corrupt purpose, i.e., for any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties. In sum, bad faith is quintessentially a concept of specific intent, requiring consciousness of purpose as an antecedent to a judges acting maliciously or corruptly. (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 13 Cal.3d 778, 795--796, 119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 853, 532 P.2d 1209, 1221.) The foregoing record compels the conclusion in the instant case that petitioners primary concerns were first to inflict a completed punishment before the deputies were afforded a due process determination that punishment was warranted and, second, to accomplish her objectives in a manner to insure that such conduct would be insulated from judicial review and collateral attack. It is manifest that such a planned subversion of justice and misuse of the judicial power could be undertaken only in bad faith. California rules of court, rule 2.118 Acceptance of papers for filing. Government Code Section 68070. Rules of court; authority to make; restrictions; uniformity (a) Every court may make rules for its own government and the government of its officers not inconsistent with law or with the rules adopted and prescribed by the Judicial Council. These rules shall not: (1) Impose any tax, charge, or penalty upon any legal proceeding, or for filing any pleading allowed by law. (2) Give any allowance to any officer for services. (b) The Judicial Council is encouraged to adopt rules to provide for uniformity in
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
rules and procedures throughout all courts in a county and statewide. The subjects on which uniformity should be sought shall include, but are not limited to, (1) the form of papers, (2) limitations on the filing of papers, (3) rules relating to law and motion, and (4) requirements concerning documents to be filed at or prior to trial. On July 28, 2010, I came to file several pleadings, with the court clerk of Judge Robert C. Gannon. I said that I was going to file a pleading. The bailiff
said dont approach the clerk, Robert C. Gannons clerk said that she would not accept pleading for filing. I said that you have a duty to accept the pleading for filing.
I said that I am going to file a civil rights action. You are holding these proceedings when they have been removed under the authorization of federal rules of bankruptcy procedure 9027 and have not been lawfully remanded and that you are acting without lawful jurisdiction. injunction. I am going to bring a civil rights action for damages
These actions in holding these proceedings are without lawful And these actions also
jurisdiction and in violation of my constitutional rights. are elder abuse against my mother.
On July 28, 2010, off the record, then Judge
Robert C. Gannon came out of chambers, He stated, I am ordering you not to file with my clerk. to file. You are not going to file with my clerk. If I say that you are not going Then while he came out of chambers and then Judge Robert C. Gannon said, Robert C. Gannon stated that you
You are being disrespectful to my court personnel. are threatening my court personnel.
David Chey stated that the code of civil
procedure and the California rules of Court provides that a civil litigant has the right to file pleadings. And that while he would like to comply with all lawful
local rules of that this court has made that when a local rule of this court conflicts with the California rules of court or the code of civil procedure that the CRC and the CCP controls. Judge Robert C. Gannon stated to David Chey that he was going to order his court personnel not to provide public services to David Chey and Soon Chey
9
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
I refer to and incorporate the Reporters transcript, of the hearings July 28, 2010 from page 4 line 4, to page 7 line 23; page 31 line 12 to page 36, line 9; page 46 line 8 to page 48 I refer to and incorporate the Reporters transcript, page 54 line 4 to page 58 line 1 I refer to and incorporate a true and correct copy of the letter to
The Attorney General of the State of California dated August 4, 2010. I refer to and incorporate the Complaint Deprivation of Civil Rights For Filed on August 3, 2010.
Dated:
August 4, 2010
___________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per
10
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
DECLARATION I, David Chey, declare, if called to testify I could testify on the basis of my own personal knowledge. 1. I refer to and incorporate the docket of Case Number 30-2008-00219380, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2009, 2. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac Soon Chey and David Chey filed Notices Of Bankruptcy on April 30,
UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Bondcorp Realty Services, Inc. Deed Of Trust, Dated May 27, 2009 to Robert C. Gannon And Hope E. Gannon, Husband And Wife As Joint Tenants, For Loan Amount of U.S. $296,000.00 Dollars, secured to the Parcel Id Number 139-322-03 which currently has the address of 1696 Minorca Place, Costa Mesa, California 92626, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated August 27, 2004 to Robert C. Gannon Jr. and Christina Cotton Gannon as Co-Trustees UDT of the Gannon Family Trust , For Loan Amount of U.S. $150,000.00 Dollars, secured to Parcel Id Number 463-123-01 which currently has the address of 19552 Sierra Canon Road, Irvine, California 92603, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. I refer to and incorporate the First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated August 27, 2004 to Robert C. Gannon Jr. and Christina Cotton Gannon as Co-Trustees UDT of the Gannon Family Trust , For Loan Amount of U.S. $100,000.00 Dollars, secured to the real property of 19552 Sierra Canon Road, Irvine, California 92603, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM
INSTRUMENT, Taylor, Bean, Whitaker Mortgage Deed Of Trust, July 3, 2003 to Robert C.
11
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
Gannon And Hope E. Gannon, Husband And Wife As Joint Tenants, For Loan Amount of U.S. 322,000.00 Dollars secured to the address of 1696 Minorca Place, Costa Mesa, California 92626 a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. I refer to and incorporate Robert C. Gannons Statement Of Economic Interest 700 filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission on February 22, 2010 a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit F, and incorporated herein by this reference. 7. I refer to and incorporate the Grant Deed 83-439076 that states that Charles B. Cotton and Audrey B. Cotton Trust established in September 18, 1962 holds the grant deed to the property at 1509 E. Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92675 a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit G, and incorporated herein by this reference.
8. I refer to and incorporate a true and correct copy of the letter to The Attorney General of the State of California dated July 26, 2010. 9. I refer to and incorporate the Claim For Money Or Damages Against The County Of Orange received July 22, 2010.
12
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
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date and Place:
August 4, 2010, Irvine, California
____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey Declarants
13
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 Date and Place:
VERIFICATION
I, Soon W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action. I have read the foregoing, VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and know of the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff
14
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 Date and Place:
VERIFICATION
I, David W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action. I have read the foregoing, VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and know of the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
____________________________ David Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff
15
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 ____ David Chey__ Type or Print Name
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE: I reside in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and a party to the action; my address is 3741 Avenida Sausalito, Irvine, California 92606. On August 4, 2010 I served the foregoing document described as:
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH FACILITY, JUDGE ROBERT C. GANNON 4601 JAMBOREE BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 in this action by personal service. And by by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows
ADORNO & YOSS ALVARADO & ASSOCIATES 1 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 210 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
I deposited this envelope in the mail at Santa Ana, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
16
___________________________ Signature
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
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C,
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 18
EXHIBIT D.
EXHIBIT D,
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 Date and Place:
VERIFICATION
I, Soon W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action. I have read the foregoing, VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and know of the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
March 20, 2009, Irvine, California
____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff
19
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 20
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 21
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
no such thing: When a district fails to meet the procedural requirements of the Act by failing to develop an IEP in the manner specified, the purposes of the Act are not served, and the district may have failed to provide a FAPE. The significance of the procedures provided by the IDEA goes beyond any measure of a childs academic progress during the period at issue. As the Court in Rowley said, Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every step as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP.Rowley, 458 U.S. ast 205-06, 102 S.Ct. 3034. W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir.1992). Plaintiffs portrayal of Rowley as simply requiring a minimum of some educational benefit to the exclusion of procedural safeguards severely mischaracterizes the law, in what can only be interpreted as an intentional attempt to mislead the court. Counsels conduct goes far beyond the vigorous advocacy of distinguishing cases or holdings harmful to its position; counsel actively misrepresents the basic standard by which IDEA cases are judged. The court stated, Sanctions under Rule 11 are not limited to instances in which a pleading as a whole is frivolous, or of a harassing nature. Rather, sanctions may be imposed for improper or unwarranted allegations even though at least one non-frivolous claim has been pled if an attorney has not conducted a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances of a case. Id. at 1362-65. Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of Rule 11 subdivision (b)(2). (Moser v. Bret Harte Union High School 22
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 128.7 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
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
Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 950) The court stated, Under California law, an attorney may only use methods as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code 6068(d). In presenting a
matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of face or law; (C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision; (D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional. Conduct, Rule 5-200 (1992). California Rules of Professional (Moser v. Bret Harte Union High School
Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 952) And the court stated, Taken as a whole, Ms. Yamas repeated misstatements of the facts, frivolous objections, and mischaracterizations of law, when combined with the fact that she was placed on notice of her transgressions no less than four times by Plaintiffs counsel, throughout the painful progress of trying to get the summary judgment motions before the court for decision,FN9 cannot be interpreted as anything other than a bad faith attempt to mislead the Court, obscure the real facts of the case, to obstruct, and/or harass the Plaintiff. This was an effort to either wear down the Plaintiff or to win a victory for Lozano Smiths client that was clearly unjustified by either the facts or the law. These actions violated provisions of Rule 11(b)(1), (3), and (4) (Moser v. Bret
Harte Union High School Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 978) 23

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
Impac Funding Corporation states, The Interspousal Transfer Deed from the Plaintiff to her husband was valid on its face. the Plaintiffs claim to title in this instance fails as against Impac as she cannot show title in herself at the time of the recording of the Impac trust deed. Williams v. City of San Pedro (1908) 153 Cal. 44, 49, 94 P. 234. Based upon the factual Thus,
allegations, the Impac trust deed should be deemed valid over any claim by the Plaintiff. (Impac Funding Corporations Notice Of
Demurrer And Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, p.5, line 11) And A deed obtained as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations or undue influence is voidable rather than void, and may be relied upon and enforced by a bona fide encumbrancer who pays valuable consideration and who has no notice of the fraud or undue influence. Fallon v. Triangle Management (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1106, 215 Cal.Rptr. 748. (Impac Funding Corporations Notice Of
Demurrer And Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, p.6, line 7) The defendants statements are not a full disclosure in that they omit applicable case law. Settled case law shows: In Erickson v. Bohne (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 553 at pp. 556-557 [279 P.2d 619] And in 26 Corpus Juris Secundum, at pages 307 and 308, it is stated: A void deed passes no title, and cannot be made the foundation of a 24
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
good title even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinarily a deed procured by fraud is not void but is merely voidable. Where the grantor knowingly executes the very instrument
intended, but is induced to do so by some fraud in the treaty or by some fraudulent representation or pretense, his deed is merely voidable, although, where there is fraud in the factum, as where the grantor intends to execute one instrument but another is surreptitiously substituted in its place and the grantor is fraudulently made to sign, seal, and deliver an instrument different from that intended, it would seem that such fraud in the factum renders the deed not merely voidable but absolutely void, and, where without negligence *557 chargeable to the grantor there is no effective delivery because of fraud or other cause, the deed will be held void. (2) Applying these well settled principles to the instant appeal we are convinced that the second cause of action does sufficiently state a cause of action against the defendant Pierce upon the theory that plaintiffs deed was void because it is alleged therein that she was wholly without understanding within the meaning of section 38 of the Civil Code. Under such circumstances there was no effective execution or delivery of the deed, and as stated in the quotation of 12 California Jurisprudence, supra, it was void ab initio and an action to avoid it could be brought at any time. And as stated in 26 Corpus Juris Secundum, supra, A void deed passes no title and cannot be made the foundation of a good title even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. And 25
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 Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.2d 617, at pp. 620-621 [12 Cal.Rptr. 665], Defendant next contends that plaintiff has
failed to state a cause of action for cancellation in that she does not allege notice of cancellation or an offer to place the defendants in statu quo. This contention likewise is without merit. (3) The rule appears to be that an allegation, as here made, that plaintiff did not intend to vest title in the grantee, is equivalent to an allegation of nondelivery, and that therefore plaintiff is seeking to cancel a deed that was void. (See Zakaessian v. Zakaessian (1945), 70 Cal.App.2d 72, 724-725 [3] [161 P.2d 677]; Sullivan v. Dunnigan (1959), 171 Cal.App.2d 662, 667-668 [5] [341 P.2d 404].) The same theory has been followed where, as likewise averred in the case at bench, plaintiff alleges that she signed the document under a misapprehension that it was something other than a deed. (See Conklin v. Benson (1911), 159 Cal. 785, 791 [116 P. 34, 36 L.R.A. N.S. 537]; Cutler v. Fitzgibbons (1906), 148 Cal. 562 [83 P. 1075]; Meyer v. Haas (1899), 126 Cal. 560, 563 [58 P. 1042]; Sparks v. Mendoza (1948), 83 Cal.App.2d 511, 515 [4] [189 P.2d 43].) (4) This is not an action for restitution after rescission of a contract under the provisions of sections 1689 and 1691 of the Civil Code, in which case notice is required. Rather, *621 it is an action
brought under the provisions of section 3412 [FN2] to cancel a void instrument. Notice and an offer to restore are not required under such circumstances. (Meyer v. Haas (1899), supra, 126 Cal. 560, 563; see also Shull v. Crawford (1917), 33 Cal.App.36, 41 [164 P. 330]; Hart v. Church (1899), 126 Cal. 471, 475 [58 P. 910, 59 P. 296, 77 Am.St.Rep. 195]; Kelley v. Owens (1898), 120 Cal. 502, 510- 511 [47 P. 369, 52 P. 797]; Zakaessian v. Zakaessian (1945), supra, 70 26
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
Cal.App.2d 721, 725 [3].) The case law of Fallon v. Triangle Management (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1103, 215 Cal.Rptr. 748 is one on fraud in the inducement and undue influence. The defendant changes the definition of fraud to
include only fraud in the inducement. Miller, Miller & Star, California Real Estate 3D, p.126, states, Fraud in the inducement. When the grantor is aware that
the instrument is a deed, and that will convey title, but he or she is induced to execute and deliver it by fraudulent misrepresentation, there is merely fraud in the inducement.3 When this species of
fraud has been committed on the grantor, the deed is only voidable and can be relied on and enforced by a bona fide purchaser.4 A bona
fide purchaser is not liable for the fraud of the predecessor.5 However a deed that is voidable as a result of the grantees fraud can be rescinded against a third party transferee from the grantee who is not a bona fide purchaser.6 Fraud in the inception. When the grantor does not realize
the nature of the instrument being executed and because of fraud, he or she believes it to be some type of document other than a deed there is fraud in the inception.7 In such cases, the deed is void
because it is never properly delivered, and the title subsequently acquired by a bona fide purchaser is also void and unenforceable.8 The Defendants statements are baseless without a reasonable inquiry. And the Defendant has failed to comply with Section 128.7
of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. Defendant Impac Funding Corporation received service of the First Amended Complaint on September 5, 2008. I refer to and
incorporate the Proof Of Service Of The Summons On The First Amended 27

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
Complaint;
First Amended Complaint dated September 5, 2008, a true
and correct copy is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit A. And I request the court to take judicial notice under the authorization of Section 453 of the Evidence Code of the State of California. Impac Funding Corporation attorney of record Michael J. Fox could have read the case law of the First Amended Complaint. In Abandonato v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 264, 268 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 429] the court stated, when a court awards sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. To begin with, sanctions under that section are not limited to court costs and attorney fees but include those reasonable expenses directly related to and in furtherance of the litigation (Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 701, 711 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 89]) which are incurred as a result of bad faith actions and tactics. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 307.) For example, sanctions have been awarded to a party as compensation for time spent by [the partys] personnel in defending against the cross-complaint (580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 27 [272 Cal.Rptr. 227]), and as compensation for airfare and reimbursement for lost vacation time. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 307.) And, sanctions under section 128.5 may be awarded in favor of both a self-representing attorney and a nonattorney pro se litigant. (Abandonato v. Coldren, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 269) Canon 3 Subdivision D Paragraph 2 of the Code of Judicial 28
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
Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides: (2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.
Dated:
October 2, 2008
___________________________ Soon Chey In pro per
29
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 Date and Place:
DECLARATION I Soon Wha Chey declare: 1. knowledge. 2. A true and correct copy, the Proof Of Service Of The Summons On The First Amended Complaint; First Amended Complaint I could competently testify to on the basis of my own
dated September 5, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. On date October 2, 2008 at least 21 days prior to filing
this motion, I served this motion on the Defendant Impac Funding Corporations attorney of record Michael J. Fox. in order to give the Defendant the opportunity to withdraw its Notice Of Demurrer And Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities. Defendant failed to do so. 3. I have incurred those fees, costs, and reasonable
expenses in making this motion of thirteen days at approximately eight hours a day. hour. I claim an hourly rate of fifteen dollars per
And my son David Chey has incurred fees, costs, and
reasonable expenses as an assistant to me of thirteen days at approximately eight hours a day. fifteen dollars per hour. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. He claims an hourly rate of
October 2, 2008, Irvine, California
30
____________________________ Soon Chey, In pro per
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 31
EXHIBIT A
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
Soon Chey 3741 Avenue Sausalito Irvine, California 92606 Telephone Number: (949) 262-1499 As a citizen In pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER SOON W. CHEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, ) its Successors and/or Assigns; ) IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) BANK OF THE WEST, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) FINANCIAL TITLE COMPANY, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) WELLS FARGO BANK, its Successors ) and/or assigns; ) SURVEYORS SERVICE COMPANY, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATIONS MANAGEMENT ) COMPANY, INC., its Successors and/ ) or Assigns; ) And all persons unknown, claiming ) legal or equitable right, title, ) estate, lien, or interest in the ) Property adverse to Plaintiffs ) title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs ) title to the Property, and Does 1 ) 100, ) Case No.: 30-2008-00107011 PROPOSED ORDER
The motion for an order for sanctions under the authorization Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of 32
PROPOSED ORDER
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
California
came on for hearing.
Plaintiff, Soon Chey and the
Defendant Impac Funding Corporation attorney of record, Michael J. Fox, appeared. Having read the motion, the points and authorities and the declarations filed by the parties, and having heard arguments, that the Defendant Impac Funding Corporations Notice Of Demurrer And Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, And its claims, Plaintiff is not Entitled to a Quiet Title Decree Against Impac; Impac is Protected as a Bona Fide Encumbrancer, are not warranted by existing law and are a violation of the law of Section 128.7 Paragraph B Subdivision 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. And It Is Ordered That Plaintiffs motion is granted, and that the Defendants attorney of record, is to pay plaintiff the sum of $3,120 dollars.
Date:
_____________________________ Judge of the Superior Court
33
PROPOSED ORDER
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 ____ David Chey__ Type or Print Name
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3741 Avenue Sausalito, Irvine, California 92606. On October 2, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as:
on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Michael J. Fox 17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92614
I deposited this envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with Express Mail postage thereon fully prepaid I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
___________________________ Signature 34
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 35
NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
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 36
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 37
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 38
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 39
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 40
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 41
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 42
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 43
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 44
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 45
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 46
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 47
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 48
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 49
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 50

Plead Paper CRC 50 Pages Statement Disqualification Gannon

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

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

Plead Paper CRC 50 Pages Statement Disqualification Gannon

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

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

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per

On July 28, 2010, off the record, then Judge

David Chey stated that the code of civil

___________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per

Date and Place:

August 4, 2010, Irvine, California

____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey Declarants

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 Date and Place:

August 4, 2010, Irvine, California

____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

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 Date and Place:

August 4, 2010, Irvine, California

____________________________ David Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

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 ____ David Chey__ Type or Print Name

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 Date and Place:

March 20, 2009, Irvine, California

____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

Harte Union High School Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 978) 23

incorporate the Proof Of Service Of The Summons On The First Amended 27

First Amended Complaint dated September 5, 2008, a true

___________________________ Soon Chey In pro per

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 Date and Place:

And my son David Chey has incurred fees, costs, and

October 2, 2008, Irvine, California

____________________________ Soon Chey, In pro per

came on for hearing.

Plaintiff, Soon Chey and the

_____________________________ Judge of the Superior Court

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 ____ David Chey__ Type or Print Name

Вам также может понравиться

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 __ David Chey Type or Print Name

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 __ David Chey Type or Print Name