Blank Pleading Template With Line Numbering -- Word · Web viewSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Appellate Division, Limited Jurisdiction 191 N. First St., SAN JOSE,

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

HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, Sui Juristhe natural living womanc/o U.S.P.O. Postmaster, c/o temporary mailing location PO Box Nine-Zero-Four-Five-Two, near San Jose, at Santa Clara County, on California, [zip code exempt] DMM Reg., Sec 122.32, Public Law 91-375, Sec. 403Tel: 408-830-6266

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Appellate Division, Limited Jurisdiction191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113

Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© Appellant and Plaintiff

vs.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB (dissolved corpora ficta) Respondent/Defendant

Plaintiff/Appellant Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© has an express copyright release from WestLaw, which is available for review upon request, and which authorizes her to use and make copies of case law and California code.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825Trial Court Case No.: 1-10-CV-179733

Dei Gratia© vs WACHOVIA

Appellant Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman’s, 1) OBJECTION TO APPELLATE PANEL MEMBER VINCENT J. CHIARELLO FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE, to be filed Instantor Count 1: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello with subject matter of proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex. 53 thru 56, investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY)Count 2: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello with subject matter of proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex 53 thur 56) Count 3: 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787 As

– Page 1 of 65 –Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001825, Dei Gratia v WACHOVIA, Case No. 1-10-CV-178733

Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia ©’s Objection to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause

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

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Due Process; See Ex 50, 51, 52 Count 4: Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A), C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Affidavits of Truth Ex. 5 thru 11, Bias or Prejudice; See Ex 50 thru 56Count 5: Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Affidavits of Truth Ex. 5 thru 11, Bias or Prejudice; See Ex 50, 51, 52Count 6: 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Equal Protection Under the Law; See Ex 50, 51, 52 Count 7: Calif. Const. Art. 1 §§ 1, 7; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law; See Ex 50, 51, 52Count 8: Unreported and Undisclosed Acceptance of Bribes in Violation of PC § 93; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50Count 9: Bribery in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 201; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50Count 10: Scheme to Defraud, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Ex. 51, 52, 53 thru 56Note: See supporting judicially noticed supporting Affidavits and Auditor’s email



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

)))))))))))

2) Memorandum3) Incorporated by Reference as if fully incorporated herein: Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint; j.n.e. Ex. 51, 524) Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes5) Exhibit Affidavits of Truth regarding Bias6) Exhibit Letter from the Comptroller of the Currency: Golden West decertified as Trustee for mortgages prior to WORLD SAVINGS FSB mortgage origination, such that purported WORLD SAVINGS FSB mortgage of ANTHONY GUANCIONE III© was void ab initio, and lawfully and legally dissolved by ANTHONY GUANCIONE III© prior to transfer of real property res to Aubree Dei Gratia©.7) [ proposed ] ORDER

Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 –Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or

destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,

proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any

clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any

judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document,

paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,

falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any

office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not

include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the

United States.



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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the

natural living woman, objects by Affidavit, to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, due to

disqualification for cause, based upon numerous reasons cited in the Affidavit below and

the caption above. This motion is made timely in that the judge is still in office and the

clock does not start to run until the public servant leaves office, pursuant to civil rights

federal law Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. §§ 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 U.S.C.

§§ 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and

6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA PC §§ 92, 93,

Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities cited in the memorandum herein,

and Affidavits filed into Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross

complaint, and as Judicially Noticed Evidence in UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubreé

Guancione, Case 11-57656 ASW (previously served on Judge Vincent J. Chiarello); to

recuse Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

Objection to Judge Objection to Judge Vincent J ChiarelloVincent J Chiarello for Disqualification for for Disqualification for CauseCause

AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei GratiaAFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

)ss AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTHAFFIDAVIT OF TRUTHCOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural

living woman, over the age of 18, who makes these statements under oath and after first

being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these

facts to be true to the best of her belief and first hand knowledge.

1. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, on August 03, 2015.



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

2. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not

misleading

3. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts

stated herein.

4. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

5. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural

living woman is a Secured Party, as recognized by the STATE OF NEW YORK in an

official act pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 9(d), see judicially noticed

evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 previously filed into this case and served upon all

interested parties.

6. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is a non-

corporate, a non-combatant, private citizen and a real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood,

natural born living woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean

hands, rectus curia.

7. Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without

reservation.

8. Your Affiant states that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the

facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.

9. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, has met with and

been examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.

10. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams has an unrestricted licensed to

practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

11. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent

medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

12. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams performed a physical examination

on Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman, on January 21, 2013.



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

13. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21,

2013, Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia, is living, and NOT deceased.

14. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams memorialized the results of his

examination of the undersigned, as a living natural woman in a separate Affidavit

incorporated by reference as if fully incorporated herein.

15. Your Affiant states that the physical examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall

Williams dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is a

natural individual, and a sentient living mortal human being.

16. Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at

sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individual’s name on a tombstone, or; a

corporation.

17. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an all

upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.

Pro Se/pro per StandardsPro Se/pro per Standards

18. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

19. Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be

held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or attorney’s.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per motions, pleadings and

all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro

per, also known as in proper persona.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se litigants complaints, pleadings

and other papers are exempt from dismissal for form not function.



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


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed

without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court MUST inform the pro se

litigant of the Petition’s deficiency.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court must instruct the pro se

litigant on the necessary instructions.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro se litigant may introduce any

evidence in support of his Petition.

27. Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court dismisses the pro se litigants

complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are deficient and how to repair the

pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.

28. Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)

rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart from precedent, where

parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States , 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.

2000)

Governing Rules of this CaseGoverning Rules of this Case



30. Your Affiant states, In the name of God, with the gaze of Our Lord, that Empress

Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© is appearing specially and not generally, vi et armis.

31. Your Affiant states that your Affiant is claiming, exercising and invoking ALL

RIGHTS, including but not limited to God granted Rights, inalienable rights, human

Rights, and all Rights guaranteed and protected by the united States Constitution, the



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 Constitution, the Universal Postal Union Treaty and other unspecified

International Treaties.

32. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is the Appellant in the case sub judice.

33. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is the Plaintiff in the trial court case that

this appeal derives from.

34. Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by

reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

35. Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute

Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

36. Your Affiant states that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and

authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.

37. Your Affiant states that the instant case is governed by, inter alia, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and, inter alia, the Federal Rules of Evidence and, inter alia, the

United States Code and, inter alia, the united States Constitution of 1787 and, inter alia,

the amendments thereto including the original 13th Amendment and, inter alia, the

California Constitution and, inter alia, the Treaty of Paris of 1781 and, inter alia, the

Hague Convention and, inter alia, the Universal Postal Union Treaty and, inter alia, ALL

other human rights treaties and, inter alia, the Affidavit Memorializing Conversations

Regarding Self Disqualification of Judges in COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and inter

alia, the Affidavit of Nihil Dicit and of Tacit Agreement filed on or about 35 days later.

all estoppels on government agencies and/or agents, and others and, inter alia. These

Rules and Laws have not been abrogated.

STATEMENTS OF FACTSTATEMENTS OF FACT





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. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examinations prove that an all

upper case formatted name was misapplied and misattributed to the undersigned, a

natural living woman, and NOT a deceased person, legal fiction, or a vessel at sea, by

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

40. Your Affiant states that the all upper case name was applied to fraudulently

capture jurisdiction over the undersigned, by a corporate court, that deliberately

misconstrued the undersigned as other than a natural living woman.

41. Your Affiant states that the all capitalized format of the undersigned’s name in all

the court correspondence, in the instant case, indicates that the undersigned is no longer

among the living.

42. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.

43. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello used the all capitalized format

for the undersigned’s names.

44. Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigned’s

name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court record.


name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court.


name was deliberate subterfuge upon your Affiant.


names was deliberate subterfuge known as ‘semantic deceit’.

48. Your Affiant states that the use of ‘semantic deceit’ is a type of fraud.

49. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello used ‘semantic deceit’ to

commit fraud upon the court record.

50. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello used ‘semantic deceit’ to

commit fraud upon the undersigned.

51. Your Affiant states that the use of an all capitalized name of a living man/woman

is illegal, under the U.S. postal codes without the express (written and verified)



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

permission of the natural living man/woman.

52. Your Affiant states that usage of fictitious names or addresses (ALL CAPITAL

LETTERS) in a private individual’s name, or a ZIP CODE, against the individual’s

wishes, is a crime under Title 39 U.S.C. § 3003, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1341, 1342, and

is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and $1,000,000.00 fine.

53. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello used ‘semantic deceit’ by use of

the all capitalized name AUBREE DEI GRATIA© in the instant case, to knowingly,

willfully and wantonly, claim jurisdiction over the undersigned Secured Party and natural

woman, as an erroneously construed statutory US Citizen.

54. Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and

the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, each agreed that they DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED , as judicially noticed in case 1-

07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

55. Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and

the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, each agreed that the

undersigned is a Secured Party, which is a status that has standing above that of all

incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.

56. Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Vincent J

Chiarello, agreed that they did not have jurisdiction over the undersigned, as judicially

noticed in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

57. Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF


Chiarello, agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, which is a status that has

standing above that of all incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.

58. Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF



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


Chiarello, agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, with immunity to all state

incorporated courts.

59. Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF


Chiarello, self recused in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross

complaint, a case in which the undersigned was a party.

60. Your Affiant states that the state court is a corporation, also known as the

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over the natural

living man/woman.

61. Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious

business name for the legal fiction incorporated in Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL

COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

62. Your Affiant states that each COUNTY OF “countyname” court is a wholly

owned, for profit, subsidiary, or division, of the incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA.

63. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned acknowledgments of lack of

jurisdiction by public officials regarding the undersigned in all state incorporated courts

was filed as judicially noticed evidence into numerous other federal court cases,

including the U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione, case no. 11-57656 ASW.

64. Your Affiant states that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubreé

Guancione©, also known as Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, does NOT hold the office of

‘person’.

65. Your Affiant states that the semantic deceit by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was

committed in order to treat this case as an uncontested division of assets outside of either

the probate court or the bankruptcy court.

66. Your Affiant states that this semantic deceit by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was 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

deliberate contrivance to facilitate the theft of the Plaintiff and Appellant, the undersigned

herein, real property and assets.

67. Your Affiant states that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the

undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.


upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by the Clerk of the Court,

and Deputy Clerks using David H. Yamasaki’s delegated signature authority, in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by judges in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

70. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has been recused in a prior case

involving the undersigned.

71. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello acted without jurisdiction in

hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v.

STEWART in 2008.

72. Your Affiant states that the prior recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello establishes

proof of the bias and prejudice of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello against the undersigned.

73. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a bias and a prejudice

against the undersigned.

74. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, due to COUNTY OF SANTA

CLARA payments to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

75. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.



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

76. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA receives money.

77. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF TRANSFERRING PLAINTIFF’S REAL PROPERTY TO THE DEFENDENT, DUE TO REGULAR PAYMENTS that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has

received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. (see attached

exhibit from County Auditor)

78. Your Affiant states that the payments that Vincent J. Chiarello HAS RECEIVED AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA are called

local judicial benefits. (see attached exhibit from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Auditor)

79. Your Affiant states that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for

bribes to judges by other than the judges employer of record.

80. Your Affiant states that the payments that Vincent J Chiarello HAS RECEIVED AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA constitute

bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law

on bribery cited below, see exhibit attached from County Auditor.

81. Your Affiant states that no other proof is required to establish the ‘quid-pro-quo’

between Judge Vincent J. Chiarello and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA pursuant to

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on bribery cited

below, see exhibit attached from County Auditor.

82. Your Affiant states that the ‘quid-pro-quo’ between Judge Vincent J. Chiarello

and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND PREJUDICE in favor of the real property transfer to the Defendant and Respondent,

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB (dissolved corporation).

83. Your Affiant states that dissolved corporations cannot even appear in court in

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

84. Your Affiant states that corporations not in good standing cannot appear in court

in California.

85. Your Affiant states that no attorney can represent a dissolved corporation or a

corporation not in good standing in court in California.

86. Your Affiant states that any attorney representing a corporation not in good

standing must disclose that fact in court in California.

87. Your Affiant states that failure of any attorney to disclose that a corporation that

they are representing in a California court, is not in good standing, constitutes

commission of a crime.

88. Your Affiant states that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB was dissolved by the

United States Department of Justice in a plea bargain agreement, since March-2010.

89. Your Affiant states that any attorney or representative appearing in court on behalf

of WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB since March-2010, appeared in fraud.

90. Your Affiant states that since WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB was dissolved

since March-2010 it could never have been assigned to Plaintiff’s real property as owner.


since March-2010 it could never have transferred Plaintiff’s real property to itself as

owner.


since March-2010 it could never have sold the Plaintiff’s real property to another party.

93. Your Affiant states that prior to the time that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB

claims that a mortgage on Plaintiff’s real property was purportedly transferred to

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB.

94. Your Affiant states that the mortgage claimed by WORLD SAVINGS, FSB on

Plaintiff’s real property was declared void in the public record due to the deregistration of

the Trustee.

95. Your Affiant states that the parent corporation of WORLD SAVINGS FSB was

listed on the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note as the Trustee, though the Trustee was



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

deregistered as Trustee prior to the inception of the WORLD SAVINGS FSB mortgage

by the Comptroller of the Currency.

96. Your Affiant states that after the Comptroller of the Currency deregistered the

original trustee, WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN, FSB failed to ever appoint another

trustee.

97. Your Affiant states that since the original trustee named on the original mortgage

was deregistered the complete original mortgage with WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN

FSB was void ab initio.

98. Your Affiant states that a void mortgage could NEVER HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED as an asset to WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB in 2009.

99. Your Affiant states that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB was never recorded as

an assign in the public record for Plaintiff’s real property.

100. Your Affiant states that the California Civil Code requires all assignments to be

recorded into the public record.

101. Your Affiant states that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB could not foreclose on a

void mortgage.

102. Your Affiant states that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB could not foreclose on a

mortgage that it was not an assign to, as having never been recorded into the public

record.

103. Your Affiant states that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB was required to file a

declaration into the public record signed by the holders in due course of over 50 percent

of the collateral of the purported note, which authorized foreclosure and sale of

Plaintiff’s real property.

104. Your Affiant states that no such declaration was ever filed into the public record

which authorized the foreclosure and sale, signed by the holders of over 50 percent of the

collateral in the purported WORLD SAVINGS FSB mortgage note.



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

105. Your Affiant states that no such declaration was ever filed into the public record

which authorized the foreclosure and sale, signed by the holders of over 50 percent of the

collateral in the purported WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB mortgage note.

106. Your Affiant states that the purported grantor of the purported WORLD

SAVINGS FSB (void) mortgage, legally cancelled, revoked, terminated, and rescinded

the signature on the note and the Deed of Trust, in the public record, prior to the

purported transfer of the mortgage on Plaintiff’s real property to WACHOVIA

MORTGAGE, FSB, based upon the deregistration of the trustee on the Deed of Trust

prior to trust inception, as declared by the Comptroller of the Currency.

107. Your Affiant states that the prior owner of the real property located at 1461

Forrestal Ave., San Jose, CA had every legal right to transfer, as an assign of the original

land patent of said real property, to Aubreé Dei Gratia, as the next assign in the land

patent in the line of succession.

108. Your Affiant states that the ‘quid-pro-quo’ is present in the instant case between

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

109. Your Affiant states that a judge whose impartiality might reasonably be

questioned has a mandatory duty to self recuse pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a).

110. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) states:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify

himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.

111. Your Affiant states that where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning

a party, he has a mandatory requirement to self recuse pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section

455(b).

112. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b) states:

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he

has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private



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

practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom

he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer

concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness

concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such

capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the

proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in

controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or

minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter

in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a

person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of

such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of

a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to

have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the

proceeding.

113. Your Affiant states that the judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

are subject to the laws in Title 28 U.S.C. section 144 and Title 28 U.S.C. section 455.

114. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello agreed in the SFPCU v Stewart

Case in 2013 that HE HAS A LIFE TIME BAR TO HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THE

UNDERSIGNED AS A PARTY.

115. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION,

in her rulings in the case sub judice.

116. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello acted in fraud in the instant

case by issuing any rulings.

117. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello denied the undersigned her

civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, by issuing rulings in

the case sub judice without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.



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

118. Your Affiant states that when a judge acts without jurisdiction, that is known as in

corum non judice.

119. Your Affiant states that at the moment a judge performs an act or acts in violation

of a litigant’s civil rights, the JUDGE IS ACTING OUTSIDE OF HIS OFFICE AS JUDGE,

and WITHOUT THE IMMUNITY of his office.

120. Your Affiant states that a judge acting outside their office as judge is acting in

their ‘private capacity’, WITHOUT IMMUNITY TO EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR LAW SUIT, pursuant to MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES.

121. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello acted WITHOUT SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION at all times in the instant appeal.

122. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY

AND WANTONLY ACTED TO DISREGARD A DUTY TO SELF RECUSE at all times in the

appeal sub judice.

123. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has NO immunity to either

civil or criminal prosecution or law suit for his actions in violation of the undersigned’s

civil rights, based upon the fraud in the instant case.

124. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was given notice of all

disqualified judges at the start of the appeal sub judice, pursuant to their self recusal in

case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

125. Your Affiant states that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their

conflicts of interest.

126. Your Affiant states that judges are required to know and inform themselves of

their conflicts of interest, personally and thru their relatives up to and including the third

civil familial degree.

127. Your Affiant states that all judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY

GENERAL, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL and three



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

SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an “Affidavit of CROSS-

COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Aubreé

Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B.

Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©), and Anthony

Victor Guancione III©’s CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG

WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES

RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stating that all judges

in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, self

disqualified in Nov. 2008, in a case involving Your Affiant.











RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stating that all judges

in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, have a

lifetime bar to hearing any cases involving Your Affiant.









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





RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stating that your

Affiant has immunity to all state court jurisdiction.

130. Your Affiants state that the “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B.


Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei

Gratia© (aka Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s

CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH

ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS

CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stated that your Affiant is NOT a U.S.

citizen, which is an official or employee of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION.

131. Your Affiant states that the “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B.


Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei

Gratia© (aka Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s

CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH

ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS

CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stated that your Affiant is an American

National under Federal Law 8 USC § 1101(a)(21).

132. Your Affiant states that state court Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, recused himself in

November 2008, in state court case 107-CV-189409, a case involving Your Affiant as a

party SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.

133. Your Affiant states that corporations, including the incorporated SUPERIOR

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do NOT have any jurisdiction over a natural living

man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.



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

134. Your Affiant states that in the US SUPREME COURT ruling of Penhallow v

Doane’s Administraters, corporate courts can only interface and have jurisdiction over

other artificial ‘persons’.

135. Your Affiant states that in an official act by the STATE OF NEW YORK, the

NEW YORK STATE SECRETARY OF STATE recognized that the undersigned is a

Secured Party Creditor whose standing is above the court.

136. Your Affiant states that pursuant to Article IV Section I of the federal

Constitution, the ‘Full Faith & Credit Clause’, and this state court must accept official

acts, rulings and/or laws of any other state.

137. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of immunity

from all state court jurisdiction due to her established standing as a Secured Party.

138. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello previously agreed formally, in

March 2013, by affidavit, that in November 2008, that he, Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, had

a lifetime bar from ruling in any case that involved your Affiant. See judicially noticed

exhibits 51, 52.

139. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has knowingly, willfully and

wantonly failed to perform his duty to uphold his oath of office to support and faithfully

defend the Constitution of the United States, and the civil rights of the undersigned, thru

either semantic deceit; the misapplication of a law; or thru the use of a law that is

repugnant to the Constitution regarding due process and equal protection.

140. Your Affiant states that when a judge receives payments or payments in kind from

an individual or entity who is NOT his/her employer of record, those payments must be

disclosed.

141. Your Affiant states that the state law SBX 211, giving judges immunity in this

instance, cannot supersede the state constitution because it VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION because it creates more than one class of citizens.

142. Your Affiant states that the employer of record for state court judges is the

JUDICIAL COUNCIL 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

143. Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in

cash or in kind, to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS of California

Penal Code §§ 92, 93.

144. Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in

cash or in kind, to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS of title 18

U.S.C. § 201.

145. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello acted on the ‘quid-pro-quo’ by

issuing void judgments, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in the instant appeal.

146. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has agreed to his lifetime bar

to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party, in his failure to answer an

Affidavit served upon him and filed into the public record, as shown in j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52,

and supported by the following case law on defaults and affidavits.

147. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was noticed by unrebutted

Affidavit of the previous recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello and of the standing of the

undersigned as a ‘Secured Party’, with immunity to all state incorporated court

jurisdiction.

148. Your Affiant states that the instant civil case is in an incorporated state court.

149. Your Affiant states that the immunity of a Secured Party DOES APPLY to civil

cases.

150. Your Affiant states that the legal maxims, common law, case law, and civil rules

regarding the requirement to answer an Affidavit, and how to answer it, are contained in

the memorandum, for brevity herein.

151. Your Affiant now objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello in the

above entitled matter under C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i),

170.1(a)(3)(C), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or 170.1(a)(6)(A)

(iii), 170.3, 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1); Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),

§ 455(b)(1), Title 18 U.S.C. § 201, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346, U.S. v. Kemp and the

Judge Porteus impeachment; violations of due process and equal protection: 4 th, 5th, – Page 22 of 65 –

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001825, Dei Gratia v WACHOVIA, Case No. 1-10-CV-178733Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia ©’s Objection to

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause

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

14th Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias and prejudice mandatory

recusal of Title 28 § 455; violations of right to private property and due process and

equal protection provisions of CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 1

and Section 7, and the case law and common law and maxims of law set forth in the

memorandum herein, and Judge Vincent J Chiarello admissions, as set forth in

judicially noticed evidence sets previously filed into the instant case, the trial court

case, other incorporated case records, and other federal cases, and incorporated herein

by reference as if fully set forth herein; and Marshall v Jerrico Inc . ; 446 US 238, 242;

100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

152. The grounds to recuse Judge Vincent J Chiarello are C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a),

170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i), 170.1(a)(3)(C), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or 170.1(a)

(6)(A)(ii), and/or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), 170.3, 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1);

Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), § 455(b)(1), Title 18 U.S.C. § 201, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346,

U.S. v. Kemp and the Judge Porteus impeachment; violations of due process and

equal protection: 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias

and prejudice mandatory recusal of Title 28 § 455; violations of right to private

property and due process and equal protection provisions of CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 1 and Section 7, and the case law and common

law and maxims of law set forth in the memorandum herein, and Judge Vincent J

Chiarello admissions, as set forth in judicially noticed evidence sets previously filed

into the instant case, the trial court case, other incorporated case records, and other

federal cases, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.

153. Your Affiant states that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional

obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."

154. Your Affiant states that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6

are also applicable to recusal.

155. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has in the past deliberately



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

violated other litigant's personal liberties, and/or, has wantonly refused to provide due

process and equal protection to all litigants before the court or has behaved in a manner

inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

156. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED

STATES) citizen/an employee of the corporation.

157. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is established and recognized as a Secured

Party and an American National under Federal Law 8 USC § 1101(a)(21).

158. Your Affiant states that the United States Constitution guarantees a neutral (an

unbiased) Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.

159. Your Affiant respectfully demands that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello self recuse in

light of the judicially noticed evidence incorporated herein by reference, as if fully

incorporated herein, detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which

gives your Affiant good reason to believe Judge Vincent J. Chiarello CANNOT hear the

instant case in a fair and impartial manner.

160. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has concealed from litigants

bribes that he has received. See j.n.e. Ex 51, 52, attached email from County auditor, and

federal case law on bribery below.

161. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has engaged in an undisclosed

quid pro quo with the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See federal case law on bribery

below.

162. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has engaged in a scheme or

artifice to deprive litigants appearing before him, of the intangible right of honest

services, by accepting undisclosed bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, in

violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 1346.

163. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has accepted undisclosed

bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, in a quid pro quo, in violation of Title

Title 18 U.S.C. § 201.



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

FEDERAL CASE LAW ON BRIBERY(MEMORANDUM INSERTED IN MIDDLE OF AFFIDAVIT)

Title 18 U.S.C. § 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. § 1346 Scheme To Defraud The Public Of

18 U.S.C 201 provides: (Addendum 1)

In the U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,

The US SUPREME COURT has explained, in interpreting the federal bribery and

gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, that bribery requires a quid pro quo, which includes an

‘intent ‘to influence’ an official act or ‘to be influenced’ in an official act.’ United States

v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal. , 526 U.S. 398, 404, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576

(1999) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)). This may be contrasted to both a gratuity, which

‘may constitute merely a reward for some future act that the public official will take (and

may already have determined to take), or for a past act that he has already taken,’ and to a

noncriminal gift extended to a public official merely “to build a reservoir of goodwill that

might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the

future.’ Id. at 405 , 119 S.Ct. 1402. This discussion is equally applicable to bribery in the

honest services fraud context, and we thus conclude that bribery requires ‘a specific

intent to give or re-ceive something of value in exchange for an official act.’ Id . at 404-

05, 119 S.Ct. 1402.

In the U.S. v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 78 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1185, (9th Cir.

(Nev.) Feb 20, 2009), the court stated,

“[W]e agree that at least an implicit quid pro quo is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 281–

82.”

In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated 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

“United States v. Park , 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975 ). [… ]the

instructions proffered by the District Court repeatedly emphasized the critical quid pro

quo, explaining that ‘[t]o establish such bribery the government must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo, ... that the benefit was offered in ex-

change for the official act.’ (App. at 9642.) The Court continued, ‘where there is a stream

of benefits given by a person to favor a public official, ... it need not be shown that any

specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. If you find beyond a

reasonable doubt that a person gave an official a stream of benefits in implicit exchange

for one or more official acts, you may conclude that a bribery has occurred.’ (App. at

9643.) Finally, the Court explained,*282 ‘[t]o find the giver of a benefit guilty, you must

find that the giver had a specific intent to give ... something of value in exchange for an

official act, that is, that the accused had the specific intent to engage in such a quid pro

quo exchange.’ (App. at 9643-44.) This instruction correctly described the law of

bribery”

And the court stated at p. 282,

“whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be

made in exchange for some official action; the government need not prove that each gift

was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act. See United States v.

Jennings , 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir.1998 ). Rather, ‘[t]he quid pro quo requirement is

satisfied so long as the evidence shows a ‘course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to

a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor.’ ‘ Id.

Thus, ‘payments may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an ‘as

needed’ basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take

specific action on the payor's behalf.’ Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer , 85 F.3d 713,

730 (1st Cir.1996) (stating that ‘a person with continuing and long-term interests before



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

an official might engage in a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to

coax ongoing favorable official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial

official services’). While the form and number of gifts may vary, the gifts still constitute

a bribe as long as the essential intent-a specific intent to give or receive something of

value in exchange for an official act-exists.”

In the 2008 impeachment of Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteus, Judicial Conference of

the United States, Secretary James C. Duff, wrote in Certificate and report to the House

of Representatives, dated June 18, 2008, I refer to and incorp a true and correct copy.

“Judge Porteus willfully and systematically concealed from litigants and the public

financial transactions, including but not limited to those designated in (d:, by filing false

financial disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon

5(C)(6) of the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of

income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek

recusal or to challenge his failure to recuse himself in cases in which lawyers who

appeared before him had given him cash and other things of value for the Fifth Circuit

Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference”

In applying this case to cases involving the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, or its

employees, contractors, or agents, under authority of the laws that are in force and effect

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello willfully concealed from litigants the public financial

transactions including but not limited to those designated in (d, by filing false financial

disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of

the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of income,

gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or

to challenge his failure to recuse himself in cases in which party’s who appeared before

him had given him things of value.



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

RECUSAL COUNT #1RECUSAL COUNT #1C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(C)170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1),

170.3(c)(1)Financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello with subject matter of

proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex. 53 thru 56, investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY)


paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

165. Your Affiant states that CCP 170.3 states in relevant part “(a)(1) If a judge

determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge

of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except

as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as

provided in subdivision (b).”

166. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER WAIVED the disqualification

of Judge Vincent J Chiarello as provided in subdivision (b).

167. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the paragraphs of

Count 9 and Count 10, below, as if fully set forth herein.

168. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has an investment in WELLS

FARGO & COMPANY.

169. Your Affiant states that DEFENDANT WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB is a

wholly owned dissolved subsidiary of WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

170. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a financial conflict of

interest with the instant case due to his investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

171. Your Affiant states that the investment is stated on Judge Vincent Chiarello’s

annual Form 700 in judicially noticed Exhibits 53, 54, 55, 56.

172. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello admitted thru self recusal that

he was disqualified in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint

that involved HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie

Aubreé Guancione©, as a party, though it was not put into writing at the time by the

clerks of the court but was later documented in 2013.



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

173. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has admitted through self

recusal that he was disqualified in Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and

cross complaint involving the undersigned.

174. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello admitted this disqualification

and his lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party through his

failure to rebut an Affidavit Memorializing himself recusal from Case #107-CV-189409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.

175. Your Affiant states that this admission was made under the Doctrine of ‘Silence is

Agreement’ (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).

176. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted pursuant to the

doctrine of Silence is Agreement, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross

complaint, that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a lifetime bar to jurisdiction in all cases

involving the following party: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione© also known as HI&RH

Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman. 177. Your Affiant states that the Affidavit Memorializing … the self recusal of Judge

Vincent J Chiarello, and the Nihil Dicit (no recourse default in Admiralty with prejudice),

are filed into both Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and

separately into U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT case #11-57656 ASW, In Re: Rosalie

Aubreé Guancione, as judicially noticed evidence documents 214 thru 214-4.

178. Your Affiant states that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated by

reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.

179. Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has

both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code §§ 1983, 1988, and U.S.

SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.

180. Your Affiant states that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County

Auditor, and the judicially noticed exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: Affidavits of Truth,

support the allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.



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

RECUSAL COUNT #2RECUSAL COUNT #2C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i), 170.1(a)(3)(C)170.3(b)(2)(A),

170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1)Financial conflict of interest of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s wife with subject matter of proceeding (see j.n.e. Ex. 53 thru 56, investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY)


paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth

herein.

182. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the paragraphs of

Count 9 and Count 10, below, as if fully set forth herein.

183. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s wife has an investment in

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

184. Your Affiant states that DEFENDANT WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB is

currently a wholly owned dissolved subsidiary of WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

185. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s wife has a financial conflict

of interest with the instant case due to her investment of $100,000.00 in WELLS FARGO

& COMPANY.

186. Your Affiant states that the investment is stated on Judge Vincent Chiarello’s

annual Form 700 in judicially noticed Exhibits 53, 54, 55, 56.

187. Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has

both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code §§ 1983, 1988, and U.S.

SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.

188. Your Affiant states that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County

Auditor, and the judicially noticed exhibits B, C, D, E, F: Affidavits of Truth, support the

allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.

RECUSAL COUNT #3RECUSAL COUNT #34th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787,

As Perviewed thru the 14th Amendment; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), § 170.3(c)(1)Denial of Due Process by Previously Disqualified Judge Vincent J. Chiarello



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


paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.

190. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the attached email

from the county auditor documenting payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, which established a quid pro quo to transfer real property

of Plaintiff herein, pursuant to U.S. SUPREME COURT case law for bribery and recusal

of judges, including U.S. v. Kemp and the impeachment of Judge Porteous, as if fully set

forth herein.

191. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the judicially

noticed evidence Exhibits 50 thru 52 as if fully set forth herein.


noticed evidence Exhibits 1 thru 4, previously designated as Ex. W, X, Y, and Z, STATE

OF NEW YORK recognition of sovereign immunity of Plaintiff herein, as if fully set

forth herein.

193. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has attempted to dispossess

Plaintiff and Appellant herein of a land patented real property, that is assigned to Plaintiff

and Appellant Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia for perpetuity by order of the authority of the

President of the United States, as a portion of the original land patent for the Pueblo

Lands for the City of San Jose, as settled and affirmed by the UNITED STATES LAND

COURT, and obtained thru the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA and the ESTADOS UNIDOS DE MEXICO.

194. Your Affiant states that any real property with a land patent is exempt from all lien

and levy in perpetuity, for all heirs and assigns.

195. Your Affiant states she is the current legal assign for the land patent on the real

property circumscribed by the boundary of the parcel located at 1461 Forrestal Ave., San

Jose, CA, as described by the survey attached to the Deed.



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



Jose, CA, as described by the survey attached to the Declaration of Homestead.



Jose, CA, as described by the survey attached to the Declaration of Land Patent.

198. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has failed to disclose his

previous recusal in at least one previous case involving the Plaintiff and Appellant herein

as a party in 2008, which creates a presumption of bias. See judicially noticed Ex 50 thru

52.


previous admission to a lifetime bar to hearing cases in which the Plaintiff and Appellant

herein is a party in 2013, which creates a presumption of bias. See judicially noticed Ex

51 thru 52.


financial investments in a party or the successor in interest of a party to the instant case,

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, which creates a presumption of bias. See judicially

noticed Ex 53 thru 56.

201. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has performed all the elements

required for this count.

202. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 is well established law.

203. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the

amendments thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given

civil rights of the undersigned.

204. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to

ownership of private property, including earnings and assets.



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

205. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the

enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.

206. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has admitted that he has no

jurisdiction over the undersigned.

207. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has admitted in case #107-CV-

189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the

undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction. See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.

208. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has, as shown by his tacit

agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v.

Stewart and cross complaint, that he knew of his lifetime bar to presiding in cases

involving the undersigned as a party (knowingly). See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.

209. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello deliberately issued signed

orders in the instant appeal, though Judge Vincent J Chiarello has previously admitted to

having a lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully). See j.n.e.

Ex. 51, 52.

210. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has wantonly ignored a duty to

self recuse from the instant state court case involving the undersigned as a litigant. See

j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.

211. Your Affiant that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has acted as an appellate panel

member in the instant appeal, after previous disqualifications, recusals, and admissions of

lifetime bar to hearing cases involving the Plaintiff and Appellant as a party, in violation

of the undersigned’s civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law,

and in corum non judice.

212. Your Affiant states that when Judge Vincent J. Chiarello accepted jurisdiction of

the instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to violate both the

Plaintiff/Appellant’s, civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law,



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

to dispossess Plaintiff/Appellant, the undersigned, Dei Gratia, of her real property, and in

corum non judice, and including Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

213. Your Affiant states that when Judge Vincent J. Chiarello conducted any simulation

of court or otherwise in the instant appeal case and when he signed any order in the

instant appeal case, that Judge Vincent J Chiarello, did so in conspiracy with other

judicial officers, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and the Plaintiff/Appellant’s, the

undersigned’s, Dei Gratia’s, civil rights to due process, equal protection, and real

property ownership, in corum non judice.

214. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was insufficiently supervised

by the current presiding judge, Judge Risë Jones Pichon; the Court CEO, David H.

Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia Vojnik.

215. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello ignored the standing of the

undersigned, a Secured Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state

courts, when Judge Vincent J. Chiarello issued orders in the instant appeal case without

jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the

federal Constitution of 1787, and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and the undersigned’s civil

rights to due process, equal protection, and real property ownership, and in corum non

judice.

216. Your Affiant states that when Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was assigned to cases

involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in

violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and the undersigned’s civil rights, and in corum non

judice.

RECUSAL COUNT #4RECUSAL COUNT #4Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Mandatory recusal for bias or prejudice217. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing




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


noticed evidence of Ex 50 thru 56, as if fully set forth herein.


noticed evidence of Ex 5 thru 11, Affidavits of Truth, as if fully set forth herein.

220. Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28

U.S.C. section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

221. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) is a mandatory recusal, not

a discretionary recusal.

222. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) states:

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

See judicially noticed evidence Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, Affidavits of Truth, which

document bias. See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law on bribery, quid

pro quo, U.S. v. Kemp, and impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above. See j.n.e. Ex.

50 thru 56.RECUSAL COUNT #5RECUSAL COUNT #5

Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A)Mandatory recusal for bias or prejudice




noticed evidence of Ex 50 thru 56, as if fully set forth herein.


noticed evidence of Ex 5 thru 11, Affidavits of Truth, as if fully set forth herein.

226. Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28

U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

227. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) is a mandatory recusal,

not a discretionary recusal.



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

228. Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) states:

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

See judicially noticed evidence Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, Affidavits of Truth, which

document bias. See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law on bribery, quid

pro quo, U.S. v. Kemp, and impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above. See j.n.e. Ex.

50 thru 56.

RECUSAL COUNT #6RECUSAL COUNT #6Violation of 14th Amendment; C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), and/or 170.3(c)(1), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)

Denial of Equal Protection Under the Law by Previously Disqualified Judge Vincent J. Chiarello


paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.






forth herein.






forth herein.



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













52.




51 thru 52.







239. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 is well established law.

240. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the

amendments thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given

civil rights of the undersigned.



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




enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.


jurisdiction over the undersigned.



undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction. See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.





246. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello deliberately issued signed

orders in the instant appeal, though Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has previously admitted to

having a lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully). See j.n.e.

Ex. 51, 52.


self recuse from the instant state court case involving the undersigned as a litigant. See

j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.

248. Your Affiant that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has acted as an appellate panel

member in the instant appeal, after previous disqualifications, recusals, and admissions of

lifetime bar to hearing cases involving the Plaintiff and Appellant as a party, in violation

of the undersigned’s civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law,






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


to dispossess Plaintiff/Appellant, the undersigned, Appellant and Plaintiff, Dei Gratia, of

her real property, and in corum non judice, and including Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985,

1986, and 1988.



instant appeal case, that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, did so in conspiracy with other





by the current presiding judge, Judge Risë Jones Pichon; former presiding judge, Judge

Brian Walsh; the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia

Vojnik, and the former Criminal Administrative Court Director, Dawn Saindon.

252. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello ignored the standing of the


courts, when Judge Vincent J. Chiarello issued orders in the instant appeal case without

jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the

federal Constitution of 1787, and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and in violation of the

undersigned’s civil rights to due process, equal protection, and real property ownership,




violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and in violation of the undersigned’s civil rights, and

in corum non judice.



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

RECUSAL COUNT #7RECUSAL COUNT #7Calif. Const. Art. 1 §§ 1, 7; C.C.P. §§ 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), and/or 170.3(c)(1),

and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law by Previously

Disqualified Judge Vincent J. Chiarello254. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing





of Plaintiff herein, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court case law for bribery and recusal of

judges, including U.S. v. Kemp and the impeachment of Judge Porteous, as if fully set

forth herein.






forth herein.












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




52.




51 thru 52.





263. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has performed all the elements


264. Your Affiant states that each of the Constitutions for the state of California are

well established law.

265. Your Affiant states that each of the three state constitutions for California are

enforceable contracts for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the

undersigned.




enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the Constitution of the California Republic.


jurisdiction over the undersigned. See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.





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

undersigned party is immune to all state incorporated court jurisdiction. See j.n.e. Ex. 51,

52.





271. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello knowingly and deliberately

issued orders in the instant appeal, in wanton disregard to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s

previous admission to having a lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the

undersigned as a party. See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.

272. Your Affiant states that this is a knowing, willful, and wanton disregard for

violation of Plaintiff and Appellant’s civil rights to due process and equal protection

under the law.


self recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as a litigant.

274. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello is presiding in the instant

appeal, in violation of the undersigned’s civil rights to both due process and equal

protection under the law, and in corum non judice.




to dispossess Plaintiff/Appellant, the undersigned, Dei Gratia, of her real property, and in

corum non judice, and including Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.



instant appeal case, that Judge Vincent J Chiarello, did so in conspiracy with other




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




by the current presiding judge, Judge Risë Jones Pichon; the Court CEO, David H.

Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia Vojnik, and the former Criminal

Administrative Court Director, Dawn Saindon.

278. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello ignored the standing of the


courts, when Judge Vincent J Chiarello issued orders in the instant appeal case without

jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of the

Constitution of the California Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and the undersigned’s

civil rights, and in corum non judice.



violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and the undersigned’s civil rights, and in corum non

judice.RECUSAL COUNT #8RECUSAL COUNT #8

Violation of Penal Code § 93; C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), and/or 170.3(c)(1), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has Accepted Unreported and Undisclosed Bribes 280. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing







forth herein.



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





284. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello knowingly, willfully, and

wantonly disregarded his duty to report to litigants in cases that he presided in, and to

disclose the payments that he received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA on

annual financial disclosure Form 700. See exhibit email, attached, documenting

payments, email from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR

CONTROLLER. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and

related SUPREME COURT case law.

285. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello did not disclose, to the

undersigned, the payments that he received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

286. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation to believe

that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.

287. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has also received bribery

through other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF’S FUND; the JUDGES TRUST FUND; the

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LAW LIBRARY FOUNDATION; and numerous other

slush funds.

288. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from every

real property ownership ruling that results in a transfer of real property, that is made in

this county.

289. Your Affiant states that the payments of local judicial benefits from the COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working in the COUNTY OF SANTA

CLARA buys and insures ‘good will’ from the judges, as a ‘quid-pro-quo’ payment. See



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

section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME

COURT case law.

290. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello’s bias due to acceptance of

payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, constitute bribes, that resulted in

denial of due process as guaranteed by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal

Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.

291. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s bias due to acceptance of

payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, constitute bribes that resulted in

denial of due process as guaranteed by Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of the Constitution of the

California Republic, to the undersigned.


payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal protection under the law as

guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the

undersigned.


payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of the right to private property

ownership as guaranteed by California Constitution Article 1 Section 1, to the

undersigned.

294. Your Affiant states that county payments to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello were

provided by the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SANTA

CLARA, and are listed below (request judicial notice of attached email from the auditor):Judge Vincent Chiarello

Calendar Year Paid

Employer Cost for Medical, Dental, Vision, Life

InsuranceWages (Other

Compensation)

2003 $227.24 $1,790.41

2004 $1,510.94 $11,233.34

2005 $1,532.56 $11,313.90



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

Judge Vincent Chiarello

Calendar Year Paid



Compensation)

2006 $1,600.35 $11,850.00

2007 $1,575.86 $11,424.14

2008 $1,575.86 $11,540.42

2009 $1,575.86 $11,424.14

2010 $1,595.46 $11,424.14

2011 $1,619.82 $11,424.14

2012 $1,626.30 $11,424.14

2013 $1,394.74 $11,424.14

2014 $1,412.70 $11,424.14

2015 $737.64 $5,272.68

Grand Total $17,985.33 $132,969.73

295. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello bias due to acceptance of

payments that constitute bribes resulted in violation of the undersigned’s civil rights.

296. Your Affiant states that the payments received by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello

exceed the threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013 pursuant to PC 92/93.

RECUSAL COUNT #9RECUSAL COUNT #9Violation of Penal Code Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A),

170.3(a)(1), and/or 170.3(c)(1), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has Accepted Bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA





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

298. Your Affiant incorporates by reference herein as if fully set forth herein Title

18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery.

299. Your Affiant states that Title 18 U.S.C. 201 states in relevant part(s):

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; …(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (c) Whoever— (1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty— …(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; …(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;



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

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.






forth herein.

301. Your Affiant states that the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 170.1(a)

(3)(C) states:

(C) A judge has a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform himself or herself

about his or her personal and fiduciary interests and those of his or her spouse

and the personal financial interests of children living in the household.

302. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a duty pursuant to CCP

§ 170.1(a)(3)(C) to make reasonable efforts to inform himself about his personal financial

interests.

303. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA benefits from every

real property transfer, thru a property transfer tax and a reassessment on the real property

that generally results in higher property tax.

304. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello is aware of the benefits to the

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA from judicial and administrative orders that result in a

transfer of real property.

305. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has accepted payments from

the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA that have established a quid pro quo relationship

between Judge Vincent J. Chiarello and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

306. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello must fulfill his end of the quid

pro quo by making judicial and administrative orders that result in profits to the

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.



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

307. Your Affiant states that orders resulting in a transfer of real property financially

profit the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA thru the real property transfer tax and thru

increased property taxes based upon reassessment upon the property at the time of

transfer.

308. Your Affiant states that U.S. SUPREME COURT rulings cited in this document

have established that only a stream of payments need be shown to establish the quid pro

quo relationship.



310. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello knowingly, willfully, and







311. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello did not disclose, to the



that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Vincent J Chiarello.

RECUSAL COUNT #10RECUSAL COUNT #10Violation of Penal Code Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346; C.C.P. §§ 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(a)(1), and/or 170.3(c)(1), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or

§ 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has Engaged in a Scheme or Artifice to Defraud





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

314. Your Affiant sets forth herein, and incorporates herein Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346:

Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”:

For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud”

includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of

honest services.






forth herein.



317. Your Affiant states that Exhibits 53 thru 56 are admissions by Judge Vincent J.

Chiarello, that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello is invested in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

318. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello failed to disclose this

investment to the parties in the instant case.

319. Your Affiant states that the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 170.1(a)

(3)(C) states:

(C) A judge has a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform himself or herself

about his or her personal and fiduciary interests and those of his or her spouse

and the personal financial interests of children living in the household.

320. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a duty pursuant to CCP

§ 170.1(a)(3)(C) to make reasonable efforts to inform himself about his personal financial

interests.



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

321. Your Affiant states that the Defendant in the instant case WACHOVIA

MORTGAGE FSB is a dissolved wholly owned subsidiary of WELLS FARGO &

COMPANY.

322. Your Affiant states that failure of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello to inform himself of

his investment of $100,000.00 in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY would be a denial of

due process of the Plaintiff and Appellant herein.

323. Your Affiant states that if Judge Vincent J. Chiarello claims that he was unaware

of this conflict of financial interest between Judge Vincent J. Chiarello and the Defendant

in the instant case, that is an admission of a failure to perform the duty described in CCP

§ 170.1(a)(3)(C).

324. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello had a duty to inform himself of

the contents of his annual Form 700 which was written by his own hand.

325. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello may be held accountable civilly

for his failure to disclose and his failure to self recuse based upon his financial conflict of

interest with the Defendant in the instant case.

326. Your Affiant states that a denial of recollection of this financial conflict of interest

is not mere judicial error.

327. Your Affiant states that a denial of recollection of this financial conflict of interest

rises to the level of judicial misconduct.


noticed evidence Exhibits 51 and 52 as if fully set forth herein.

329. Your Affiant states that Exhibits 51 and 52 are judicially noticed evidence and

prima facie evidence that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was self recused in an earlier case

involving the Plaintiff and Appellant herein, as a party.

330. Your Affiant states that once Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was served with Ex. 51

and 52, that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello had a duty to self recuse again pursuant to CCP

§ 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).



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

331. Your Affiant states that Exhibits 51 and 52 are judicially noticed evidence and

prima facie evidence that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted in 2013, an unrelated case,

that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a lifetime bar to hearing cases involving the Plaintiff

and Appellant herein, as a party.

332. Your Affiant states that once Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was served with Ex. 51

and 52, that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello had a duty to self recuse again pursuant to CCP

§ 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), and/or § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).


noticed evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, formerly W, X, Y, Z, as if fully set forth herein.

334. Your Affiant states that Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, are judicially noticed evidence and

prima facie evidence that the STATE OF NEW YORK has recognized the Plaintiff and

Appellant herein, in an official act, as a secured party.

335. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff and Appellant herein, is a secured party with

standing above the state incorporated courts.

336. Your Affiant states that the state incorporated court herein never had any authority

to rule on the ownership of, nor to take, the real property of Plaintiff and Appellant

herein.



338. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello knowingly, willfully, and









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

339. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello DID NOT DISCLOSE , to the



that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Vincent J Chiarello.

PrayerPrayerPetitioner, the undersigned Affiant, prays that:

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello self recuse in the instant case, and the clerk notify the

JUDICIAL COUNCIL to appoint another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in

the alternative

1. Judge Vincent J. Chiarello give statutory consent to recusal, and the court clerk

notify the Judicial Council to assign another judge to preside over the instant

appeal, or in the alternative

2. Judge Vincent J Chiarello notify the Judicial Council to appoint a neutral judge,

that has not been previously recused in any case involving the undersigned as a

party, to conduct a hearing on the recusal motion herein.

A judge may not pass on their own recusal. Attempts to strike this lawful and legal action

will be deemed an attempt by the judge to pass on the judges own recusal, in violation of

the law, done in bad faith, and a further attempt to deny the undersigned’s civil rights.

Any attempt to strike this affidavit will be both non-responsive to this action and

stricken by the undersigned pursuant to the rules of Admiralty, and FRCP rule 12(f) as

scandalous, as Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has admitted to having no jurisdiction to issue

orders in cases involving the undersigned as a party.

This motion is prepared in ops consili.

VERIFICATION341. The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief,

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause



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

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or

by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for

establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,

will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically

so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

WHEREFORE, your Affiant, prays that this objection to judge for disqualification

for cause to recuse Judge Vincent J. Chiarello be sustained.

I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of the UNITED STATES, and by

the laws of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.

Date: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©_______HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©the natural living woman,Secured Party Creditor

Common Law Notarization: The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.

Date: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©_______ HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©

Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Date: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©_______ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©




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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1) Appellant/Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2) Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello, in judicial conspiracy with

Judge Helen E. Williams, and Judge Mary E Arand, sought to deny the undersigned

Appellant’s rights to equal protection under the law for appeal as a matter of right

herein, due to financial conflict of interest of himself with Defendant’s purported

successor in interest WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a financial conflict of interest

of his wife with Defendant’s purported successor in interest WELLS FARGO &

COMPANY, acceptance of bribery from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and

other possibly unknown factors.

4) Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution of

1787, and the SUPREME COURT ruling in Marbury v. Madison both establish that

the federal Constitution and UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are the

supreme law of the land.

4) Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are

controlling on this court.

5) Your Affiant states that when a judge violates a parties civil rights that it is judicial

misconduct.

6) Your Affiant states that the denial of the undersigned’s civil rights by Judge

Vincent J. Chiarello, and in collusion with Judge Helen E. Williams, and Judge Mary E.

Arand, rises from the level of mere judicial error to actual judicial misconduct because it

has caused a civil rights violation of Appellant.

7) Your Affiant states that your Appellant is damaged by the conspiracy of Judges

Vincent J. Chiarello, Mary E. Arand and Helen E. Williams to rule without personal



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

jurisdiction after previous recusals and admissions of lifetime bars to presiding over cases

involving the Appellant Dei Gratia©, in corum no judice. See j.n.e. Ex 50, 51, 52.

8) Your Affiant states that based upon the doctrine of Silence is Agreement that

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello agreed, in 2013, to the truthfulness of all facts stated in the

undersigned’s Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104 judges in state court

Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART. See j.n.e. Ex 52.

9) Your /Affiant states that the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104

judges in state court Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART, established that

the undersigned, HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is a Secured Party

with immunity to all state incorporated courts. See j.n.e. Ex 1, 2, 3, 4 from STATE OF

NEW YORK, and Ex 51, 52.

10) Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit (no recourse default in Admiralty, default

with prejudice) was taken against Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for failure to reply or

rebut the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104 judges in Case #1-07-CV-

189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, in which the undersigned was a

party.

11) Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT in Admiralty

With Prejudice.

12) Your Affiant states the following federal case law: “Indeed, no more than

affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658

F.2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW 2169; S. Ct. March 22,

1982.

13) Your Affiant states that “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is

a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be

intentionally misleading.” U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300 (1997)



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

14) Your Affiant states that “The failure to file any required document, or the

failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial

of the motion.” United States District Court, Central District of California, L.R. 7-12.”

15) Your Affiant states that “Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of

allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.”

16) Your Affiant states that “Where affidavits are directly conflicting on material

points. It is not possible for the district judge to ‘weight’ the affidavits in order to

resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an

affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of

the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for determination of credibility.’ Data

Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)”

17) Your Affiant states that “AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS

TRUTH IN COMMERCE. Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as

the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits." ”

18) Your Affiant states that “AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE

JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a

court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial

affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as truth and

matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.”

19) Your Affiant states that ‘A Maxim of Law states, “An affidavit must be

rebutted point-for-point.” And any rebuttal must have evidence provided to the

Affiant to demonstrate why the Affiant’s point isn’t true, and the Respondent needs to

provide his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long as you have your

believed truth on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their

fiction, guaranteed!’



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) Your Affiant states that ‘Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433,

clearly states at point #4 “uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as

true.” ’

21) Your Affiant states that ‘Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 “Allegations in

affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-

affidavit.” ’

22) Your Affiant states that “Orion Construction Group, LLC v. Berkshire Wind

Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit presumed

true, because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal

jurisdiction).”

23) Your Affiant states that “Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)

(affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)”

24) Your Affiants state that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to

any future answer.

25) Your Affiant states that Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 48, defines

Admissions by silence, in relevant part … “his failure to speak has traditionally been

receivable against him as an admission”.

26) Your Affiant states that each of the previous case laws cited indicates that an

unrebutted Affidavit is an admission of the truth of all of the facts stated in the

Affidavit.

Date: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©_______HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©the natural living woman,Secured Party Creditor

Common Law Notarization: The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.



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: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©_______ HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©


Date: August 03, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©_______ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©




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 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF BRIBERYEMAIL OF PAYMENTS FROM COUNTY TO JUDGE



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

From: "Rozo, Aurora" <[email protected]>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lee, Susana" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:46 PMSubject: RE: Request for Judicial Benefits: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Vincent J Chiarello

Ms. Johnson,

Enclosed is the information you requested for Judge Vincent Chiarello.

Judge Vincent Chiarello

Calendar Year Paid



Compensation)

2003 $227.24 $1,790.41

2004 $1,510.94 $11,233.34

2005 $1,532.56 $11,313.90

2006 $1,600.35 $11,850.00

2007 $1,575.86 $11,424.14

2008 $1,575.86 $11,540.42

2009 $1,575.86 $11,424.14

2010 $1,595.46 $11,424.14

2011 $1,619.82 $11,424.14

2012 $1,626.30 $11,424.14

2013 $1,394.74 $11,424.14

2014 $1,412.70 $11,424.14

2015 $737.64 $5,272.68

Grand Total $17,985.33 $132,969.73

Aurora R. RozoSr. Management AnalystCounty of Santa Clara | Employee Services Agency| Employee Benefits DepartmentPhone: (408) 299-5863 | Fax: (408) 293-1516Email:[email protected]: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.



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

--------------------------------- Original Message------------------------------------------ From: Joanne Johnson <[email protected]>To: Susana Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 7:03 PMSubject: Request for Judicial Benefits: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Vincent J Chiarello

Santa Clara County - Employee Services Agency June 09, 2015 70 West Hedding Street - East WingSan Jose, CA 95110

Attn: Susana Lee - Administrative Support OfficerRe: Public Records Request for: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Vincent J Chiarello

Dear Ms Lee,

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, a request is hereby made for documents showing all payments from Santa Clara County commonly known as:

1) "local judicial benefits" separately and individually to SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT from the commencement of such benefit payments believed to be beginning 2000 or prior thru to current date.

2) A yearly summary of "Megaflex Cafeteria Plan" benefits, 401(k), 457 and/or other retirement contributions, "Professional Development Allowances", etc.

3) Any other Santa Clara County compensation for each year that the "local judicial benefits" were paid, for the judge.

This is urgent. Time is of the essence. An e-mail e-response to my email at: [email protected] regarding the information requested herein on Santa Clara County letterhead, or comparable documentation of source origination of the content of all available records information or a summary thereof, will be sufficient.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this most urgent matter. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Joanne Johnson – 408-830-6266



mailto:[email protected]



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 LETTER FROM COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT MORTGAGE OF WORLD SAVINGS FSB

WAS VOID AB INITIO, AND CLAIMS OF WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB TO PLAINTIFF’S REAL PROPERTY ARE FRAUDULENT

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Appellate Division, Limited Civil Jurisdiction191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113

Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© Appellant and Plaintiff

vs.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, (dissolved corpora ficta) Appellee and Defendant

))))))))))

Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825Trial Court Case No.: 1-10-CV-178733

Dei Gratia© vs Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (corpora ficta)

[ PROPOSED ] ORDER

HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman and Secured Party, has

filed and served an objection to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for cause for disqualification, that

includes a previous self recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello in Case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU

v. STEWART, and seven notarized Affidavits of Truth supporting an allegation of Bias, or a

public perception of Bias, by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello toward the Plaintiff and Appellant.

Appellant seeks to recuse Judge Vincent J Chiarello from the instant case, pursuant to C.C.P.

§§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i), 170.1(a)(3)(C), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), and/or 170.1(a)

(6)(A)(ii), and/or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), 170.3, 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1); Title 28

U.S.C. § 455(a), § 455(b)(1), Title 18 U.S.C. § 201, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346, U.S. v. Kemp and the

Judge Porteus impeachment; violations of due process and equal protection: 4th, 5th, 14th

Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias and prejudice mandatory recusal of

Title 28 § 455; violations of right to private property and due process and equal protection

provisions of CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 1 and Section 7, and other

statutory law and case law for defaulted Affidavits from 2013 regarding Judge Vincent J.

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

Chiarello’s admission as truth of a lifetime bar of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello to hear any cases

involving Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, as a party.

Good cause appearing, the motion of Appellant Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, aka, Rosalie

Aubreé Guancione©, to recuse Judge Vincent J. Chiarello from the instant appeal is sustained,

and

By order of the Court, Judge Vincent J. Chiarello is recused from the instant appeal and another

appellate judge that has not been recused in any previous case(s) involving Appellant/Defendant

herein shall be appointed to act in the instant case.

Further, all orders signed by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello are void ab initio in the instant appeal.

Date: ____/____/20___ _____________________________ SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Documents

Blank Pleading Template With Line Numbering -- Word · Web viewSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Appellate Division, Limited Jurisdiction 191 N. First St., SAN JOSE,