Blank Pleading Template With Line Numbering -- Word · Web view2015/08/16 · Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that In the 2008 impeachment 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

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

1) Appellant Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman takes a: Nihil Dicit Default, (A No Recourse Nihil Dicit Default, (A No Recourse Default in Admiralty, also called a Default in Admiralty, also called a Default With Prejudice in Admiralty), Default With Prejudice in Admiralty), Against Judge Vincent J. Against Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, For FailureChiarello, For Failure To To Specifically and Explicitly Answer Each Specifically and Explicitly Answer Each Numbered Paragraph of the Objection toNumbered Paragraph of the Objection to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause, As A Disqualification for Cause, As A Material Fact, With Either Admit, Deny,Material Fact, With Either Admit, Deny, or Deny for Want of Knowledge In or Deny for Want of Knowledge In Accordance With C.C.P. 431.30, To Be Accordance With C.C.P. 431.30, To Be Filed Instantor Filed Instantor Admitted 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)Admitted Count 2 : C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a),

- 1 -DOCUMENT TITLE (e.g., COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

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

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

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) Admitted Count 3 : 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Due Process; See Ex 50, 51, 52 Admitted 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 56Admitted Count 5 : Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Affidavits of Truth Ex. 5 thru 11, Bias or Prejudice; See Ex 50, 51, 52Admitted Count 6 : 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Denial of Equal Protection Under the Law; See Ex 50, 51, 52 Admitted 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, 52Admitted Count 8 : Unreported and Undisclosed Acceptance of Bribes in Violation of PC § 93; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50Admitted Count 9 : Bribery in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 201; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); See attached email from county auditor, payment of bribes in exchange for


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

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

quid pro quo pursuant to US Supreme Court case law herein, and Ex. 50Admitted Count 10 : Scheme to Defraud, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346; C.C.P. § 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(c)(1); Ex. 51, 52, 53 thru 56Note: See supporting judicially noticed supporting Affidavits and Auditor’s email2) 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 deregistered 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 V. Guancione III© prior to transfer of the land patent of the real property res to Plaintiff and Appellant Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©.

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


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

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.

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

living woman, takes a default to the objection, 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 and takes a Nihil Dicit Default -- a no recourse default in Admiralty,

also known as a default ‘with prejudice’ in Admiralty, on the Affidavit of Objection to

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello due to disqualification for cause and the supporting judicially

noticed evidence Exhibit #56 and additional exhibits submitted with or prior to and in

support of the recusal, which are evidence under the evidence code, and which are

established as truth and fact when unrebutted under the evidence code, and the email from

the SANTA CLARA COUNTY Auditor (which is established as evidence under the

evidence code and fact when unrebutted under the evidence code) attached to the Affidavit

of Objection to Judge. This default is taken timely in that the judge is still in office and the

clock does not start to run until the public servant leaves office. Judge Vincent J. Chiarello

admitted to the truthfulness of each material fact stated in the Affidavit of Objection to

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 431.10,

431.30 , that 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 Penal

Code §§ 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, refiled as judicially noticed evidence into the instant case as Exhibits

51, 52; 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.


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

Appellant takes a Nihil Dicit Default toAppellant takes a Nihil Dicit Default to Objection to Judge Objection to Judge Vincent J ChiarelloVincent J Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause for Disqualification for Cause

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 17, 2015.

2. Your Affiant states and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the

fact that the facts described herein are true, complete and not misleading


fact that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts stated herein.


fact that the facts described herein describe events that have occurred within the COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without reservation.


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


fact that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the facts stated herein that the

undersigned is competent to do so.


fact that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, has met with and been examined by Dr.

Marshall Williams.


fact that Dr. Marshall Williams has an unrestricted licensed to practice medicine and surgery

in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.


fact that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent medical authority by the STATE

OF CALIFORNIA.


fact that Dr. Marshall Williams performed a physical examination on Empress Aubreé Regina

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


fact that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21, 2013, Empress Aubreé Regina

Dei Gratia, is living, and NOT deceased.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


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


fact that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an all upper case formatted

name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of theJudge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of the following Material Facts Regardingfollowing Material Facts Regarding Pro Se/pro per Standards Pro 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.


fact 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.


fact that pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 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.



U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in proper

persona.



U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se litigants complaints, pleadings and other papers are exempt

from dismissal for form not function.



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.




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

U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court MUST inform the pro se litigant of the Petition’s

deficiency.



U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court must instruct the pro se litigant on the necessary

instructions.



U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro se litigant may introduce any evidence in support of his

Petition.


fact 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.


fact 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)

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of the Fact that theJudge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of the Fact that the

following arefollowing are Governing Rules of this Case Governing Rules of this Case




fact, 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.


fact 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


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

and protected by the united States Constitution, the California Constitution, the Universal

Postal Union Treaty and other unspecified International Treaties.


fact that the undersigned is the Appellant in the case sub judice.


fact that the undersigned is the Plaintiff in the trial court case that this appeal derives from.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and authority as basis for and in

support of this pleading.


fact 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.


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 J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of each of the followingJudge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the Truthfulness of each of the following

Material Facts asMaterial Facts as STATEMENTS OF FACT STATEMENTS OF FACT




fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the undersigned is NOT deceased.


fact that he used the all capitalized format for the undersigned’s names.


fact that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigned’s name was deliberate

subterfuge upon the court record.



subterfuge upon the court.



subterfuge upon 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

fact that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigned’s names was deliberate

subterfuge known as ‘semantic deceit’.


fact that the use of ‘semantic deceit’ is a type of fraud.


fact that he used ‘semantic deceit’ to commit fraud upon the court record.


fact that he used ‘semantic deceit’ to commit fraud upon the undersigned.


fact 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) permission of the natural living

man/woman.


fact 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.


fact that he 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.


fact 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.



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

fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Vincent J 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.


fact that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Vincent J Chiarello, agreed that the undersigned

is a secured party, with immunity to all state incorporated courts.


fact that in 2013 all 104 judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Vincent J Chiarello, self recused in case 1-07-CV-

189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, a case in which the undersigned was a

party.


fact 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.


fact that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious business name for 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

legal fiction incorporated in Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA.


fact that each COUNTY OF “countyname” court is a wholly owned, for profit, subsidiary, or

division, of the incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.


fact 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.


fact that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubreé Guancione©, also known as

Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, does NOT hold the office of ‘person’.


fact 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.


fact that this ‘semantic deceit’ by Judge Vincent J. Chiarello was a deliberate contrivance to

facilitate the theft of the Plaintiff and Appellant, the undersigned herein, real property and

assets.


fact that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the undersigned under the

presumption that the undersigned is deceased.



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


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, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.



name was misapplied to the undersigned by judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


fact that he has been recused in a prior case involving the undersigned.


fact that he acted without jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in

case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART in 2008.


fact that the prior recusal of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello establishes proof of the bias and

prejudice of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello against the undersigned.


fact that he has a bias and a prejudice against the undersigned.


fact that he HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, due to

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA payments to Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.


fact he HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF case outcomes that include

favorable verdicts for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


fact that he HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF case outcomes that include

verdicts in which the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA receives money.


fact he 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)


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


fact that the payments that Judge 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)


fact that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for bribes to judges by other than

the judges employer of record.


fact that the payments that Judge 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.


fact 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.


fact 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).


fact that ‘DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS’, such as the dissolved corporation known as

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, cannot even appear in court in California.


fact that corporations not in good standing cannot 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


fact that NO ATTORNEY CAN REPRESENT A DISSOLVED CORPORATION OR A CORPORATION NOT IN GOOD STANDING in court in California.


fact that any attorney representing a corporation not in good standing must disclose that fact

in court in California.


fact 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.


fact that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB was dissolved by the UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE in a plea bargain agreement, since March-2010.


fact that any attorney or representative appearing in court on behalf of WACHOVIA

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


fact that since WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB was dissolved since March-2010 it could

never have been assigned to Plaintiff’s real property as owner.



never have transferred Plaintiff’s real property to itself as owner.



never have sold the Plaintiff’s real property to another party.


fact 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.


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


fact 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.


fact 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 deregistered as Trustee prior to

the inception of the WORLD SAVINGS FSB mortgage by the Comptroller of the Currency.


fact that after the Comptroller of the Currency deregistered the original trustee, WORLD

SAVINGS AND LOAN, FSB failed to ever appoint another trustee.


fact 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.


fact that a void mortgage could NEVER HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED as an asset to

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB in 2009.

99. Your Affiant states Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello

admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB was never

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


fact that the California Civil Code requires all assignments to be recorded into the public

record.


fact that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB could not foreclose on a void mortgage.


fact 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.


fact that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB was required to file a declaration into the public


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

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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the ‘quid-pro-quo’ is present in the instant case between Judge Vincent J. Chiarello

and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


fact 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).


fact that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) 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

(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.


fact 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).


fact 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 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.


fact 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.


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


fact that he 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.


fact that he acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in her rulings in the case sub judice.


fact that he acted in fraud in the instant case by issuing any rulings.


fact that he 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.


fact that when a judge acts without jurisdiction, that is known as in corum non judice.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that he acted WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION at all times in the instant

appeal.


fact that he DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY AND WANTONLY ACTED TO DISREGARD A DUTY

TO SELF RECUSE at all times in the appeal sub 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


fact that he 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.


fact that he 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.


fact that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their conflicts of interest.


fact 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.


fact 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 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.







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






JUDGES 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.











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

Affiant has immunity to all state court jurisdiction.


fact that the “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” stated that your Affiant is NOT a U.S. citizen, which is an official or employee of the

UNITED STATES CORPORATION.


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


fact that the “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” stated that your Affiant is an American National under Federal Law 8 USC § 1101(a)

(21).


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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’.


fact 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 and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the

fact 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.


fact that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of immunity from all state court


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

jurisdiction due to her established standing as a Secured Party.


fact 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.


fact that he 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the employer of record for state court judges is the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that he acted on the ‘quid-pro-quo’ by issuing void judgments, WITHOUT


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, in the instant appeal.


fact 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.


fact that he 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.


fact that the instant civil case is in an incorporated state court.


fact that the immunity of a Secured Party DOES APPLY to civil cases.


fact 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 and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact

that the undersigned 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: 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


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 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).


fact 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.


fact that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard

personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."


fact that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6 are also applicable to

recusal.


fact he has in the past deliberately 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.



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

fact that the undersigned is NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED STATES) citizen/an

employee of the corporation.


fact that the undersigned is established and recognized as a Secured Party and an American

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


fact 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 and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the

truthfulness of the fact 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.


fact that he 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.


fact that he has engaged in an undisclosed quid pro quo with the COUNTY OF SANTA

CLARA. See federal case law on bribery below.


fact that he 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.


fact that he 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

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello Admitted that the Truthfulness of the Fact that the following is 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)

and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact In the U.S. v. Kemp,

500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,

and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that 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 .

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that 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.”


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 J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that In the U.S. v. Kemp,

supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated in,

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that “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,

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact “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.


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

Sawyer , 85 F.3d 713, 730 (1st Cir.1996 ) (stating that ‘a person with continuing and long-term

interests before 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.”

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that 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 Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that “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”

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact 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


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

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.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNT RECUSAL COUNT #1#1

C.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.


fact 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).”


fact 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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has an investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


fact that DEFENDANT WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB is a wholly owned DISSOLVED SUBSIDIARY of WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


fact that he has a financial conflict of interest with the instant case due to his investment in

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


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


fact that the investment is stated on Judge Vincent Chiarello’s annual Form 700 in judicially

noticed Exhibits 53, 54, 55, 56.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that he 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.


fact that this admission was made under the Doctrine of ‘Silence is Agreement’ (see

Memorandum authorities on defaults). 176. Your Affiant states and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the

fact that 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.


fact that the Affidavit Memorializing … the self recusal of Judge Vincent J Chiarello, and 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

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.


fact that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated by reference herein as if

fully incorporated herein.


fact 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.


fact 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.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNT RECUSAL COUNT #2#2

C.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.


fact that his wife has an investment in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


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


fact admitted that DEFENDANT WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB is currently a wholly

owned DISSOLVED SUBSIDIARY of WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


fact that through Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, his wife has a financial conflict of interest with

the instant case due to her investment of $100,000.00 in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


fact that the investment is stated on Judge Vincent Chiarello’s annual Form 700 in judicially

noticed Exhibits 53, 54, 55, 56.


fact 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.


fact that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County Auditor, and the judicially noticed

exhibits (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 which were served with the Appellant’s Objection to Judge Vincent

J. Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause ) [sic B, C, D, E, F]: Affidavits of Truth, support

the allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNTRECUSAL COUNT

#3#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


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 and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that


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

it is 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.


evidence and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact 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.


fact that he 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 LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE MEXICO.


fact that any real property with a land patent is exempt from all lien and levy in perpetuity,

for all heirs and assigns.


fact she ( the undersigned, Plaintiff and Appellant Aubree Regina Dei Gratia) 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.


fact she (the undersigned, Plaintiff and Appellant Aubree Regina Dei Gratia) is the current



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


the Declaration of Homestead.


fact she (the undersigned, Plaintiff and Appellant Aubree Regina Dei Gratia) is the current



the Declaration of Land Patent.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has failed to disclose his 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.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has failed to disclose his 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.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has performed all the elements required for this

count.


fact that the federal Constitution of 1787 is well established law.


fact 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

fact that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to ownership of private

property, including earnings and assets.


fact that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the enforcement of the guaranteed

rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has admitted that he has no jurisdiction over the

undersigned.

207. Your Affiant states Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted t and Judge Vincent J.

Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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


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

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.


fact that he (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, 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.


fact 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.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that when he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) was assigned to cases involving 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

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.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNTRECUSAL COUNT #4#4

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




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


evidence of Ex (2 thru 8) [sic 5 thru 11], Affidavits of Truth, as if fully set forth herein.


fact 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.


fact that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) is a mandatory recusal, not a discretionary recusal.


fact 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 (2 thru 8) [ sic 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.


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


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




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


evidence of Ex (2 thru 8) [ sic 5 thru 11], Affidavits of Truth, as if fully set forth herein.


fact 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.


fact that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) is a mandatory recusal, not a discretionary recusal.


fact 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 (2 thru 8) [ sic 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.

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNT RECUSAL COUNT

#6#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


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

Previously Disqualified Judge Vincent J. Chiarello


paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.



the email documents payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to Judge Vincent J.







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.


fact that he (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 LOS

ESTADOS UNIDOS DE MEXICO.





fact that he has failed to disclose his previous recusal in at least one previous case involving


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

the Plaintiff and Appellant herein as a party in 2008, which creates a presumption of bias. See

judicially noticed Ex 50 thru 52.











count.


fact that the federal Constitution of 1787 is well established law.


fact 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.






rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has (previously) admitted that he has no jurisdiction over

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


fact 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.


fact that he (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

(Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) knew of his lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the

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


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (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.


fact that when he (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, 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.


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


fact that when he (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.



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.



Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state courts, when Judge Vincent J.


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, and in corum non judice.




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


Calif. 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. 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












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.


fact that he (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 LOS

ESTADOS UNIDOS DE MEXICO.





fact that he (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.


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











count.


fact that each of the Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.


fact that each of the three state constitutions for California are enforceable contracts for

protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the undersigned.






rights of the Constitution of the California Republic.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has admitted that HE HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED . See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has admitted in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart


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

and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the undersigned party is immune to

all state incorporated court jurisdiction. See j.n.e. Ex. 51, 52.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted that he 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.


fact that he (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.


fact that the above described actions of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello were a knowing, willful,

and wanton disregard for violation of Plaintiff and Appellant’s civil rights to due process and

equal protection under the law.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted that he has wantonly ignored a duty to self

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


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted that he 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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted that when he 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, it was to dispossess


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

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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted that when he 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.



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.



Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state courts, when Judge Vincent J


violation of Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, and Title






Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact of RECUSAL COUNT #8RECUSAL COUNT #8Violation 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


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












fact that he has performed all the elements required for this count.


fact that he (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.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) did not disclose, to the undersigned, the payments

that he received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


fact that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation to believe that public funds would not

be used to bribe Judge Vincent J. Chiarello.


fact that he (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello) has also received bribery through other funds

including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA CLARA COUNTY


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

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

LIBRARY FOUNDATION; and numerous other slush funds.


fact 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.


fact 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 section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201

Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.


fact that his (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.


fact that his (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.


fact that his (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s) bias due to acceptance of 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.


fact that his (Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s) bias due to acceptance of 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.


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


fact that the amounts of 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

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


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


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello’s bias due to acceptance of payments that constitute

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


fact 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.


Violation 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 297. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing


298. Your Affiant incorporates by reference herein as if fully set forth herein Title 18

U.S.C. 201 Bribery.


fact 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;


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








fact 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.


fact that he (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.


fact that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA benefits from every real property transfer, thru 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

property transfer tax and a reassessment on the real property that generally results in higher

property tax.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has performed all the elements required for this count.


fact 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



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


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello did not disclose, to the undersigned, the payments that he

received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.



be used to bribe Judge Vincent J Chiarello.


Violation 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



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.










fact that Exhibits 53 thru 56 are admissions by him, that he, Judge Vincent J. Chiarello is

invested in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


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


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello failed to disclose his WELLS FARGO & COMPANY

investment to the parties in the instant case.


fact 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.


fact 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.


fact that the Defendant in the instant case WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB is a dissolved

wholly owned subsidiary of WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.


fact that failure of Judge Vincent J. Chiarello to inform himself of his investment of

$100,000.00 in WELLS FARGO & COMPANY is a denial of due process of the Plaintiff and

Appellant herein.


fact 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 to track his conflicts, as described in CCP

§ 170.1(a)(3)(C).


fact 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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello may be held accountable civilly for his failure to disclose


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

and his failure to self recuse based upon his financial conflict of interest with the Defendant

in the instant case.


fact admitted that a denial of recollection of this financial conflict of interest is not mere

judicial error.


fact that a denial of recollection of this financial conflict of interest rises to the level of

judicial misconduct.


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


fact 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.


fact 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).


fact that Exhibits 51 and 52 are judicially noticed evidence and prima facie evidence that

Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted in 2013, in an unrelated case, that Judge Vincent J.

Chiarello has a lifetime bar to hearing cases involving the Plaintiff and Appellant herein, as a

party.


fact 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


evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, formerly W, X, Y, Z, as if fully set forth herein.


fact 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.


fact that Plaintiff and Appellant herein, is a secured party with standing above the state

incorporated courts.


fact 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.


fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has performed all the elements required for this count.


fact 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



fact that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello DID NOT DISCLOSE , to the undersigned, the payments

that he received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.



be used to bribe 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

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

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 nihil dicit default to objection to Judge

Vincent J. Chiarello for disqualification for cause be sustained, and a new judge be assigned

to the appellate panel.

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 15, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©_______HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©the natural living woman, Secured Party Creditor


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Common Law Notarization: The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.

Date: August 15, 2015 By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©_______ HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©

Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Date: August 15, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano R.A.P. Beaujayam©_______ K. Romano R.A.P. Beaujayam©


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1) Appellant/Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing


2) Your Affiant states and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the

fact 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.


fact 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.


fact admitted that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are controlling on this

court.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


fact that when a judge violates a parties civil rights that it is judicial misconduct.


fact 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.


fact that your Appellant is damaged by the conspiracy of Judges Vincent J. Chiarello, Mary

E. Arand and Helen E. Williams to rule without personal 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.


fact 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.

10) Your /Affiant states and Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the

fact 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.


fact 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.


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


fact that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT in Admiralty With Prejudice.


fact of 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.


fact 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)


fact 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.”


fact that “Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are

contradicted by affidavit.”


fact 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)”


fact 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." ”


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


fact 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.”


fact 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!’


fact 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.” ’


fact 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.” ’


fact 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).”


fact that “Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988) (affidavit in 28 USC 144

recusal proceeding presumed true)”


fact that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to any future answer.


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


fact 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”.


fact 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 16, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©_______HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©the natural living woman,Secured Party Creditor


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Common Law Notarization: The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.

Date: August 16, 2015 By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©_______ HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©


Date: August 16, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©_______ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©



Documents

Blank Pleading Template With Line Numbering -- Word · Web view2015/08/16 · Judge Vincent J. Chiarello admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that In the 2008 impeachment of