1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Antoine Bacha 25 Auvergne Newport Coast, California 92657 Telephone Number: (949) 887-9073 In pro se

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA8

COUNTY OF ORANGE, SOUTH HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER9 10

PD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS11

LLC

Plaintiff,12

vs.13 14 15

ANTOINE BACHA; and DOES I TO V inclusive, Defendant(s).

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

____

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

Case No.: 30-2011-00489164 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TO CLERK OF THIS COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION. Antoine Bacha files this disqualification for cause under the1VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Authorization of Section 170.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. This statement is based on the attached points and authorities, the attached declaration, attached exhibits, and the complete file and records of Case Number: 30-2011-00489164

Dated:

January 19, 2012

____________________________ Antoine Bacha In pro per

2VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI allege that judicial officer Corey S. Cramin and private actors PD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC and their ATTORNEY OF RECORD, STEVEN D SILVERSTEIN have engaged in the commission of the violation of the below state law and federal offenses, violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1343, fraud and swindles and fraud by wire, radio, or television. U.S.C. Section 241 Conspiracy against rights, a criminal conspiracy to violate Penal Code Section 182 Subdivision 4, Penal Code Section 118 Perjury to subject me to and to make me the victim of the theft of my condominium dwelling unit. For having committed the public offense of failing to disclose and receiving gifts over the lawful amount under Section 170.9 The Code Of Civil Procedure Of The State Of California. For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section 93 Bribery. For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section 98.6 Peversion Obstruction of Justice. For having committed the public offense of violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1962 Racketeering based on the predicate acts of bribery and violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 18 U.S.C. 241, Penal Code Section 98.6 Peversion Obstruction of Justice, Penal Code Section 118 Perjury Intentionally and willfully violate the Federal Courts Subject Matter Jurisdiction and to act in absence of all jurisdiction, to engage in the conspiracy to violate Antoine Bachas, constitutional rights to due process and to engage in the theft of possession of the property. On January 12, and 17, 2010 Judge Corey S. Cramin, held proceedings on a case removed to bankrupty court - under the authorization of and without a lawful order of remand under the authorization of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9027 - in the conspiracy to violate Antoine Bachas constitutional rights to due process and to3VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

engage in the theft of possession of the property. I refer to and incorporate the docket of Case Number 30-2011-00489164, a true and correct copy is in the file and records of Case Number 30-2011-00489164 and which I incorporate it herein by this reference. I refer to and incorporate the Notice Of Removal, a true and correct copy is in the file and records of Case Number 30-2011-00489164 and which I incorporate it herein by this reference and a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Antoine Bacha filed Notice Of Removal on November 16, 2011. Superior Court Judge, Public Office, Election Records, located at the County Of Orange, California, Registrar Of Voters establishes that Officeholder of a Superior Court Judge, Corey S. Cramin was elected to the public office on 1994 and in 2010. Government Code Section 91000. Violations; fines; limitations provides: (a) Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) In addition to other penalties provided by law, a fine of up to the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or three times the amount the person failed to report properly or unlawfully contributed, expended, gave or received may be imposed upon conviction for each violation. (c) Prosecution for violation of this title must be commenced within four years after the date on which the violation occurred. Government Code Section 84206. Short form reports; contribution and expenditure restrictions provides: (a) The commission shall provide by regulation for a short form for filing reports required by this article for candidates or officeholders who receive contributions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and who make expenditures of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), in a calendar year. (b) For the purposes of this section, in calculating whether one thousand dollars ($1,000) in expenditures have been made, payments for a filing fee or for a statement of qualification shall not be included if these payments have been made from the candidate's personal funds. (c) Every candidate or officeholder who has filed a short form pursuant to subdivision4VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(a), and who thereafter receives contributions or makes expenditures totaling one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more in a calendar year, shall send written notification to the Secretary of State, the local filing officer, and each candidate contending for the same office within 48 hours of receiving or expending a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000). The written notification shall revoke the previously filed short form statement. I refer to and incorporate the State Of California, Fair Political Practices Commission, Campaign Disclosure Manual 2 - Information for Local Candidates, Superior Court Judges, Their Controlled Committees, and Primarily Formed Committees for Local Candidates, accessed January 18, 2012. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=505/. Manual 2, states at page 4-2, Candidates and Controlled Committees Candidates must file the Candidate Intention (Form 501) before raising or spending any money, including the candidates personal funds. (Personal funds of the candidate may be used to pay filing or ballot statement fees prior to filing Form 501.) Subsequent filings depend upon the amount that will be raised or spent. If any monetary contributions will be received from others, a separate campaign bank account must be opened. (See Chapter 1.) Less than $1,000 If less than $1,000 will be raised or spent in a calendar year, including the candidates personal funds, the Officeholder/Candidate Campaign StatementShort Form (Form 470) may be filed by the candidate once each year. However, if after filing the Form 470, $1,000 or more is received or spent, the Statement of Organization (Form 410) and the Recipient Committee Campaign Statement (Form 460) must be filed. The Form 470 Supplement may also be required. Personal funds of the candidate used to pay filing or ballot statement fees are not counted toward the $1,000 threshold. And Manual 2, states at page 4-5, Judges and Unpaid Elected Officeholders Unpaid officeholders (defined in the Act as those who receive less than $200 per month for serving in office) and judges are not required to file Form 470 for any semiannual period (January 1 - June 30 or July 1 - December 31) in which they are not listed on the ballot and do not receive any contributions or make any expenditures.

Election Years During an election year, the deadline for filing the Form 470 will depend on the date of the election. Judges and unpaid officeholders running in an election during the first six months of the year may file Form 470 (covering the year of the election) with the declaration of candidacy, but no later than the filing deadline for the first preelection statement required in connection with the election.5VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

If the election will be held during the last six months of the year, the Form 470 must be filed by July 31 if any funds were raised or spent (other than the candidates personal funds for a filing or ballot statement fee) between January 1 and June 30. If no contributions were received or expenditures made by June 30, the Form 470 may be filed with the declaration of candidacy, but no later than the filing deadline for the first preelection statement required in connection with the election. Government Code Section 82024. Elective state office defined provides: Elective state office means the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Member of the Legislature, member elected to the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, member elected to the Teachers' Retirement Board, and member of the State Board of Equalization. Government Code Section 84215. Place of filing; number of copies provides: All candidates and elected officers and their controlled committees, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall file one copy of the campaign statements required by Section 84200 with the elections official of the county in which the candidate or elected official is domiciled, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 349 of the Elections Code. In addition, campaign statements shall be filed at the following places: (a) Statewide elected officers, including members of the State Board of Equalization; Members of the Legislature; Supreme Court justices, court of appeal justices, and superior court judges; candidates for those offices and their controlled committees; committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose these candidates, elected officers, justices and judges, or statewide measures, or the qualification of state ballot measures; and all state general purpose committees and filers not specified in subdivisions (b) to (e), inclusive, shall file a campaign statement by online or electronic means, as specified in Section 84605, and shall file the original and one copy of the campaign statement in paper format with the Secretary of State. Government Code Section 84200. Time of filing by elected officers, candidates and committees; exceptions and exclusions (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), elected officers, candidates, and committees pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 82013 shall file semiannual statements each year no later than July 31 for the period ending June 30, and no later than January 31 for the period ending December 31. (1) A candidate who, during the past six months has filed a declaration pursuant to Section 84206 shall not be required to file a semiannual statement for that six-month period. (2) Elected officers whose salaries are less than two hundred dollars ($200) a month, judges, judicial candidates, and their controlled committees shall not file semiannual statements pursuant to this subdivision for any six-month period in which they have not made or received any contributions or made any expenditures. (3) A judge who is not listed on the ballot for reelection to, or recall from, any elective office during a calendar year shall not file semiannual statements pursuant to6VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

this subdivision for any six-month period in that year if both of the following apply: (A) The judge has not received any contributions. (B) The only expenditures made by the judge during the calendar year are contributions from the judge's personal funds to other candidates or committees totaling less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). I refer to and incorporate the Office Of The Secretary Of State, State Of California, Custodian Of Records Declaration dated May 23, 2011, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. The

Custodian certifies that after a diligent search of the records of the Political Reform Division of the Office of the California Secretary of State on this date did not locate the document(s) described below: 1. Any campaign statements filed by Corey Scott Cramin including Candidate Intention Statement Form 501 or Officeholder and Candidate Campaign Statement Short Form (Form 470) or any additional forms. Based on information, I allege that Corey S. Cramin engaged in the public offense of Government Code Section 91000. Evidence Code Section 452. Matters which may be judicially noticed, provides, Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States. (g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.7VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It is a fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of indisputable accuracy that the County Of Orange has been making payments, since 2008, of 22,041.96, to Superior to Court Judges Of The State Of California I refer to and incorporate Appendix D, page D-12, Report to The Legislature: Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits(Sen Bill X2)(Action Required), accessed January 18, 2012. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/analysis-judbenefits-1209.pdf. a true and correct copy is attached hereto As Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. SBX 2 11 is null and void. 1. The Single Subject Rule of the Constitution states that every statute can only have one subject and SBX 211 was enacted to give the Judges money from the county as of July 11, 2008 under the same prior terms and conditions, This is a separate subject so the issue of retroactive criminal immunity for judges cannot stand. 2. California Constitution Article I. Section 9 prohibits ex post facto (after the fact) laws from being enacted, meaning Senate Bill SBX2-11 is unconstitutional. In the People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749, 754, 171 P.3d 32, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 310, (Cal. Dec 03, 2007), the court stated, The ex post facto prohibitions [6][7][8] Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the federal Constitution and article I, section 9 of the state Constitution prohibit the passage of ex post facto laws. (Grant, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 158, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 973 P.2d 72.) California's ex post facto law is analyzed in the same manner as the federal prohibition. (Ibid.) [T]he ex post facto clauses of the state and federal Constitutions are aimed at laws that retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts. (Grant, at p. 158, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 973 P.2d 72 quoting California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales (1995) 514 U.S. 499, 504, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588.) Here, the court security fee does not alter the definition of a crime; the question is whether it increases punishment. In making this determination we consider whether the Legislature intended the provision to constitute punishment and, if not, whether the provision is so punitive in nature or effect that it must be found to constitute punishment despite the Legislature's contrary intent. (People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4th 785, 795, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 346, 982 P.2d 211.) There is no criminal immunity that is stated in Government Code Section 68220, 68221, 68222. California Constitution Article VI, Sec. 19. Judges; compensation. The8VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. California Constitution Article I, Section 26. Mandatory and prohibitory provisions provides, The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. In Mosk v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.3d 474, 493, 601 P.2d 1030, 159 Cal.Rptr. 494 (Cal.,Oct 18, 1979) the court held at Footnote 17, Article I, section 26, of the California Constitution provides: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. This rule of construction applies to all provisions of the Constitution and to all branches of the state government, including the judiciary. (State Board of Education v. Levit (1959) 52 Cal.2d 441, 460-461, 343 P.2d 8; see also Jenkins v. Knight (1956) 46 Cal.2d 220, 224, 293 P.2d 6.) In Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 300, 307, 58 P.3d 339, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482,(Cal.,Nov 27, 2002) the court stated, Article I, section 26 of the California Constitution states: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. Under this provision, all branches of government are required to comply with constitutional directives (Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 474, 493, [159 Cal.Rptr. 494, 601 P.2d 1030], fn. 17; BauerSchweitzer Malting Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1973) 8 Cal.3d 942, 946, [106 Cal.Rptr. 643, 506 P.2d 1019]) or prohibitions *307(Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 8, [95 Cal.Rptr. 329, 485 P.2d 529]). (Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1454, 249 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Leger ).) As we observed more than a century ago, [e]very constitutional provision is self-executing to this extent, that everything done in violation of it is void. (Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton (1886) 69 Cal. 479, 484, 11 P. 3.) In Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364, 395, 207 P.3d 48, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591,(Cal.,May 26, 2009), the court held, A California statute, of course, is invalid if it conflicts with the governing provisions of the California Constitution. In Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California, 190 Cal.App.3d 521, 549, 234 Cal.Rptr. 795 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,Feb 19, 1987) the court held, The Constitution of the State is supreme. Any statute in conflict therewith is invalid. (County of Los Angeles v. Payne, supra, 8 Cal.2d at p. 574, 66 P.2d 658.)9VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Orange County has been making payments not in accordance with or permitted by the Constitution and thereby in violation of the law. In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630,635, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 242,(Cal.App. 4 Dist.,Oct 10, 2008), the court stated, in the late 1980's the county [of Los Angeles] began providing its superior and municipal court judges with employment benefits in addition to the salary prescribed by the Legislature and the held, the practice of the County of Los Angeles (the county) of providing Los Angeles County superior court judges with employment benefits, in addition to the compensation prescribed by the Legislature, is not permissible. (Id. at p. 635) Penal Code Section 93. Bribes; judicial officer, juror, etc.; asking or receiving; punishment provides: (a) Every judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, and every person authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or decision upon any matters or question which is or may be brought before him or her for decision, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases where no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases where a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater. In U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793, 805, (9th Cir.(Cal.),Jun 08, 1999) the court stated, [17][18] Linkage between a payment and a specific official decision is not required under California bribery law. [FN11] California Penal Code 92 and 93 make unlawful bribes intended to influence any matter which is or may be brought before a judge for decision. [FN12] A bribe is anything of value given or accepted with a corrupt intent to influence, unlawfully, the person to whom it is given, in his or her action, vote, or opinion, in any public or official capacity. Cal.Penal Code 7(6). [FN13] Therefore, a bribe intended to influence a case or decision not yet on a judge's docket, or intended to influence the assigning of cases, or intended to influence, generally, a judge's future actions with respect to matters that may come before him, falls within the statute's prohibitions. As the California Supreme Court observed in connection with another section of the Penal Code, which similarly makes unlawful the receipt of a bribe intended to affect consideration "of any question or matter, upon which [the official] may be required to act in his official capacity: And the court stated, FN12. Section 92 provides:10VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Every person who gives or offers to give a bribe to any judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, or to any person who may be authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matter or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years. Section 93 provides: Every judicial officer ... who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matters or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years. (U.S. v. Frega, supra, 179 F.3d 805) And the court stated, The law does not require any specific action to be pending on the date the bribe is received.... The use of the word may suggests that payments designed to alter the outcome of any matter that could conceivably come before the official are within the prohibition of the statute. People v. Diedrich, 31 Cal.3d 263, 182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 360, 643 P.2d 971 (1982) (en banc). See also People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 159, 30 P. 620 (1883) (holding that the crime is complete when the payment is corruptly given with intent to influence the *806 judicial officer on any matter that may by law come before him in his official capacity, whether or not it ever does). [FN14] (U.S. v. Frega, supra, 179 F.3d pp. 805806) And the court stated, [19][20] Frega also casts his quid pro quo argument as a challenge to whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that he had committed the predicate acts of bribery. [FN15] First, he contends that the evidence of bribery was insufficient because it did not show how a specific case was affected by a particular bribe, or that any official conduct occurred in any case because of any particular payment. As discussed above, this argument misapprehends the law: there is no requirement under the California bribery statutes that a judge act, let alone act improperly, in response to a bribe. See, e.g., Markham, 30 P. at 622. Second, Frega argues that much of the evidence introduced at trial did not pertain to official acts at all and should have been excluded on that ground. Examples of non-official acts by the judges include giving legal advice to Frega regarding his cases, evaluating their settlement value, reviewing legal documents to be filed, critiquing witness testimony before it was given, and granting Frega private access to the judges' chambers before, during, and after trial. While Frega may be correct that this evidence did not pertain to official acts, he is wrong in his assertion that the court erred in admitting it. The evidence is probative of the relationship between Frega and the judges. Moreover, the jury was properly and repeatedly instructed that the bribes must have been intended to influence the judges' official actions. (U.S. v. Frega, supra, 179 F.3d p. 806) And the court stated,

26 27 28

As we have previously made clear, what is critical to a finding that Frega committed the predicate acts for the substantive RICO charge is Frega's intent in making the payment, whether to a judge or to a member of the judge's family, not whether the judge was in fact aware of or influenced by the payment. (U.S. v. Frega, supra, 179 F.3d p.11VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

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

807) Based on information, I allege that Corey S. Cramin has engaged in the public offense of Penal Code Section 93 bribery. Government Code Section 81004. Reports and statements; perjury; verification, provides: (a) All reports and statements filed under this title shall be signed under penalty of perjury and verified by the filer. The verification shall state that the filer has used all reasonable diligence in its preparation, and that to the best of his knowledge it is true and complete. Government Code Section 87207. Income; statement; contents provides: (a) When income is required to be reported under this article, the statement shall contain, except as provided in subdivision (b): (1) The name and address of each source of income aggregating five hundred dollars ($500) or more in value, or fifty dollars ($50) or more in value if the income was a gift, and a general description of the business activity, if any, of each source. (2) A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source, or in the case of a loan, the highest amount owed to each source, was at least five hundred dollars ($500) but did not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), whether it was in excess of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) but was not greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whether it was greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) but not greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), or whether it was greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). (3) A description of the consideration, if any, for which the income was received.

18

(4) In the case of a gift, the amount and the date on which the gift was received.19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(5) In the case of a loan, the annual interest rate, the security, if any, given for the loan, and the term of the loan. (b) When the filer's pro rata share of income to a business entity, including income to a sole proprietorship, is required to be reported under this article, the statement shall contain: (1) The name, address, and a general description of the business activity of the business entity. (2) The name of every person from whom the business entity received payments if the filer's pro rata share of gross receipts from that person was equal to or greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) during a calendar year. (c) When a payment, including an advance or reimbursement, for travel is required to be reported pursuant to this section, it may be reported on a separate travel reimbursement schedule which shall be included in the filer's statement of economic interest. A filer who chooses not to use the travel schedule shall disclose payments for travel as a gift,12VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unless it is clear from all surrounding circumstances that the services provided were equal to or greater in value than the payments for the travel, in which case the travel may be reported as income. Penal Code Section 118. Perjury defined; evidence necessary to support Conviction provides: (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California. (b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence. I refer to and incorporated Corey S. Cramins Statement Of Economic Interest 700 Statement filed from the dates of February 10, 2009, February 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011, of which true and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibit D, and are incorporated herein by this reference. Corey S. Cramin failed to disclose the County Of Orange payments of 22,041.96, since 2008. Based on information, I allege that Corey S. Cramin has engaged in the public offense of Penal Code Section 118 perjury. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Bank of America. Deed Of Trust, Dated November 15, 1999 to Corey S. Cramin and Judy B. Cramin, For Loan Amount of U.S. $530,000.00 Dollars, secured to the Parcel which currently has the address of 17 Belaire, Laguna Niguel, California 92677, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated herein by this reference. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM13VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INSTRUMENT, First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated November 1, 2002 to Corey S. Cramin and Judy Beth Cramin as Co-Trustees of the Cramin Family Trust , For Loan Amount of U.S. $550,000.00 Dollars, secured to Parcel Id Number 569-341-17 which currently has the address of 17 Belaire, Laguna Niguel, California 92677, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit F, and incorporated herein by this reference. I refer to and incorporate the HSH Associates Financial Publishers, average market mortgage rates, for 30 year 1/1 ARM: from 1986 to the present, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit G, and incorporated herein by this reference. At p.8 of the the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Bank of America. Deed Of Trust, it states that the terms are an initial interest rate of 5.375 %, on November 15, 1999. In the HSH Associates average market

mortgage rates, for 30 year 1/1 ARM for the year of November 1999 the average rate is 6.40 %. At p.17 of the the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, First Republic Bank. Deed Of Trust, it states that the terms are an initial interest rate of 2.950 %, on November 1, 2002. In the HSH Associates average market

mortgage rates, for 30 year 1/1 ARM for the year of November 2002 the average rate is 4.42 %. Based on information, I allege that Corey S. Cramin has engaged in the public offense of Penal Code Section 93 bribery. Before 1984 Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California was based on an actual bias/ bias in fact. After 1984 the Section

170.1 was amended by the Legislature to add Section 170.1(a)(6)(C). Section 170.1(a)(6)(C) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California provides: A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.14VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 237 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 440] to determine the appearance of bias and partiality, the court applied the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct as the objective test to make that determination. Canon 2, Subdivision A. of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides: A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3, Subdivision B. Paragraph (2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides: A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the law.* In Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, 398 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 466], the Supreme Court of the State of California held, a judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1079, 1091-1092), bias (Kennick v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1990) 50 Cal.3d 297, 327-331 [267 Cal.Rptr.293, 787 P.2d 591, 87 A.L.R. 4th 679]), abuse of authority (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 13 Cal.3d 778, 786-795 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209]), disregard for fundamental rights (Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49 Cal.3d 826, 849-854), intentional disregard of the law (Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 14 Cal.3d 678, 695-698), or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty (Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 545-546 [247 Cal.Rptr. 378, 754 P.2d 724, 76 A.L.R 4th 951]), is subject to investigation15VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Cannon v. Commission On Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal.3d 678, pp. 694-695, 537 P.2d 898, 122 Cal.Rptr. 778 (Cal., Jul 10, 1975) the court stated, Petitioner completely ignored proper procedures in punishing for a contempt committed in the immediate presence of a court, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1211. [FN15] This, without more, constituted an act of bad faith in each instance. Petitioners explanation that she cannot be deemed to have failed to comply with section 1211 because that section does not provide a time when the order is to be made is without merit. (See In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [120 Cal.Rptr. 914].) It does not appear in any instance that petitioner made any effort to make a proper order at any time at or after the time the attorneys were cited. (4) Compliance with section 1211 is a jurisdictional requirement, and an order which assumes to punish summarily a direct contempt of court is void unless it shows on its face facts sufficient to constitute a legal contempt. FN15 Section 1211 provides in pertinent part: When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily; for which an order must be made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as therein prescribed. Arthur v. *Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.2d 404, 409.) Petitioner was an experienced judge, with more than nine years on the bench before the Ridgeway matter, and she had at hand reference works which dealt with proper contempt procedures. (Cf. Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 13 Cal.3d 778, 800-801.) *695 The term bad faith implies that the judge intentionally committed acts which he knew or should have known were beyond his lawful power. (Citation.) As so used, bad faith entails actual malice as the motivation for a judges acting ultra vires. The requisite intent must exceed mere volition; negligence alone, if not so gross as to call its genuineness into question, falls short of bad faith. Bad faith also encompasses acts within the lawful power of a judge which nevertheless are committed16VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for a corrupt purpose, i.e., for any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties. In sum, bad faith is quintessentially a concept of specific intent, requiring consciousness of purpose as an antecedent to a judges acting maliciously or corruptly. (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 13 Cal.3d 778, 795--796, 119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 853, 532 P.2d 1209, 1221.) The foregoing record compels the conclusion in the instant case that petitioners primary concerns were first to inflict a completed punishment before the deputies were afforded a due process determination that punishment was warranted and, second, to accomplish her objectives in a manner to insure that such conduct would be insulated from judicial review and collateral attack. It is manifest that such a planned subversion of justice and misuse of the judicial power could be undertaken only in bad faith. I refer to and incorporate the sworn complaint form to The Enforcement Division, Fair Political Practices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, California 95814 dated January 17, 2012 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated herein by this reference.

Dated:

January 19, 2012

___________________________ Antoine Bacha In pro per

17VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION I, Antoine Bacha, declare, if called to testify I could testify on the basis of my own personal knowledge. 1. I refer to and incorporate the Notice Of Removal, a true and correct copy is in the file and records of Case Number 30-2011-00489164 and which I incorporate it herein by this reference and a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. I refer to and incorporate the Office Of The Secretary Of State, State Of California, Custodian Of Records Declaration dated May 23, 2011, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. I refer to and incorporate Appendix D, page D-12, Report to The Legislature: Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits(Sen Bill X2)(Action Required), accessed January 18, 2012. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/analysis-judbenefits-1209.pdf. a true and correct copy is attached hereto As Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. I refer to and incorporated Corey S. Cramins Statement Of Economic Interest 700 Statement filed from the dates of February 10, 2009, February 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011, of which true and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibit D, and are incorporated herein by this reference. 5. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Bank of America. Deed Of Trust, Dated November 15, 1999 to Corey S. Cramin and Judy B. Cramin, For Loan Amount of U.S. $530,000.00 Dollars, secured to the Parcel which currently has the address of 17 Belaire, Laguna Niguel, California 92677, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated November 1, 2002 to Corey S. Cramin and Judy Beth Cramin as Co-Trustees of the Cramin Family Trust , For Loan Amount of U.S.18VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5

$550,000.00 Dollars, secured to Parcel Id Number 569-341-17 which currently has the address of 17 Belaire, Laguna Niguel, California 92677, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit F, and incorporated herein by this reference. 7. I refer to and incorporate the HSH Associates Financial Publishers, average market mortgage rates, for 30 year 1/1 ARM: from 1986 to the present, a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit G, and incorporated herein by this reference.

6

8. I refer to and incorporate the sworn complaint form to The Enforcement7

Division, Fair Political Practices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacramento,8

California 95814 dated January 17, 2012 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as9

Exhibit H and incorporated herein by this reference.10

And I request the court to take judicial notice under the authorization of Section11

451 and 452 of the Evidence Code of the State of California.12

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,13

that the foregoing is true and correct.14 15

Date and Place:16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

January 19, 2012, Newport Beach, California

____________________________ Antoine Bacha Declarant

19VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

VERIFICATION

I, Antoine Bacha am the defendant in the above named action. I have read the foregoing, VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and know of the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those

matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the12

State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.13 14

Date and Place:15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

January 19, 2012, Newport Beach, California

____________________________ Antoine Bacha, Declarant

20VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT A,

21VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT B,

EXHIBIT C,22VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT D,23VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

EXHIBIT E,

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 25VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

EXHIBIT F,

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 26VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

EXHIBIT G,

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 27VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

EXHIBIT H.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

PROOF OF SERVICE25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE:26 27 28

I reside in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and a party to the action; my address is 99 Parkcrest, Newport Coast, California 92657.28VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On January 19, 2012 I served the foregoing document described as:

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH FACILITY, COREY S. CRAMIN 23141 MOULTON PARKWAY lAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653

STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BAR NO.: 86466 14351 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE G TUSTIN, CALIFONRIA 92780

in this action by personal service. And by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows I deposited this envelope in the mail at Newport Beach, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

____ Carrie Strand__ Type or Print Name

___________________________ Signature

29VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.