-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 1
KAREN M. ROZIER
DAVID E. ROZIER, SR.
7957 DAHLIA CIRCLE
BUENA PARK, CA 90620
(714) 512-5740
Propria Personas
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY
KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, an Individual
DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR., an individual
Plaintiff,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor by merger to
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAMP 2007RP1, et.
al;
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor in interest to BANK
OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor by merger to LASALLE
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAAC 2007RP1, et. al
OCWEN LOAN SERVCING, LLC
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY
JOHN DOES 18-50
Defendants.
Case No. 30-2012-00601310-CU-OR-CJC
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
SHEILA FELL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 170.1
SECOND REQUEST
Date:
Time:
Dept: C22
Trial Date: February 2015
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 2
Plaintiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER respectfully requests Judge
Sheila E. Fell be disqualified
under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section
170.1 (a)(6)(C): For any reason A
person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt
that the judge would be able to be
impartial. Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware
of the facts and circumstances would
believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has
ignored the law.
The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc.,
170.1(a)(6)(C), providing for
disqualification for bias or prejudice is fundamentally an
objective one. It represents a legislative
judgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and
inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the
importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the
issue is not limited to the existence of an
actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain
doubts concerning the judge's
impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that
proceedings appear to the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation
must be viewed through the eyes of
the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision
is not based on the judge's personal
view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the
litigants' necessarily partisan views do not
provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge
ought to consider how his or her
participation in a given case looks to the average person on the
street. Plaintiff will show that the
average person off the street believes that Judge Fell has show
bias directed towards Plaintiff.
Plaintiff concurs.
INTRODUCTION
Judge Sheila Fell has been active in the case since March 18,
2013 [Docket Item # 185] and
her participation is ongoing. This is Plaintiffs second request.
A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 3
first request is attached hereto as Exhibit (1). Plaintiff
incorporates each and every allegation made
in that motion as though it were restated here in this
motion.
Plaintiffs earlier request to disqualify Judge Fell was denied
in October 2013. A true and
correct copy of that order is attached as Exhibit (2). It should
be noted that with this order, Judge
Fell decided to punish the Plaintiff someone who is approved for
a fee waiver by overturning
Judges Derek Hunt earlier ruling. U.S. Bank previously requested
the Court to force Plaintiff to pay
the bond in February 2013 but Judge Hunt denied their request
and stated on the record that the
bond did not have to placed until the day before trial, which at
the time was set for Sept 23, 20131.
Judge Fell ordered Plaintiff to pay the $5,000 bond immediately
or lose the courts protection. That
smacks of retaliation and extortion. Plaintiff was able to
acquire the funds to pay the bond only by
reaching out to the populace.
Plaintiff is not the only person who believes the judge is
biased. Plaintiff reviewed The
Robing Room, an online site that rates U.S. judges. Its website
can be found here:
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018
Plaintiff read the comments
rating Judge Fell. Plaintiff noticed that Judge Fell is ranked
quite high by lawyers (8.7) but low by
People (3) as of the date of this motion. A more careful
analysis of the ratings reveal that Judge Fell
received ratings of either 1 or no rating, with negative
comments by the People and one rating
of a 10 by a party who prevailed at settlement. A true and
correct copy of the Robing Room
comments are attached hereto as Exhibit (3). Judge Fells bias
against Plaintiff can be seen by the
following:
1 Trial is now set for February 2015.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 4
Example #1. Retaliation
U.S. Bank previously requested the Court to force Plaintiff to
pay the bond in February 2013
but Judge Hunt denied their request and stated on the record
that the bond did not have to placed
until the day before trial, which at the time was set for
September 23, 2013. After Judge Fell allowed
all Defendants to default several times and continued to change
due dates for the BAR-represented
Defendants benefit, she granted the Defendants a six-month delay
over Plaintiffs objections. 2.
Plaintiff accused Judge Fell of bias and the Judge decided to
force the Plaintiff to pay the $5,000
bond immediately or lose the courts protection.
Example #2. Ruling Against the Law
Judge Fell ruled that US Bank did not have to submit their
Discovery answers under oath. US Bank
submitted its Discovery answers with no oaths attached. After
Plaintiff complained, US Bank sent in
oaths unattached to any Discovery and not dated the same day as
any of the Discovery items.
Plaintiff refused to accept this as legal Discovery. Judge Fell
ruled that it was valid. Perhaps that
may be acceptable in family court where the parties know each
other, but I am a Plaintiff fighting
two trillion-dollar strangers who I claim I have no relationship
with. I deserve that they be required
to submit every statement under oath. Plaintiff is appealing her
ruling. That appeal was filed on
May 10, 2014.
Additionally, although I have repeatedly informed her that the
BAR attorneys are providing
testimony without being sworn in, she continues to allow that
practice.
2 Trial is now set for February 2015.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 5
Example #3. Refusing to Cooperate With Other Judges
Judge refused to continue a December 11th hearing despite being
asked to do so by a Los Angeles
Superior Court judge. After being made aware of the issue, Judge
Fell continues to allow the
Defendant to profit from the results of that December 11, 2013
voidable hearing.
Example #4. Allowing and Encouraging Fraud Upon the Court
Judge is aware that material issues of fact and controversy
remain. Judge is aware that Defendant
US Bank committed Fraud Upon the Court by repeatedly claiming
that my 4,206 square foot home
is only 2,096 square foot3. Judge is aware that the present
value of my home exceeds the alleged
debt claimed by US Bank. After being made aware of the clear
fraud, Judge chose to allow the fraud
to stand rather than exercise her judicial duty once being made
aware that a crime was being
committed. She granted US Bank Summary Judgment based on a
series of wrongful acts, all which
are under appeal. I believe that makes the Judge accomplice to
the criminal act which therefore
disqualifies her from presiding over the remaining case.
Judge is aware that US Banks only involvement in the case was
because they agreed to pay any
award against Bank of America. Judge refused to allow Plaintiff
to bring any specific charges against
3 Judge Hunt issued the injunction after the Orange County Tax
Assessor verified that my home is twice US Banks
claim. An independent California appraiser verified that my
house is worth twice US Banks value as well. Instead
of being interested in ruling on the merits of the case, Judge
Fell gave every indication that she wanted to put the
highly educated African American pro se Plaintiff in her proper
place, which she must feel is penniless and
homeless. I would call her a racist, but I suspect that race is
only a part because I graduated from Harvard and the
very best she could do was her crappy school. Plaintiff
unfortunately encounters that too frequently, usually from
people working above their innate abilities. I suspect she is
abusing her position to deal with her on weakness, but
I can show that she is biased which is sufficient grounds for
the court to remove her from my case.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 6
US Bank but instead allowed US Bank to litigate a case that was
not being litigated. Judge did not
require US Bank to bring a counterclaim but instead allowed it
to enter false and fraudulent
evidence with her series of illegal or incompetent rulings.
Example #5. Showing Favoritism to BAR Agents Over Pro Se
litigants
Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are
guilty of accepting bribes and
will be disqualified from the case, removed from office for
conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute) and imprisoned for
bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services
18 U.S.C. Section 1346.
According to her financial forms, she takes money from the BAR.
That in and of itself would not
disqualify her if her fees were reasonable and if she refrained
from making statements and
committing acts that indicate she prefers hearing cases where
the parties are represented by BAR
members. Judge Fell made very clear statements that if the
Plaintiff wanted justice in her
courtroom, Plaintiff would not get it unless she hired.
Plaintiff is willing to testify under oath about
the help Judge Fell gave others as Plaintiff was taking copious
notes. Given the reality of todays
litigation landscape, the time and money the state of California
has spent making our courts
accessible to the ordinary citizen, and the Pro Se guidelines,
her statements bring the entire
judiciary into disrepute.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written,
verified statement with the
clerks office objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge
and setting forth the facts constituting
the basis for the disqualification. CCP 170.3(c)(1). Copies of
the statement must be served on all
parties or on any of their attorneys who have appeared. CCP
170.3(c)(1); see McCartney v
Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334, 1340, 273 CR 250 (statement
in reply to opposition to
disqualification statement does not satisfy notice requirements
of CCP 170.3). A copy must be
personally served on the judge who is alleged to be
disqualified, or on his or her courtroom clerk,
provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in
chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(1).
At this time Plaintiff believes that Judge Fells rulings
disqualify her. Plaintiff argues that
specific statements taken in context of Judge Fells off-bench
activities, particular findings, and
particular rulings reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset,
including a willingness to slant the law in
favor of the California BAR attorneys and or well-financed
Defendants. Judge Fells statement telling
Plaintiff she should have hired a lawyer showed a biased and
prejudiced mindset that may be
clearly discerned by any reasonable person who has knowledge of
the facts and the law. As Plaintiff
refuses to hire an attorney, Judge Fell has made it perfectly
clear that Plaintiff will not receive a fair
hearing or trial in her courtroom. By her actions, Judicial
Office Fell has demonstrated she will
assist BAR attorneys while denying clarification to this Pro Se
Litigant. In order to disqualify a
judge, his/her prejudice must be against a party [Karen Rozier]
to the action; . . . Evans v Superior
Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P 662; Kreling v Superior Court
(1944) 63 CA2d 353, 146 P2d 935.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 8
Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are
guilty of accepting
bribes and will be disqualified from the case, removed from
office for conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute) and imprisoned for
bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services
18 U.S.C. Section 1346.
JUDICIAL CANON OF ETHICS:
I. CANON 2 A. Promoting Public Confidence, A judge shall respect
and comply with the law
and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The comments shown the Exhibit
(3) evaluation indicate
that her behavior is not promoting public confidence.
Additionally, the timing of her
deciding to require Plaintiff to place the bond early smacks of
retaliation.
II. Canon 3 B. A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless
of partisan interests,
public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain
professional competence in
the law.*: The law is clear that all Discovery must be given
under oath. In this instant
case, Judge Fell allowed very liberal Discovery over the
Plaintiffs objection. Specifically,
she waived the very important requirement that the answers be
provided UNDER
OATH! Given that she waived the requirement for the BAR
represented BANK, her
action cannot be considered in the best interest of the
public.
III. C. Administrative Responsibilities section (1) (1) A judge
shall diligently discharge the
judges administrative responsibilities impartially,* on the
basis of merit, without bias or
prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that
promotes public confidence in
the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the
performance of administrative
duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would
reasonably be perceived as
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 9
(i) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or
prejudice based upon race, sex,
gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age,
sexual orientation, marital
status, or socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or
(ii) sexual harassment.: The
crafters of this document including the phrase including but not
limited to when
describing the types of discriminatory behavior judges should
avoid precisely because
they wanted them to avoid all types of discriminatory behavior.
When Judge Fell leaned
forward and took pleasure in informing Plaintiff that she would
treat Plaintiff more
harshly than she would treat the BAR attorneys, she violated the
Canon with both her
speech and gesture. As evidence by Exhibit (3), her act
concerned members of the public
enough for them to express their concerns.
IV. (2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in
judicial administration, and shall
cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business.:
Judge Fell was informed multiple times that Los Angeles Superior
Court Renee Fenton
Korn requested to have the December 11, 2013 hearing postponed.
Rather than
cooperate with the Los Angeles court, Judge Korn elected to
conduct the hearing and to
allow the Defendant to profit from my excusable absence. She
continues to allow them
to profit from her refusal to cooperate with a superior
case.
V. G. Practice of Law. A judge shall not practice law. On May 1,
2014 Judical Officer Korn
gave legal advice to the lawyers presenting the cases before
mine. She told them what to
file. She helped the lawyers through the case. When I asked her
to explain her ruling to
me, she would not. I did not ask for legal advice. Once the
transcript is ready, the court
will see that Judge Korn only in my case worked hard to confuse
me as to which of
the two motions she was hearing. She appears to be helping the
opposing side because
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 10
she must not want to see a lawyer lose a case to a Pro se
litigant for fear that other Pro
se litigants will try to have their cases heard in her
courtroom.
It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the
facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in
the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous
corresponding statute--Sec. 170,
subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been
construed to require bias in fact, with the
enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify
a California judge for cause was no
longer required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The
test to be applied in evaluating
recusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many
years ago in Berger v United States
(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice give
fair support to the charge of a bent of
mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225
U.S.) In the case United Farm
Workers of America v Superior Court (1985, 4th Dist) 170 Cal App
3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.
Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C) (Judge disqualified if
person aware of facts might
reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes
the disqualification standard
fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative
judgment that due to the sensitivity of
the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the
importance of public confidence in the
judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an
actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man
or woman would entertain doubts concerning the judge's
impartiality, disqualification is mandated.
To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their
confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the
objective person. The reason for
the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing
that a judge is biased unless the judge so
admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are not
furthered when a judge who is
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 11
reasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case.
(emphasis added) Catchpole v
Brannon (1995, 1st Dist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal Rptr 2d
440.
Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria
Persona, wherein pleadings are
Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards
of perfection as practicing lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th
Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes
63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935
F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent
reading than one drafted by a lawyer
(Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And,
Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach
that pleading is not a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and
accept the principle that the
purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the
merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP
and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be
construed to do substantial justice."
CONCLUSION
A reasonable person looking at the current bench in the
Plaintiffs case can see bias and
prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of the
law by Judge Fell. She is not aiming for
substantial justice. As evidence by the comments in the Robing
Room, at least two other parties
looked at her behavior and concluded that she was acting
irrationally and against the publics
interest. As discussed above, the Court has ample cause to
disqualify Sheila Fell from the case.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judge Fell
and anyone under her
supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C) et seq and
that every one of her orders be
-
EXHIBIT 1
-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
KAREN M. ROZIERDAVID E. ROZIER, SR.7957 DAHLIA CIRCLEBUENA PARK,
CA 90620(714)512-5740Propria Personas
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY
KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, an Individual
DAVID EUGENE ROZ1ER,SR., an individual
Plaintiff,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION assuccessor by merger to
LASALLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION as Trustee RAMP 2007RP1, et.
al;
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor ininterest to BANK
OF AMERICA, NATIONALASSOCIATION as successor by merger to
LASALLEBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAAC2007RP1, et. al
OCWEN LOAN SERVCING, LLC
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY
JOHN DOES 18-50
Defendants.
Case No. 30-2012-00601310-CU-OR-CJC
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDICIALOFFICER SHEILA FELL
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 170.1
Date:
Time:
Dept: C22
Trial Date: April 28,2013
20 lof 12
-
Plaintiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER respectfully requests Judicial
Officer Sheila E. Fell be
disqualified under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP)
Section 170.1 (a)[6)(C): "For any
reason ... A person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be ableto be impartial."
Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts
and circumstances
would believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has
ignored the law.
The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc,
170.1(a)(6)(C), providing fordisqualification for bias or prejudice
is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a
legislativejudgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question
and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as theimportance of
public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited
to the existence of anactual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person
would entertain doubts concerning the judge'simpartiality,
disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to
the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation
must be viewed through the eyes of
the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision
is not based on the judge's personal11
view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the
litigants' necessarily partisan views do not
12 provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge
ought to consider how his or herparticipation in a given case looks
to the average person on the street.
14 INTRODUCTION
15 Judicial Officer Sheila Fell has been active in the case
since March 18, 2013 [Docket Item #
16 185] and her participation is ongoing. Former Plaintiff DAVID
EUGENE ROZIER, SR. filed a 170.6
motion requesting that she be disqualified but his motion was
denied; subsequently Judicial Officer17
Fell dismissed Mr. Rozier as a Plaintiff against his and
Plaintiff KAREN's objections. It has become18
apparent that she is biased, even ignoring the law and changing
decisions to benefit the Defendants
19
2 of 1220
-
which are represented by BAR attorneys. She can not be objective
in her decisions. Plaintiffrequests that a new Judicial Officer be
assigned from outside of this Judicial Officer s' influence.
Plaintiffs objections were sent to Judicial Officer Fell via
letter and Plaintiff requested thatshe voluntarily disqualify
herself from the case. A true and correct copy of that letter is
attached
hereto as EXHIBIT 1. Upon hearing of Defendant U.S. Bank's plan
to schedule an Ex Parte motion in
front of Judicial Officer Fell before I could submit my 170.1
motion, on the morning of October 1,
2013 I contacted Judicial Officer Fell's office about my letter.
Judicial Officer Fell's Clerk [Heidi]
informed me that Ms. Fell never acts on letters as they are
usually done outside of normal
procedure. Plaintiff did provide all parties with copies of the
letters. Plaintiff again is following the
letter and intent of the law while the California BAR attorneys
are being allowed to violate the
wording and intent of the same law. Judicial Officer Fell
reports income from the Orange County
BAR Association, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and
Celtic BAR Association. Her bias10against Plaintiff can be seen in
the following:
11
Example #1. Most Recent Incident: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute
Order/ Nunc Pro Tune to12
correct Minute Order
Time: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11 AM
14 Place: Department 22
15Attendees: Judicial Officer Sheila Fell; Rick Burns; Alicia
Dubois; Plaintiff, David E. Rozier, Sr.; Yaron
16Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.
17Circumstances: Judicial Officer Fell instructed Plaintiff to
hire and pay a California licensed BAR
18attorney and have that attorney sign all of Plaintiffs
original work, a violation of her right to benefit
19
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE- 3 of 12
-
from and be recognized for her efforts. Judicial Officer Fell
admitted that she had made a major
error with the Minute Order Plaintiff was protesting. Her
mistake caused Plaintiff to file four (4)
Request for Entry of Defaults and supporting Declarations after
each of the Defendants defaulted on
its requirement to answer by August 30, 2013. Judicial Officer
Fell then insulted and attempted to
intimidate the Plaintiff into hiring a California BAR attorney.
After denying Plaintiffs request for an
Ex Parte Request for Nunc Pro Tune Order on a technicality, the
Court issued a Nunc Pro Tune order
nevertheless. Due to Judicial Officer Fell's mistakes, all
Defendants received thirty additional days to
respond to a complaint despite all parties prior agreement when
all answers would be due. U.S.
Bank's counsel of record, a California BAR attorney, agreed to
file his answer by the agreed to
August deadline. At the demurrer hearing. Judicial Officer Fell
was also quite clear that if she ruled
against Bank of America's request for reconsideration she would
not grant them any extension to
file their answer and their counsel of record - a California BAR
attorney, agreed to the terms.
Plaintiff stands by her assertion that the August 27th Minute
Order was no mistake. It accurately
reflected the events as Plaintiff and all of her witnesses
recalled them. Judicial Officer Fell only
changed her ruling after Defendants each of them defaulted and
the Pro Se Plaintiff immediately12
requested a default judgment. Judicial Officer Fell and those
under her influence have gone out of13 their way to harm the Pro Se
Plaintiff. For instance, at the same September Ex Parte
hearing,
14 Judicial Officer's Clerk Rick Burns loudly referred to the
Pro Se Plaintiff as "one of those fee waiver
cases" in the crowded courtroom. To Plaintiffs knowledge, he has
not been disciplined for his15
breach of professional duty but remains in a position to exert
tremendous influence on the outcome
of Plaintiffs case. That is clearly unacceptable, and to a
reasonable observer, smacks of bias,
17 disrespect and prejudice. For the record, Plaintiff is an
African-American.
18
19
-4 of 1220
-
Plaintiff immediately requested financial information on
Judicial Officer Fell after her irrational
behavior at the September 2013 Ex Parte. That is how Plaintiff
discovered that Judicial Officer Fell
derives income from the California BAR Association and Trial
Lawyers Association. A true and
correct copy of her filings are attached hereto as EXHIBIT
2.
Additional Event and Probable Cause:
Time: May 10, 2013
Place: Department 22
Persons: Various
Occasion: Ex Parte Hearing
Circumstances: Plaintiff did not sue Defendant U.S. Bank or make
any allegations against U.S. Bank.
Plaintiff repeatedly objected to Defendant U.S. Bank's sideways
request to be added to the litigation10 and Judicial Officer Derek
Hunt repeatedly denied U.S. Bank's entry into the case. The
Defendants
skillfully used California 170.6 and the nation's 69th largest
law firm Locke Lord LLP against me to11
remove the case from Judicial Officer Hunt to Judicial Officer
James J. DiCesare, one of the few
Orange County Superior Court Judges that admits to owning stock
in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
13 BARNEY in his California Form 700 filing. I objected to the
move to Judicial Officer DiCesare without
knowing his financial holdings but solely based on his written
work and the case was eventually14
moved to Judicial Officer Fell in March 2013.15
At the May 10th hearing, we debated the inclusion of U.S. Bank
as a Defendant and then-16
Plaintiff DAVID EUGENE ROZIER, SR., my husband - the
uncompensated builder of the property
with a recorded lien that precedes U.S. Bank's alleged interest
as well as the Trustee of the Trust
18 that owns the property subject to the dispute, extensively.
When Judicial Officer Fell ruled that
19
5 of 12-~ J Ul .2U
-
Plaintiff KAREN would be required to add U.S. Bank as a
Defendant, she also stated that Plaintiff
KARENcould sue U.S. Bank for all of U.S. Bank's wrongdoing.
After Plaintiff filed her third amended
complaint and added substantial evidence of wrongdoing against
U.S. Bank, Judicial Officer Fell
changed her ruling and limited Plaintiffs actions against U.S.
Bank for the wrongdoing of Bank of
America including barring any claims of conspiracy. Plaintiff
never alleged that U.S. Bank was
involved in the wrongful sale without alleging conspiracy.
Judicial Officer Fell forced Plaintiff to add
U.S. Bank but prohibited Plaintiff to also introduce all
evidence of their wrong-doing and make any
allegation supported by evidence. This is a clear violation of
Due Process, Plaintiffs Civil and basic
Human Rights.
The average person looking at this situation would see a bias by
Judicial Officer Fell toward
the Plaintiff. Additionally, Judicial Officer Fell has
repeatedly shown bias in her willingness to grant
the California BAR attorneys Ex Parte motions without requiring
them to show any emergency, a
violation of California law. Examples of abuse of the Ex Parte
Motion and clear preferential11
treatment to the California BAR attorneys include:
121. June 3, 2013 - Despite a clear written Minute Order,
Defendant was allowed to force this
non-emergency Ex Parte motion on an emergency basis with no
repercussion. At the
14 hearing, Judicial Officer Fell clearly ruled one way. She
would later change her ruling for no
explainable reason other than incompetence, corruption, or
bias.
2. August 20, 2013 - Ex Parte to vacate trial scheduled for
September 23, 2013. The trial date16
was set back in February 2013. U.S. Bank and Residential Funding
Company failed to seek
17 Discovery before the Discovery cut-off despite being
represented by California BAR
attorneys versed in the Discovery process. No Defendant was
required to show cause for18
19
-60112
-
their failure. Ex Parte held on date Defendants' California BAR
attorneys knew Plaintiff
would be unavailable to oppose. Judicial Officer Fell delayed
the trial from September 23,
2013 until April 28. 2013 on an Ex Parte basis without a
compelling reason.
3. September 14, 2013 - Plaintiff filed her timely Request for
Default against Defendant Bank
of America. Despite them being in default, Judicial Officer Fell
agreed to hear their Ex Parte
Motion to understand the court's clear written Minute Order. At
the same time, Judicial
Officer Fell refused to hear Plaintiffs request for a Nunc Pro
Tune Order based on a
procedural technicality. Worse, Judicial Officer Fell and her
clerk Rick Burns attempted to
humiliate the Pro Se Plaintiff for filing a defective request
for a Nunc Pro Tune Order when it
was they who should have rightfully been embarrassed for their
sloppy and incomplete
work. Instead of ameliorating the situation, they issued yet
another incomplete minute
order with the Nunc Pro Tune order, again failing to specify the
understood and agreed
upon deadline of 5 P.M. September 26, 2013. That was a fatal
error that granted Defendant
Bank of America much leniency on when to file their answer and
one which has caused
Plaintiff economic and emotional harm. Judicial Officer Fell was
clearly lecturing Plaintiff on12
her "inadequacies" with respect to courtroom rules and behavior.
Plaintiff is left wondering13 if perhaps the problem is her
adherence to deadlines, decorum, protocol, and procedure.
14 Plaintiff does not believe she will receive a fair hearing or
trial with Judicial Officer Sheila
Fell or anyone under her influence.15
4. October 2, 2013: Despite not being able to show harm,
Defendant U.S. Bank is being allowed
to bring forth an Ex Parte Motion to change a previous court's
ruling. Specifically, Judicial
17 Officer Derek Hunt ruled that the trial bond was due payable
before the trial. Defendant US
Bank requested and received a trial delay of six months. Now
they are being allowed to ask18
19
in - 7 of 1220
-
the court ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS to require Plaintiff to pay a
bond more than six months
prior to the scheduled trial. There is no basis in law for them
to be allowed to ask for this
relief on an emergency basis, but Judicial Officer Sheila Fell
entertains their every ridiculous
request. There is also no basis in law for Judicial Officer Fell
to be allowed to show leniency
to the California BAR attorneys for missed deadlines and shoddy
work, forgive herself and
her Clerk for their incomplete and defective Minute Orders and
then ridicule and attempt to
harass and intimidate the Pro Se Plaintiff into hiring a
California BAR attorney when
Plaintiff highlights the absurdities.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE IS THE GROUNDS OF DUE
PROCESS
10
At this time Plaintiff does not argue that Judicial Officer
Fell's rulings disqualify her,11
although Plaintiff does argue that her rulings are wrong and
will be reversed on appeal. Plaintiff12
argues that specific statements taken in context of Judicial
Officer Fell's off-bench activities,
13 particular findings, and particular rulings reveal a biased
and prejudiced mindset, including awillingness to slant the law in
favor of the California BAR attorneys and or well-financed
14Defendants. Judicial Officer Fell's statement directing
Plaintiff to hire a California BAR attorney
showed a biased and prejudiced mindset that may be clearly
discerned by any reasonable person
16 who has knowledge of the facts and the law. Any objective
person can see the prejudice will bedirected towards the Plaintiff
thus: "In order to disqualify a judge, his/her prejudice must
be
17against a party [Karen Rozier] to the action;..." Evans v
Superior Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P
1 Q662; Kreling v Superior Court (1944) 63 CA2d 353,146 P2d
935.
19
8 of 12
-
It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the
facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in
the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous
corresponding statute-Sec. 170,
subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been
construed to require bias in fact, with the
enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify
a California judge for cause was nolonger required to prove that
the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in
evaluatingrecusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated
many years ago in Berger v United States(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does
the [Declaration] of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a
bent ofmind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment
(225 U.S.) In the case United FarmWorkers of America v Superior
Court (1985,4th Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.
Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C) (Judge disqualified if
person aware of facts might
reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes
the disqualification standardfundamentally an objective one. It
represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity
of
11the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the
importance of public confidence in the
judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an
actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable manor woman would entertain
doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is
mandated.To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be
impartial and hence worthy of their
14confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of
the objective person. The reason for
15 the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing
that a judge is biased unless the judge so
admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are not
furthered when a judge who isreasonably thought to be biased in a
matter hears the case, (emphasis added)" Catchpole v
17Brannon (1995,1st Dist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal Rptr 2d
440.
18
19
:-9of 12
-
10
HER BIAS AGAINST THIS PRO PER PLEADINGS IN UNWARRANTED
If Plaintiffs pleadings were facially defective or of such poor
quality that they were
disrupting the court's usual business, Judicial Officer Fell's
angst still would not be warranted. In
the case at hand. Plaintiffs pleadings have been quite adequate.
Plaintiff admits that she was not
familiar with the court's internal process to request a Nunc Pro
Tune order to correct - for the third
time - Judicial Fell and her Clerk's mistake. If anything, it is
the Plaintiff who should be complaining
as she has been forced to generate extra motions and requests
(including four requests for defaults)due to Judicial Officer
Fell's errors. Her errors also gave both Defendants an additional
thirty-days
to respond to Plaintiffs request, time not owing. Her decisions
to publically shame the Pro Se
Plaintiff for refusing to hire and pay a California BAR attorney
to "sign his name" on Plaintiffs work
is completely unacceptable in light of her clear association
with the California BAR Association and
California Trial Lawyers Association.
11 Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In
Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards
of perfection as practicing lawyers.12
Haines v. Kerner 92 Set 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (llth
Cirl990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes13
63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935
F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)." It it14 entirely wrong that the Pro Se
Plaintiff should be held to the highest standard while Judicial
Officer
Fell at the same time doesn't even require low-side compliance
from the California BAR attorneys.
It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent
reading than one drafted by a lawyer
(Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And,
Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 35517
U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach
that pleading is not a game of skill in1 fi
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and
accept the principle that the
19
20 " . :"-_ 10 of 12
91
-
purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the
merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP
and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be
construed to do substantial justice."
CONCLUSION
Any reasonable person looking at the current bench in the
Plaintiffs case would see bias
and prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of
the law by Judicial Officer Fell.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judicial
Officer Fell and anyone under her
supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) etseq.
Plaintiff requests that the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court of California, Central Justice
Center, Santa Ana, California assign the
Plaintiffs case to another department within the court, or in
the alternative ask the Judicial Counsel
to assign an independent Judicial Officer to this case.
10In the best interest and for respect of the court this request
for disqualification must be
11 granted. The California legislature made reasonable decisions
in these rules for disqualification and
the rules must be followed.12
13 DATED: October 1, 2013
14 By,
15Karen Michele Rozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per
16
17
18
19
2Q 11 of 12
71
-
10
DECLARATION OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND IGNORING OF THE LAW
I, KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, declare I am a resident in California
over the age of 18 years of age. I
am the Plaintiff in this matter and declare that the foregoing
is true and correct under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the state of California, and can and
will testify to such in any court orhearing.
Executed in the state of California, in the County of Orange,
California.
DATED: October 1, 2013
By,
11Karen Michele Rozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
12 of 1220
-
Hfff
-
September 28, 2013
The Honorable Sheila Fell, Department C22Superior Court of
California County of OrangeCentral Justice Center700 Civic Center
Drive WestSanta Ana, A 92701
Re: 30-2012 00601310-CU-OR-CJC, Rozier vs. Bank of America,
N.A.
Dear Judge Fell,
I am in receipt of the 09/17/2013 Minute Order. I called Mr.
Burns on Friday September 20,
2013 but he was not in the office. I was going to submit another
Nunc Pro Tune request to correct
this Order, but since both Defendants made it clear that they
understood the due date of
September 26, 2013,1 didn't see the pressing need.
First, please accept my apology for my insistence that I did not
have to file a motion along
with my earlier Declaration in Support of Request for Nunc Pro
Tune Order and Proposed Order.
You were absolutely right. I was supposed to submit moving
papers of some sort.
Now that the hard part is out of the way, I respectfully request
that you voluntarily
disqualify yourself from my case for bias. I was planning to
deliver this letter to you earlier in the
week, but I was told that your courtroom was dark all week. I
was surprised since it was over a
month ago you postponed my trial in my absence, a trial which
was scheduled for this week. Given
the court's load and constraints, I would have thought the free
time would have been used on
other cases. I'm glad I waited the extra time because Defendant
Bank of America has again failed to
answer by the agreed deadline and I have filed another Request
for Default.
That is not the main reason I am glad I waited before writing.
Yesterday, I received your
financial disclosure forms, and they further compel me to
request your voluntary and immediate
disqualification. After your behavior the other day, I became so
suspicious that I decided to dare to
follow my own advice and "follow the money", or in this case,
"the sphere of influence." I believe
your bias extends to your Clerk Rick Burns, though I am unsure
of the motivation of his bias.
-
Page 2 of 3
I endured your personal bias against me for as long as I could,
but I was not expecting you
to instruct me to hire a California BAR attorney at the last Ex
Porte, the one I requested as a Nunc
Pro Tune prior to Defendant Bank of America submitting its
request despite being in default status,
(in my opinion, of course). I did not expect you to be so vocal
about me "paying a lawyer to signhis name", just as I was not
expecting your Clerk Rick Burns to declare to the open Courtroom
thatI was "one of those fee waiver cases."
In my view you both have shown clear bias against me
personally.
I could not figure out why I was being shown such utter
disregard and disrespect
previously, but given your affiliation with the ORANCE COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION and
ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS since at least 2007,1 have my
suspicions and legitimate
concerns. At the last Ex Porte, it was quite clear that you were
relaxed with every case in front of
you but quite tense when my case was called. I do not believe
that I have done anything to cause
you concern and feel that I am more than reasonable,
professional, calm, prepared, and
competently presenting my case, but for some reason you harbor
clear animosity towards me.
I simply do not trust your Clerk. He has made too many mistakes
that have caused me harm
and none that have caused the Defendants harm, in my
opinion.
I do not make this request lightly or impulsively. As you
recall, my husband and co-Plaintiff
DAVID EUGUENE ROZIER, SR. ("David") initially filed a 170.6
motion against you before you sat forthe case but we were refused
another judicial officer; You later ruled that David was not
allowed tobe a party to the case even though he is the
uncompensated builder of the property with a
recorded lien, was also illegally harassed and threatened with
the sole purpose of persuading him
to leave his home by Defendants Bank of America and Residential
Funding Company, and is the
Trustee of the Trust that owns the property. Interestingly
enough, you ordered that the Trust's case
a case where the Trust was in fact paying the court's fees to be
dismissed, again with clear bias
against my entire family. Given that we had just removed our
cases from Judicial Officer Di Cesare[hand-picked by the
Defendants; heavily invested in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY] and
werestill new to you, I did not have cause to ask for your removal
and so I accepted you as a Judicial
Officer. Now that I have been in your courtroom and watched you
interact with several litigants in
-
Page 3 of 3
various stages of litigation, I doubt that I am receiving fair
treatment in your courtroom by either
you or your Clerk. Since realizing your relationship with
professional lawyer associations, I am even
more concerned, and with clear cause.
My bias is reasonable under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).
I will highlight a few specific examples for you in the
following pages. I am writing you
directly because I am hoping that you will voluntarily
disqualify yourself from the case and not
require me to publicize these and other instances in the form of
a motion. Thank you.
Grounds for Removal
Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written,
verified statement with the clerk's office objectingto the hearing
or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting
the basis for the disqualification.CCP 170.3(c)(l). Copies of the
statement must be served on all parties or on any of their
attorneys who haveappeared. CCP 170.3(c)(l); see McCartney v
Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334,1340,273 CR 250(statement in
reply to opposition to disqualification statement does not satisfy
notice requirements of CCP170.3). A copy must be personally served
on the judge who is alleged to be disqualified, or on his or
hercourtroom clerk, provided that the judge is present in the
courthouse or in chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(l).
With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,
Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant
Copy to:Frank Kim, BRYAN CAVE, LLP for (DEFAULTED) Bank of
America, N.A.Yaron Shaham, Severson & Werson, APC for U.S.
Bank, N.A. and Residential Funding Company
-
Events In Support of Request for Voluntary Disqualification
Event#1:Time: May 10, 2013Place: Department 22Persons:
VariousOccasion: Ex Parte Hearing
Circumstances: I did not sue Defendant U.S. Bank or make any
allegations against U.S. Bank. Irepeatedly objected to Defendant
U.S. Bank's sideways request to be added to the litigation, making
noformal request but insinuating their way into the litigation.
Judicial Officer Derek Hunt repeatedly deniedU.S. Bank's entry into
the case but the Defendants skillfully used California 170.6 and
the nation's 69th
largest law firm Locke Lord LLP against me to remove the case
from Judicial Officer Hunt to JudicialOfficer James J. DiCesare,
one of the few Orange County Superior Court Judges that admits to
owningstock in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY in his California Form
700 filing. I objected and the casewas eventually moved to you. We
debated this extensively, and when you initially ruled that I
wasrequired to add U.S. Bank as a Defendant, you stated that I
could sue U.S. Bank for all of U.S. Bank'swrongdoing. I repeated
the words several times to be sure. After I filed my amended
complaint and addedsubstantial evidence of wrongdoing against U.S.
Bank, you changed your ruling and limited my actionsagainst U.S.
Bank for the wrongdoing of Bank of America even though I have never
alleged that U.S. Bankwas involved in the wrongful sale without
alleging conspiracy. I recognize that you feel that I need tomove
the court for leave to amend my complaint to add the additional
charges and parties even though Imaintain that you were quite clear
on May 10th that since you were forcing me to add U.S. Bank as
aDefendant that you would also grant me the opportunity to also
introduce all evidence of theirwrong-doing and make any allegation
supported by evidence. My take-away from this unfortunateencounter
is that from now on, I will ask to have the Court Reporter recite
any order so to prevent futuremisunderstanding. Since I obviously
cannot trust my memory or notes, my husband's memory or notes,or
any of the witnesses' memories or notes, I will ask the Court
Reporter to repeat all orders to ensure weall understand them. I
have filed a complaint against her (which I'm sure landed on deaf
ears) but thereality is that her transcript is garbage - more part
of the fraud on the American people. I already knowwho is paying
her to be in the courtroom - Bank of America, the same entity I
suspect paid FederalJudicial Officer Catherine Bauer, former Senior
Counsel for their Bankruptcy litigation/ now routinelyruling in
their favor against homeowners from the bench. David said you two
looked very similar the veryfirst time he saw you. He has great
instincts.
Event # 2Place: Department 22Persons: Shelia E. Fell; Rick
Burns; Alicia Dubois; KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, DAVID EUGENE
ROZIER,SR.; Yaron Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.Event:
Changed Ruling to Benefit Defendant
Circumstances: At the August 14th Demurrer, you clearly ruled
against U.S. Bank, ruled against BANA,and granted US Bank's motion
to strike. I intended to challenge your ruling but later understood
that Imerely needed to move the court for leave to amend the
complaint and add new Defendants. You howeverseem to have forgotten
what you ruled though I had three non-related witnesses in the
court. Mr. Kim
Page 1 of 3
-
Events In Support of Request for Voluntary Disqualification
[Bank of America] asked you to take their demurrer under
consideration while Mr. Shaham [U.S. Bank]agreed to have his answer
to the court by August 30, 2013. There is a reason why Harvard
Universitypaid me to attend there fine university, and it's not
because I can't remember what happened from onemoment to the next!
I have already accused your Court Reporter Alicia Dubois of having
strong biastowards the entity paying her regularfy - Bank of
America, so it troubles me that two days after Icontacted her about
getting a copy of the transcript you claim you reviewed, she still
hasn't returned mycall.
I do not feel any fairness, equity, or adherence to law and
procedure in Department 22 and do notwish for you to hear my case.
I do hope you disqualify yourself as I would prefer to fight my
present battleand not get distracted fighting you and your
Clerk.
Event #3: Ex parte Application to Vacate Trial DateTime: August
20, 2013 at 8:30 A.M. (est.)Place: Department 22Persons: Yaron
Shaham, Counsel for U.S. Bank/ Residential Funding; Frank Kim,
Counsel for Bank ofAmerica.
Circumstances: Despite knowing that Plaintiff was unavailable
and fully aware of Plaintiffs objections,U.S. Bank brought an Ex
Parte Motion to continue the trial. You allowed the Defendants to
apply Ex Parteto vacate the trial date, without requiring
Defendants to state the nature of the emergency which wouldhave
permitted them to bring an Ex Parte application under California
law. I find that particularlytroubling since you stated in English
on August 14th that you would not entertain an Ex Parte motion
tovacate the trial date. Then, in my absence and in violation of
California law, you granted the Defendantsapplication on an Ex
Parte basis and gave them an additional six months when all they
asked for duringmy presence at the August 14th hearing was one
month. That is unconscionable, in my opinion.
BIAS: Allowing the Defendant's counsels, your California BAR
peers, to play by rules known only tomembers of the BAR.
Rule 379 Ex parte applications and orders
e) [Affirmative factual showing required] An applicant shall
make an affirmative factual showing in adeclaration containing
competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable
harm, immediatedanger, or any other statutory basis for granting ex
parte relief rather than setting the matter for hearingon noticed
motion.
No actual bias required. Actual bias need not be present. Roitz
v Coldwell Banker Residential BrokerageCo., supra, 62 CA4that 723.
If an average person could entertain doubt about the judge's
impartiality,disqualification is mandated.
I wrote this section prior to knowing your relationship to the
BARs, so I stand firm that I have clear causefor bias.
Page 2 of 3
-
Events In Support of Request for Voluntary Disqualification
Event #4: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute Order/ Nunc Pro Tune to
correct Minute OrdersTime: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11
AMPlace: Department 22Persons: Shelia E. Fell; Rick Burns; Alicia
Dubois; KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR.; Yaron
Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.
Circumstances: You instructed me to hire and pay a California
licensed Bar attorney and have thatattorney sign all of my original
work, a violation of my right to benefit from and be recognized for
myefforts. After you admitted that you made a mistake, a mistake
which resulted in my filing four (4)Request for Entry of Defaults
and supporting Declarations after each of the Defendants defaulted
on itsrequirement to answer by August 30, 2013, you had the
impudence to insult me. Due to your mistakes,you gave all
Defendants thirty additional days to respond to a complaint despite
all parties being aware ofthe true facts, which is that Yaron
Shaham directly said that U.S. Bank's answer would be filed
byAugust 28, 2013 and also that you were clear that if you ruled
against Bank of America's demurrer, youwould not grant them any
extension to file their answer. I stand by my assertion that the
August 27*Minute Order was no mistake. It accurately reflected the
events as I and all of my witnesses recalledthem before Frank Kim,
Bank of America's Counsel - spoke to your Clerk Rick Burns.
I ^mediately requested financial information on you your Clerk.
I discovered that since at least 2007 and
every year since, you reported income from the follow.ng two
entities: ORANGE COUNTY BARASSOCIATION and ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL
LAWYERS. As I am a Pro Se Utigant and notcontributing to your
honoranum, I, Plamtiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, do not beHeve I have
recede I
;i
Deration from you to t*. point or that you are capable of bemg
unfa, and uncased when faced w>th
a Pro Se Litigant, specifically, me.
Time: Saturday September 28, 2013 at 4:20 P.M
conflict of interest.
With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,
Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant
Page 3 of 3
- flBPHSslP ^fflft*
-
SCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM 700FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Nar
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
fE/At-X NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY,
OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE (mm/dd/yy)
VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY,
OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S) DATE (mm/dd/yy)
VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
Comments:.
FPPC Form 700 (2006/2007) Sch. DFPPC Toll-Free Helpline:
866/ASK-FPPC
-
SCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM
Name
700
> NAME OF SOURCE
0PM fie c.ootfry &A. fc^tiADDRESS
OB,^^ MUffiyBUSINESS ACTMTY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE
DATE (mn, a/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF DREK:-
BUSINES5 ACDV5TY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE
DATE [nv ivyi VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S)
1 / ' * ., -- :
1 '
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mmMtfyy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
.
;
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTMTY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GtFTfS)
/ /
Cornmer"-:
FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. 0FPPC Toil-Free Helpline:
866/ASK-FPPC
-
SCHEDULE EIncome - Gifts
Travel Payments, Advances,and Reimbursements
700CALIFORNIA FORMFAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Name
Ski (A; Bill
Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not
required to report "income" from government agencies.
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE
h ; A- 2-#n 6 /viff applicable)
TYPE OF t-.YMENT: (must cheek one) ] Gift JP] Income
DESCRIPTION:
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND : ;ATE_J_L!i>_LsusiN?: E; AC ; ivfTY, IF ANY, OF
SOURCE
S):.J_J I.
TYPE Of PAYMENT: (must check one);.
DLiiCKi' "ON:
(if -'J ' NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE(S):. .AMT: $_
TYPE OF fWYMENT: (must check one) D Glft D Income
DESCRIPTION:
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE(S):. .AMT: _(It applicable)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n Gift D Income
DESCRIPTION:.
C- mn ents:
FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. EFPPC Toll-Free Helpline:
866/ASK-FPPC
-
SCHEDULE DCALIFORNIA FORMFAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
700NameIncome - Gifts /, -
f^-^vlZC-lA r&il
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)t 1 v /( JA /A f/ \ I/ / f
LA I f flv>-' f t^^y Cw'rt- ^ ~''v>- Ls\*Sr L.i^ .'Of
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
. I / I \0( *i *\1D \\i)Sh
1 1> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS fSus/ness Address Acceptable) 7
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
i / f / O^i 5 i 4-aLc) llu f^'^ .'N k^M
$
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
/ /
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
* NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
; /
Comments:
FPPC Form 700 (2009/2010) Sch. DFPPC Toil-Free Helpline:
866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov
-
FILEDSUPERIOR COURT-OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGECENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SEP 19 ztiOfil CALIFORNIA FORMSCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts
700A M E N D M E N T
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
-TO
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE'Z
-
FILEDSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGECENTRAL JUSTICE
CENTERSEP 18 SCHEDULED
Income - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM^ACTICES CQMMIo
A M E N D M E N T
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE ,
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUEleo? '
DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF.SOURCE
DATE- (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S),
> NAME OF SOURCE:
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, .IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE2.0$ 7
DESCRIPTION OF GIFt(S).
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF 6IFT(S) -
> NAME 01= SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY/ OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
VerificationPrint
Statement Type . [~].2007/200g. Annual .["]. Assuming O leaving.
Candidate , " . ; " .
1 have, used all reasonable diligence in .preparing 'this
statemeTvt Ihave reviewed this statement and to, the best of my
knowledge the,informatidn contained herein and in any attached
schedules; is trueand complete.I certify under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Date Signed
Comments:FPPG Form 700 Amendment (2007/3008) Sen, D
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
-
SCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts
CALIFORNIA FORM 700
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRITION OF GIFT(S)
* NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURC
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVIT-V, IF ANY, OF SOUR
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESRIPTION OFlFTfS)
> NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
> NAME OF SOURCE * NAME OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
ADDRESS
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)
FPPC Form 700 (2008/2009) Sch. DFPPC Toil-Free Helpline:
866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov
-
SCHEDULE EIncome - Gifts
Travel Payments, Advances,and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM 700FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Name
Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not
required to report "income" from government agencies.
NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE
/f^ ii uLL&jlM&Zs!. (Md[ Ir^MJlA^'^ADDRESS '
CITY AND STATE*
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
-
SCHEDULE EIncome - Gifts
Travel Payments, Advances,and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM 700FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Name
You must mark either the gift or income box.Mark the "501(c)(3)"
box for a travel payment received from a nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organizationor the "Speech" box if you made a speech or
participated in a panel. These payments are notsubject to the $440
gift limit, but may result in a disqualifying conflict of
interest.
NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)Association of Business Trial
LawyersADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)Orange County
CITY AND STATE
Orange County, CABUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE |~~] 501
(c)(3)Education - Legal
nm. 09, 17, 12 .09, 23, 12 Aifr.t 3,000.00(if gt)
TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) 0 Gift fj Income0 Made a
Speech/Participated in a Panelfj Other - Provide Description
* NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)Celtic Bar Association
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)Orange County
CITY AND STATE
Orange County, CABUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE fj 501
(c)(3)Legal Group
naTC(c).01,01,12 12,31,12 4UT.t 100.00(if git)
> NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)
ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)
CITY AND STATE
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE f_J 501 (c)(3)
nATF(
-
SCHEDULE EIncome - Gifts
Travel Payments, Advances,and Reimbursements
CALIFORNIA FORM 700FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Name
Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not
required to report income from government agencies. You may mark
the box 501(c)(3) for a travel payment received from a nonprofit
501(c)(3)
organization. When the payment is a gift it is reportable but is
not subject to the $420 gift limit.
NAME OF SOURCE
Ct^M u4//i^6"7"n&(. Uk&&&ADDRESS (Business
Address Acceptable)
QfAMM QOdM\S\CITY AND STATr
(tTMLMJltlJMty, OABUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE1 fj 501
(c)(3)
JL&clU3i - 1~&]LLHATRSV \bl\
-
EXHIBIT 2
-
EXHIBIT 3
-
12/8/13 "The Robing Room: CA State Judges
www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 1/3
Home
FAQs
Contact
Privacy Notice
Legal Notice
Hon. Sheila B. Fell See Rating DetailsJudgeSuperior CourtOrange
County See Comments
Attorney Average Rating: 8.7 - 4 rating(s)Non-Attorney Average
Rating: 6.0 - 2 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judgeE-mail Address:
Register
Add your own rating
E-Mail Address (w ill not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address
Zip
Occupation Criminal Defense Lawyer
Add a comment only
Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed
overall rating.
General Rating Criteria
* Temperament No Opinion (1=Aw ful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship No Opinion (1=Aw ful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness No Opinion (1=Not at all
industrious,10=Highlyindustrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation No Opinion (1=Aw
ful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality No Opinion (1=Chronically Late,10=Alw ays
onTime)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters No Opinion (1=Not
all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge No Opinion (1=Not all Able,
10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling No Opinion (1=Completely
Inflexible,10=VeryFlexible)
Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)
* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation No Opinion
(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=EntirelyEvenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail No Opinion
(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions No Opinion (1=Not at all
Involved, 10=VeryInvolved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage No Opinion
(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage No Opinion
(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage No
Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)
* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation No Opinion (1=Not at all
Evenhanded,10=EntirelyEvenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions No Opinion (1=Not at all
Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination No Opinion (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintif
f)
Comments
-
12/8/13 "The Robing Room: CA State Judges
www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 2/3
View Detail
View Detail
View Detail
Submit
What other s have said about Hon. Sheila B. Fell
Comments
Litigant
Comment #: CA4506Rating:Not Rated Comments:She is very dependent
on her law clerk, and very inconsistent with her rulings. She makes
manymistakes.
Send e-mail to this poster 11/8/2013 1:47:29 PM
Other
Comment #: CA4411
Rating:2.0 Comments:After sitting and watching proceedings in
Judge Fell's courtroom, I had to ask someone who knowsher: "Does
she have possible dementia?" Her continued forgetfulness regarding
her previousstatements and the changing of her minutes from
previous court dates was perplexing, to say theleast. Then, there
is her clerk, Rick. He actually opines and rules with her. This is
all very suspectand concerning. Her bias permeated the room: she
allows the banks to default over and over again,and continues to
rule against the homeowner who brings motions to dismiss on a
continual basis,but the banks continue to be given more time. I am
seriously not attacking her -- my intent here isto question her
health, as when a judge continues to err on the side of the bank,
and they clearlyare in default of not filing on time and fraud has
been noted, it is curious how the case continues? Iworry about her
health and the safety of homeowners in her courtroom. Especially
because of Rick,her clerk, as he is acting as a judge throughout
the entire proceeding. When a judge asks her clerk"what did I mean
by that statement I made," one has to question if she forgets or
whether she evenmade the statement in her findings? Thank you for
the time taken here to comment, as it really is aconcern. She is
seemingly a very sweet woman, but the way I've seen her react to
this plaintiff isremarkably unprofessional in nature. Something is
just not right -- her appearance on the bench andher smile just do
not match the results, and her appearing to be disoriented with
regard to the caseis of grave consequence to the truth.
Send e-mail to this poster 10/20/2013 9:21:54 AM
Other
Comment #: CA3275
Rating:10.0 Comments:Very positive experience. Supported
settlement, and we did. Has a head and a heart. Gooddisposition,
calm, patient and listens well. Restored my faith in the justice
system.
Send e-mail to this poster 1/23/2013 11:38:58 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
Comment #: CA1342
Rating:9.3
Privacy & Terms
Type the text
-
12/8/13 "The Robing Room: CA State Judges
www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 3/3
View Detail
View Detail
Rating:9.3 Comments:Great civil judge, both in trying to get
people to settle--as echoed in another review--and anexcellent
trial judge who is not afraid to pull the trigger in bench trials.
Friendly demeanor, too.
Send e-mail to this poster 1/19/2011 8:19:43 PM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
Comment #: CA130
Rating:9.6 Comments:Had trials before her when she sat as a
judge in family law and now as a civil judge I have hadmany more
cases before her and I find her very fair - in fact, she forces
civil attorneys to be civil toeach other, something most civil
attorneys can't do. So, yes, she is a very good, fair judge and
shewants the cases to settle if they can and will give you the time
you need to reach a settlement.
Send e-mail to this poster 7/10/2008 7:18:22 PM
-
Binder11_request_fell_disqualify_pages1-112_page 123_page 13
Binder214_E_15_Ex1_170_1MotiontoDisqualifyFell6_E_27_Ex2_Order8_E_3_39_Ex_3The
Robing Room_ Fell
POS