plead paper crc 50 pages statement disqualification gannon

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

David Chey; Soon Chey3741 Avenue Sausalito Irvine, California 92606Telephone Number: (949) 262-1499As a citizen

In pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE, SOUTH HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ) Case No.: 30:2008:00219380 ) Plaintiff, ) ) VERIFIED STATEMENT OF vs. ) DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE ) AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.3 ) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE YOUNG CHEY; and DOES 1 through 20, ) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA inclusive, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____ )

TO CLERK OF THIS COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION.

Soon Chey, David Chey files this disqualification for cause under the

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

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

Authorization of Section 170.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of

California.

This statement is based on the attached points and authorities, the

attached declaration, attached exhibits, and the complete file and records of

Case Number: 30:2008:00219380

Dated: August 4, 2010 ____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3


POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I, Soon Chey, am the surviving joint tenant under the authorization of

Civil Code Section 683 of the State of California to a single family dwelling

unit located in Orange County, California commonly known as 3741 Avenida

Sausalito, and is more particularly described as Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/

Account Number: TRACK: 7535, LOT:41, PARCEL#: 44926210

Civil Code Section 683 of the State of California, Joint Tenancy provides:

(a) A joint interest is one owned by two or more persons in equal shares, by a

title created by a single will or transfer, when expressly declared in the will

or transfer to be a joint tenancy, or by transfer from a sole owner to himself or

herself and others, or from tenants in common or joint tenants to themselves or

some of them, or to themselves or any of them and others or from a husband and

wife, when holding title as community or otherwise to themselves or to themselves

and others to one of them and to another or others, when expressly declared in

transfer to be a joint tenancy, or when granted or devised to executors or

trustees as joint tenants. A joint tenancy in personal property may be created

by written transfer, instrument or agreement.

At all times, I, Soon Chey have held a joint tenancy interest by with

right of survivorship, with my husband, Young Chey Ph.D., now deceased.

I allege that judicial officer Robert C. Gannon and private actors WELLS FARGO

BANK, N.A. and their ATTORNEY OF RECORD LAW FIRMS, ADORNO & YOSS ALSO KNOWN AS

ALVARADO & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. SORICH, MIGUEL A. DUARTE, STEVEN

LAWRENCE, DENNIS OCONNELL have engaged in the commission of the violation of the above

offenses in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section

1343, fraud and swindles and fraud by wire, radio, or television. Title 18 United

States Code Section 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror, and Title 18

U.S.C. Section 241 Conspiracy against rights, Penal Code Code Section 368 Crimes

against elder or dependent adults, a criminal conspiracy to violate Penal Code Section

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4


182 Subdivision 4, Penal Code Section 115 Procuring of offering false or forged

instrument for record, and Penal Code Section 115.5 Filing false or forged documents

relating to single-family residences; punishment; false statement to notary public to

and have subjected me to and have made me the victim of the theft of my single family

dwelling unit.

For having committed the public offense of failing to disclose and receiving

gifts over the lawful amount under Section 170.9 The Code Of Civil Procedure Of The

State Of California.

For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section 93

Bribery.

For having committed the public offense of violation of Penal Code Section

98.6 Peversion Obstruction of Justice.

For having committed the public offense of violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1962

Racketeering based on the predicate acts of bribery… and violation of Title 18 U.S.C.

1341, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 18 U.S.C. 241, Penal Code Section 98.6 Peversion Obstruction of

Justice, Penal Code Code Section 368 Crimes against elder or dependent adults…

Intentionally and willfully violating the stay to engage in the conspiracy to

violate Soon Chey’s, David Chey's constitutional rights to due process and to engage

in the theft of possession of the property.

On July 27, and 28, 2010 Judge Robert C. Gannon, held proceedings on a case

removed to bankrupty court - under the authorization of and without a lawful order of

remand under the authorization of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9027 - in

the conspiracy to violate Soon Chey’s David Chey's constitutional rights to due

process and to engage in the theft of possession of the property.

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5



1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6


Before 1984 Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of

California was based on an actual bias/ bias in fact. After 1984 the Section

170.1 was amended by the Legislature to add Section 170.1(a)(6)(C). Section

170.1(a)(6)(C) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California

provides:

A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the

judge would be able to be impartial.

In Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 237 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 440] to

determine the appearance of bias and partiality, the court applied the Canons of

the Code of Judicial Conduct as the objective test to make that determination.

Canon 2, Subdivision A. of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Appendix, Division

II, Rules of Court of the State of California provides:

A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a

manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the

judiciary.

Canon 3, Subdivision B. Paragraph (2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics,

Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of California

provides:

A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public

clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the

law.*

In Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371,

398 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 466], the Supreme Court of the State of California held, “a

judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly

reflects bad faith (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra , 18

Cal.4th 1079, 1091-1092), bias (Kennick v. Commission on Judicial Performance

(1990) 50 Cal.3d 297, 327-331 [267 Cal.Rptr.293, 787 P.2d 591, 87 A.L.R. 4th

679]), abuse of authority (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7


(1975) 13 Cal.3d 778, 786-795 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209]), disregard for

fundamental rights (Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49

Cal.3d 826, 849-854), intentional disregard of the law (Cannon v. Commission on

Judicial Qualifications, supra , 14 Cal.3d 678, 695-698 ), or any purpose other

than the faithful discharge of judicial duty (Ryan v. Commission on Judicial

Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 545-546 [247 Cal.Rptr. 378, 754 P.2d 724, 76

A.L.R 4th 951]), is subject to investigation”

In Cannon v. Commission On Judicial Qualifications, 14 Cal.3d 678, pp. 694-695,

537 P.2d 898, 122 Cal.Rptr. 778 (Cal., Jul 10, 1975) the court stated,

“Petitioner completely ignored proper procedures in punishing for a contempt committed

in the immediate presence of a court, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section

1211. [FN15] This, without more, constituted an act of bad faith in each instance.

Petitioner’s explanation that she cannot be deemed to have failed to comply with

section 1211 because that section does not provide a time when the order is to be made

is without merit. (See In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [120 Cal.Rptr. 914].)

It does not appear in any instance that petitioner made any effort to make a proper

order at any time at or after the time the attorneys were cited. (4) Compliance with

section 1211 is a jurisdictional requirement, ‘and an order which assumes to punish

summarily a direct contempt of court is void unless it shows on its face facts

sufficient to constitute a legal contempt.’

FN15 Section 1211 provides in pertinent part: ‘When a contempt is committed in

the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, it may be

punished summarily; for which an order must be made, reciting the facts as occurring

in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is

thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as therein prescribed.’ Arthur

v. *Superior Court, supra , 62 Cal.2d 404, 409 .) Petitioner was an experienced judge,

with more than nine years on the bench before the Ridgeway matter, and she had at hand

reference works which dealt with proper contempt procedures. (Cf. Spruance v.

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8


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 judge’s acting ultra vires.

The requisite intent must exceed mere volition; negligence alone, if not so gross as

to call its genuineness into question, falls short of ‘bad faith.’ ‘Bad faith’ also

encompasses acts within the lawful power of a judge which nevertheless are committed

for a corrupt purpose, i.e., for any purpose other than the faithful discharge of

judicial duties. In sum, ‘bad faith’ is quintessentially a concept of specific intent,

requiring consciousness of purpose as an antecedent to a judge’s 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 petitioner’s primary concerns were first to

inflict a completed punishment before the deputies were afforded a due process

determination that punishment was warranted and, second, to accomplish her objectives

in a manner to insure that such conduct would be insulated from judicial review and

collateral attack. It is manifest that such a planned subversion of justice and misuse

of the judicial power could be undertaken only in bad faith.”

California rules of court, rule 2.118 Acceptance of papers for filing.

Government Code Section 68070. Rules of court; authority to make; restrictions;

uniformity

(a) Every court may make rules for its own government and the government of its

officers not inconsistent with law or with the rules adopted and prescribed by the

Judicial Council. These rules shall not:

(1) Impose any tax, charge, or penalty upon any legal proceeding, or for filing any

pleading allowed by law.

(2) Give any allowance to any officer for services.

(b) The Judicial Council is encouraged to adopt rules to provide for uniformity in

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9



rules and procedures throughout all courts in a county and statewide. The subjects on

which uniformity should be sought shall include, but are not limited to, (1) the form

of papers, (2) limitations on the filing of papers, (3) rules relating to law and

motion, and (4) requirements concerning documents to be filed at or prior to trial.

On July 28, 2010, I came to file several pleadings, with the court clerk of

Judge Robert C. Gannon. I said that I was going to file a pleading. The bailiff

said don’t approach the clerk, Robert C. Gannon’s clerk said that she would not accept

pleading for filing. I said that you have a duty to accept the pleading for filing.

I said that I am going to file a civil rights action. You are holding these

proceedings when they have been removed under the authorization of federal rules of

bankruptcy procedure 9027 and have not been lawfully remanded and that you are acting

without lawful jurisdiction. I am going to bring a civil rights action for damages

injunction. These actions in holding these proceedings are without lawful

jurisdiction and in violation of my constitutional rights. And these actions also

are elder abuse against my mother. On July 28, 2010, off the record, then Judge

Robert C. Gannon came out of chambers, He stated, I am ordering you not to file with

my clerk. You are not going to file with my clerk. If I say that you are not going

to file. Then while he came out of chambers and then Judge Robert C. Gannon said,

You are being disrespectful to my court personnel. Robert C. Gannon stated that you

are “threatening” my court personnel. David Chey stated that the code of civil

procedure and the California rules of Court provides that a civil litigant has the

right to file pleadings. And that while he would like to comply with all lawful

local rules of that this court has made that when a local rule of this court conflicts

with the California rules of court or the code of civil procedure that the CRC and

the CCP controls.

Judge Robert C. Gannon stated to David Chey that he was going to order his

court personnel not to provide public services to David Chey and Soon Chey

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 10


I refer to and incorporate the Reporter’s transcript, of the hearings July 28, 2010

from page 4 line 4, to page 7 line 23; page 31 line 12 to page 36, line 9; page 46

line 8 to page 48

I refer to and incorporate the Reporter’s transcript, page 54

line 4 to page 58 line 1

I refer to and incorporate a true and correct copy of the letter to

The Attorney General of the State of California dated August 4, 2010.

I refer to and incorporate the Complaint Deprivation of Civil Rights For

Filed on August 3, 2010.

Dated: August 4, 2010 ___________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey In pro per

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 11



DECLARATION

I, David Chey, declare, if called to testify I could testify on the basis of

my own personal knowledge.

1. I refer to and incorporate the docket of Case Number 30-2008-00219380, a

true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by

this reference. Soon Chey and David Chey filed Notices Of Bankruptcy on April 30,

2009,

2. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac

UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Bondcorp Realty Services, Inc. Deed Of Trust, Dated May 27, 2009

to Robert C. Gannon And Hope E. Gannon, Husband And Wife As Joint Tenants, For Loan

Amount of U.S. $296,000.00 Dollars, secured to the Parcel Id Number 139-322-03 which

currently has the address of 1696 Minorca Place, Costa Mesa, California 92626, a true

and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” and incorporated herein by this

reference.

3. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac UNIFORM

INSTRUMENT, First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated August 27, 2004 to Robert C.

Gannon Jr. and Christina Cotton Gannon as Co-Trustees UDT of the Gannon Family Trust

, For Loan Amount of U.S. $150,000.00 Dollars, secured to Parcel Id Number 463-123-01

which currently has the address of 19552 Sierra Canon Road, Irvine, California 92603,

a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and incorporated herein by

this reference.

4. I refer to and incorporate the First Republic Bank Deed Of Trust, Dated August

27, 2004 to Robert C. Gannon Jr. and Christina Cotton Gannon as Co-Trustees UDT of the

Gannon Family Trust , For Loan Amount of U.S. $100,000.00 Dollars, secured to the real

property of 19552 Sierra Canon Road, Irvine, California 92603, a true and correct copy

attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. I refer to and incorporate the Single Family Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM

INSTRUMENT, Taylor, Bean, Whitaker Mortgage Deed Of Trust, July 3, 2003 to Robert C.

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 12


Gannon And Hope E. Gannon, Husband And Wife As Joint Tenants, For Loan Amount of U.S.

322,000.00 Dollars secured to the address of 1696 Minorca Place, Costa Mesa,

California 92626 a true and correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit “E,” and

incorporated herein by this reference. 6. I refer to and incorporate Robert C. Gannon’s Statement Of Economic Interest

700 filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission on February 22, 2010 a true and

correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit “F,” and incorporated herein by this

reference.

7. I refer to and incorporate the Grant Deed 83-439076 that states that Charles

B. Cotton and Audrey B. Cotton Trust established in September 18, 1962 holds the grant

deed to the property at 1509 E. Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92675 a true and

correct copy attached hereto as Exhibit “G,” and incorporated herein by this

reference.

8. I refer to and incorporate a true and correct copy of the letter to

The Attorney General of the State of California dated July 26, 2010.

9. I refer to and incorporate the Claim For Money Or Damages Against The

County Of Orange received July 22, 2010.

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13



I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: August 4, 2010, Irvine, California

____________________________ David Chey, Soon Chey Declarants

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14



VERIFICATION

I, Soon W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action.

I have read the foregoing, VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION

UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 170.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and know of the contents

thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those

matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as

to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

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

Date and Place: August 4, 2010, Irvine, California ____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15



VERIFICATION

I, David W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action.









Date and Place: August 4, 2010, Irvine, California ____________________________ David Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16


PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE:

I reside in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and a party to the action; my address is 3741 Avenida Sausalito, Irvine, California 92606.

On August 4, 2010 I served the foregoing document described as:

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

on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH FACILITY, JUDGE ROBERT C. GANNON 4601 JAMBOREE BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 in this action by personal service.

And by by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows

ADORNO & YOSS ALVARADO & ASSOCIATES1 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 210SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707

I deposited this envelope in the mail at Santa Ana, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

____ David Chey__ ___________________________ Type or Print Name Signature

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT “C”

EXHIBIT “C,”

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

EXHIBIT “D”.

EXHIBIT “D,”

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19



VERIFICATION

I, Soon W. Chey am the plaintiff in the above named action.









Date and Place: March 20, 2009, Irvine, California ____________________________ Soon Chey, Declarant, Plaintiff

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 20



1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 21



1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 128.7 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION

no such thing:

When a district fails to meet the procedural requirements of the

Act by failing to develop an IEP in the manner specified, the

purposes of the Act are not served, and the district may have failed

to provide a FAPE. The significance of the procedures provided by the

IDEA goes beyond any measure of a child’s academic progress during

the period at issue. As the Court in Rowley said, ‘Congress placed

every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving

parents and guardians a large measure of participation’ at every step

‘as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP.’Rowley , 458

U.S. ast 205-06, 102 S.Ct. 3034.

W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. No. 23 ,

960 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir.1992). Plaintiff’s portrayal of Rowley

as simply requiring a minimum of ‘some educational benefit’ to the

exclusion of procedural safeguards severely mischaracterizes the law,

in what can only be interpreted as an intentional attempt to mislead

the court. Counsel’s conduct goes far beyond the vigorous advocacy of

distinguishing cases or holdings harmful to its position; counsel

actively misrepresents the basic standard by which IDEA cases are

judged.

The court stated, “Sanctions under Rule 11 are not limited to

instances in which a pleading as a whole is frivolous, or of a

harassing nature. Rather, sanctions may be imposed for improper or

unwarranted allegations even though at least one non-frivolous claim

has been pled if an attorney has not conducted a ‘reasonable inquiry’

under the circumstances of a case. Id. at 1362-65. Monetary sanctions

may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of

Rule 11 subdivision (b)(2).” (Moser v. Bret Harte Union High School

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 23



Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 950)

The court stated, “Under California law, an attorney may only use

methods ‘as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead

the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement

of fact or law.’ Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 6068(d). ‘In presenting a

matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of

maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are

consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge,

judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of face

or law; (C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the

language of a book, statute, or decision; (D) Shall not, knowing its

invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been repealed or

declared unconstitutional.’ California Rules of Professional

Conduct, Rule 5-200 (1992).” (Moser v. Bret Harte Union High School

Dist., supra, 366 F.Supp.2d at p. 952)

And the court stated, ”Taken as a whole, Ms. Yama’s repeated

misstatements of the facts, frivolous objections, and

mischaracterizations of law, when combined with the fact that she was

placed on notice of her transgressions no less than four times by

Plaintiff’s counsel, throughout the painful progress of trying to get

the summary judgment motions before the court for decision,FN9 cannot

be interpreted as anything other than a bad faith attempt to mislead

the Court, obscure the real facts of the case, to obstruct, and/or

harass the Plaintiff. This was an effort to either wear down the

Plaintiff or to win a victory for Lozano Smith’s client that was

clearly unjustified by either the facts or the law. These actions

violated provisions of Rule 11(b)(1), (3), and (4)” (Moser v. Bret

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

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 24



Impac Funding Corporation states, “The Interspousal Transfer

Deed from the Plaintiff to her husband was valid on its face. Thus,

the Plaintiff’s claim to title in this instance fails as against

Impac as she cannot show title in herself at the time of the

recording of the Impac trust deed. Williams v. City of San Pedro

(1908) 153 Cal. 44, 49, 94 P. 234. Based upon the factual

allegations, the Impac trust deed should be deemed valid over any

claim by the Plaintiff.” (Impac Funding Corporation’s Notice Of

Demurrer And Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title

And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities,

p.5, line 11)

And

“A deed obtained as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations

or undue influence is voidable rather than void, and may be relied

upon and enforced by a bona fide encumbrancer who pays valuable

consideration and who has no notice of the fraud or undue influence.

Fallon v. Triangle Management (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1106, 215

Cal.Rptr. 748.” (Impac Funding Corporation’s Notice Of


And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities,

p.6, line 7)

The defendant’s statements are not a full disclosure in that they

omit applicable case law.

Settled case law shows:

In Erickson v. Bohne (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 553 at pp. 556-557

[279 P.2d 619] And in 26 Corpus Juris Secundum, at pages 307 and 308,

it is stated:

“A void deed passes no title, and cannot be made the foundation of a

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 25



good title even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase

. . . . . . . . . . .

‘Ordinarily a deed procured by fraud is not void but is merely

voidable. Where the grantor knowingly executes the very instrument

intended, but is induced to do so by some fraud in the treaty or by

some fraudulent representation or pretense, his deed is merely

voidable, although, where there is fraud in the factum, as where the

grantor intends to execute one instrument but another is

surreptitiously substituted in its place and the grantor is

fraudulently made to sign, seal, and deliver an instrument different

from that intended, it would seem that such fraud in the factum

renders the deed not merely voidable but absolutely void, and, where

without negligence *557 chargeable to the grantor there is no

effective delivery because of fraud or other cause, the deed will be

held void.’

(2) Applying these well settled principles to the instant appeal we

are convinced that the second cause of action does sufficiently state

a cause of action against the defendant Pierce upon the theory that

plaintiff’s deed was void because it is alleged therein that she was

wholly without understanding within the meaning of section 38 of the

Civil Code. Under such circumstances there was no effective execution

or delivery of the deed, and as stated in the quotation of 12

California Jurisprudence, supra, it was void ab initio and an action

to avoid it could be brought at any time. And as stated in 26 Corpus

Juris Secundum, supra, ‘A void deed passes no title and cannot be

made the foundation of a good title even under the equitable doctrine

of bona fide purchase.’”

And

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 26



in Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.2d 617, at pp. 620-621 [12

Cal.Rptr. 665], “Defendant next contends that plaintiff has

failed to state a cause of action for cancellation in that she does

not allege notice of cancellation or an offer to place the defendants

in statu quo. This contention likewise is without merit. (3) The rule

appears to be that an allegation, as here made, that plaintiff did

not intend to vest title in the grantee, is equivalent to an

allegation of nondelivery, and that therefore plaintiff is seeking to

cancel a deed that was void. (See Zakaessian v. Zakaessian (1945), 70

Cal.App.2d 72, 724-725 [3] [161 P.2d 677]; Sullivan v. Dunnigan

(1959), 171 Cal.App.2d 662, 667-668 [5] [341 P.2d 404].)

The same theory has been followed where, as likewise averred

in the case at bench, plaintiff alleges that she signed the document

under a misapprehension that it was something other than a deed. (See

Conklin v. Benson (1911), 159 Cal. 785, 791 [116 P. 34, 36 L.R.A.

N.S. 537]; Cutler v. Fitzgibbons (1906), 148 Cal. 562 [83 P. 1075];

Meyer v. Haas (1899), 126 Cal. 560, 563 [58 P. 1042]; Sparks v.

Mendoza (1948), 83 Cal.App.2d 511, 515 [4 ] [189 P.2d 43].)

(4) This is not an action for restitution after rescission of a

contract under the provisions of sections 1689 and 1691 of the Civil

Code, in which case notice is required. Rather, *621 it is an action

brought under the provisions of section 3412 [FN2] to cancel a void

instrument. Notice and an offer to restore are not required under

such circumstances. (Meyer v. Haas (1899), supra, 126 Cal. 560, 563 ;

see also Shull v. Crawford (1917), 33 Cal.App.36, 41 [164 P. 330];

Hart v. Church (1899), 126 Cal. 471, 475 [58 P. 910, 59 P. 296, 77

Am.St.Rep. 195]; Kelley v. Owens (1898), 120 Cal. 502, 510- 511 [47

P. 369, 52 P. 797]; Zakaessian v. Zakaessian (1945), supra, 70

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 27



Cal.App.2d 721, 725 [3].)”

The case law of Fallon v. Triangle Management (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d

1103, 215 Cal.Rptr. 748 is one on fraud in the inducement and

undue influence. The defendant changes the definition of fraud to

include only fraud in the inducement.

Miller, Miller & Star, California Real Estate 3D, p.126,

states, ”Fraud in the inducement. When the grantor is aware that

the instrument is a deed, and that will convey title, but he or she

is induced to execute and deliver it by fraudulent misrepresentation,

there is merely fraud in the inducement.3 When this species of

fraud has been committed on the grantor, the deed is only voidable

and can be relied on and enforced by a bona fide purchaser.4 A bona

fide purchaser is not liable for the fraud of the predecessor.5

However a deed that is voidable as a result of the grantee’s fraud

can be rescinded against a third party transferee from the grantee

who is not a bona fide purchaser.6

Fraud in the inception. When the grantor does not realize

the nature of the instrument being executed and because of fraud, he

or she believes it to be some type of document other than a deed

there is fraud in the inception.7 In such cases, the deed is void

because it is never properly delivered, and the title subsequently

acquired by a bona fide purchaser is also void and unenforceable.8”

The Defendant’s statements are baseless without a reasonable

inquiry. And the Defendant has failed to comply with Section 128.7

of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.

Defendant Impac Funding Corporation received service of the

First Amended Complaint on September 5, 2008. I refer to and

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

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 28



Complaint; First Amended Complaint… dated September 5, 2008, a true

and correct copy is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit A.

And I request the court to take judicial notice under the

authorization of Section 453 of the Evidence Code of the State of

California.

Impac Funding Corporation attorney of record Michael J. Fox

could have read the case law of the First Amended Complaint.

In Abandonato v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 264, 268 [48

Cal.Rptr.2d 429] the court stated, “when a court awards sanctions

under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. To begin with, sanctions

under that section are not limited to court costs and attorney fees

but include those reasonable expenses ‘directly related to and in

furtherance of the litigation’ (Brewster v. Southern Pacific

Transportation Co . (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 701, 711 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 89])

which are ‘incurred as a result of bad faith actions and tactics.’

(Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks, supra , 8 Cal.App.4th at

p. 307.) For example, sanctions have been awarded to a party as

‘compensation for time spent by [the party’s] personnel in defending

against the cross-complaint’ (580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus

Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 27 [272 Cal.Rptr. 227]), and

as ‘compensation for airfare and reimbursement for lost vacation’

time. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks, supra , 8

Cal.App.4th at p. 307.)”

And,

“sanctions under section 128.5 may be awarded in favor of both a

self-representing attorney and a nonattorney pro se litigant.”

(Abandonato v. Coldren, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 269)

Canon 3 Subdivision D Paragraph 2 of the Code of Judicial

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 29



Ethics, Appendix, Division II, Rules of Court of the State of

California provides:

(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has

violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the

judge shall take appropriate corrective action.

Dated: October 2, 2008 ___________________________ Soon Chey In pro per

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 30



DECLARATION

I Soon Wha Chey declare:

1. I could competently testify to on the basis of my own

knowledge.

2. A true and correct copy, the Proof Of Service Of The

Summons On The First Amended Complaint; First Amended Complaint…

dated September 5, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

2. On date October 2, 2008 at least 21 days prior to filing

this motion, I served this motion on the Defendant Impac Funding

Corporation’s attorney of record Michael J. Fox. in order to give the

Defendant the opportunity to withdraw its Notice Of Demurrer And

Demurrer To The First Amended Complaint For Quiet Title

And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities.

Defendant failed to do so.

3. I have incurred those fees, costs, and reasonable

expenses in making this motion of thirteen days at approximately

eight hours a day. I claim an hourly rate of fifteen dollars per

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

reasonable expenses as an assistant to me of thirteen days at

approximately eight hours a day. He claims an hourly rate of

fifteen dollars per hour.


State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date and Place: October 2, 2008, Irvine, California

____________________________ Soon Chey, In pro per

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 31



EXHIBIT A

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 32

PROPOSED ORDER

Soon Chey3741 Avenue Sausalito Irvine, California 92606Telephone Number: (949) 262-1499As a citizen

In pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

SOON W. CHEY, ) Case No.: 30-2008-00107011 ) Plaintiff, ) PROPOSED ORDER ) vs. ) ) GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, ) its Successors and/or Assigns; ) IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) BANK OF THE WEST, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) FINANCIAL TITLE COMPANY, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; ) WELLS FARGO BANK, its Successors ) and/or assigns; ) SURVEYORS SERVICE COMPANY, its ) Successors and/or Assigns; )NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATIONS MANAGEMENT ) COMPANY, INC., its Successors and/ )or Assigns; ) And all persons unknown, claiming )legal or equitable right, title, )estate, lien, or interest in the )Property adverse to Plaintiff’s )title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s )title to the Property, and Does 1 )100, )

The motion for an order for sanctions under the authorization

Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 33

PROPOSED ORDER

California came on for hearing. Plaintiff, Soon Chey and the

Defendant Impac Funding Corporation attorney of record, Michael J.

Fox, appeared.

Having read the motion, the points and authorities and the

declarations filed by the parties, and having heard arguments,

that the Defendant Impac Funding Corporation’s Notice Of


And Disparagement Of Title; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, And

its claims, Plaintiff is not Entitled to a Quiet Title Decree Against

Impac; Impac is Protected as a Bona Fide Encumbrancer, are not

warranted by existing law and are a violation of the law of Section

128.7 Paragraph B Subdivision 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the

State of California.

And It Is Ordered That Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and that

the Defendant’s attorney of record, is to pay plaintiff the sum of

$3,120 dollars.

Date: _____________________________ Judge of the Superior Court

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 34



PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE:

I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3741 Avenue Sausalito, Irvine, California 92606.

On October 2, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as:

on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

Michael J. Fox 17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92614

I deposited this envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with Express Mail postage thereon fully prepaid

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

____ David Chey__ ___________________________ Type or Print Name Signature

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 35

NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF…

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 36


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 37


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 38


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 39


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 40


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 41


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 42


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 43


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 44


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 45


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 46


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 47


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 48


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 49


1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 50


plead paper crc 50 pages statement disqualification gannon

Documents