Theodore C. Zayner, Criminal Grand Jury Complaint

1 William J.
Cutlip
2 619 Union Avenue
Campbell , California 95008
3 Tel: (408)614-1248
4 Claimant/
6 Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury

70 West Hedding St., West Wing
7
San Jose, California 95110
8
William J. Cutlip )
9 ) INFORMATION-INQUIRY
) FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL
10 Claimant/Victim ) CLAIMS AGAINST THEODORE C.
)
11 ) ZAYNER JUDGE [BAR #37503],
vs )
12 ) CLAIMS FOR:
Theodore C. Zayner, Judge [Bar #37503], )
1. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT,
13 )
) 2. JUDICIAL OPPRESSION,
14 Defendant )
) 3.DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS,
15 ) 4.DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
)
16 )
) SUBMITTED TO THE CRIMINAL
17 ) GRAND JURY FOREMAN
)
18 )
) AFFIDAVIT OF William J. Cutlip,
19 ) COURT TRANSCRIPTS, JUDGES
)
20 ) ORDER , OPINIONS JUDGMENTS
) TENTATIVE RULINGS,PLEADINGS
21 ) ETC. IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
)
22 )
) EXHIBITS 1-8
23 ) EXHIBITS 9-14 filed under a separate
) cover.
24 )
)
25 MAIL SERVICE
26
27
28 ~1~
FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

1
INFORMATION-INQUIRY by William J. Cutlip as the Claimant/Victim,
2
3 claiming/charging/noticing/registering for the private relief about; FELONY

4
COMPLAINT as follows; INFORMATION FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL
5
CLAIMS AGAINST THEODORE C. ZAYNER JUDGE, CLAIMS FOR; 1.
6
7 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, 2. JUDICIAL OPPRESSION, 3. DEPRIVATION OF

8
RIGHTS, 4. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT
9
ATTORNEY JEFFREY FRANCIS ROSEN FOR HIS PRESENTMENT TO THE
10
11 CRIMINAL GRAND JURY BY HIS DUTY AND OATH OF OFFICE,

12 AFFIDAVIT OF William J. Cutlip, COURT TRANSCRIPTS, JUDGE’S ORDER ,
13
OPINIONS JUDGMENTS TENTATIVE RULINGS, PLEADINGS ETC. IN
14
15 SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, EXHIBITS 1-8, MAIL SERVICE;
16
17
This Claimant/Victim bringing forth this information-inquiry who is not trained in law,
18
19 but who has the reasonable expectation of rights being protected by Public paid Officials
20 relies on but not limited to the following laws codes rules and regulations etc applied to
21
this information-inquiry;
22
23
24 1. The Supremacy Clause of the United States state constitutions subordinate

25
2. The Constitution for the united States of America joinder
26
3. California Penal Code – PEN § 939.5 - § 930 - § 925 grand jury duties
27
28 ~2~

1 4. Code of Conduct for United States Judges see JCUS-APR 73, PP. 9-11
2
5. Title 18 USC 241, 242, deprivation of rights
3
4
6. FRCP 2071 concealment of the record
5 7. California Code Penal Code § 422.6, oppression etc.

6
8. Screws v. United States 325 US 91 (1945) officials being held to high standard
7
8
9. Penal Code Section 141(c) prosecutorial misconduct
9 10. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) disclosure of exculpatory evidence

10
11. California Code CIV § 3294 oppression and malice
11
12. California Constitution Articles VI § 18 and 18.5 judicial misconduct
12
13 13. California Penal Code § 1424.5 and 6068.7 zero tolerance for suppressed
14
evidence
15
14. White Washing (1) Ignore the Law, (2) Cite Invalid Law, (3)Ignore the Facts,
16
17 (4) Ignore Issues, (5) Conceal Evidence, (6) Say Nothing in Orders (7)
18
Block/Deny Motions and Evidence, (8) Violate and Ignore the Rules of
19
Procedure, (9) Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People (self-
20
21 represented/Pro Pers)
22
(10) Order Monetary Sanctions against Parties they want to Damage (excessive or
23
unfounded bail) (11) Refuse to Disqualify themselves, (12) Violate their Oath of
24
25 Office (if any) and Code of Judicial Conduct, (13) Conspire with fellow Judges
26
27
28 ~3~

1 and Judicial Employees, (14) Allow Perjury (15) Deny Hearing/Motions etc. (15)
2
Allow Fraud on the Court by its Officers (16) Simulated Legal Process;
3
4 DECLARATION
5
I, William J. Cutlip as the Claimant/Victim and Declarant, submit the following
6
7 information-inquiry that is a verified and registered complaint/affidavit to the Criminal

8
Grand Jury for its review and action. All the factual allegations contained in these claims
9
are based upon my first hand eyewitness account, information, and belief;
10
11 I, William J. Cutlip as the Complainant/Victim and Declarant lodge the enclosed

12 information-inquiry, by the verified claims against Judge, Theodore C. Zayner, , as
13
follows: 1. Official Misconduct, 2. Judicial Oppression, 3. Deprivation of Rights 4.
14
Violations of Due Process;
15
16 The court transcripts, opinion, tentative rulings judgments and orders are
17 manifestly indefensible proving the Cutlips allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
18
INTRODUCTIION
19
For ordinary citizens, the independent grand jury is the only tool of salvation
20
from judicial corruption. Without this critical tool of redress, American civil rights
21
exist only at the will of a judge.
22
The type of abuse established in this complaint is exactly why our forefathers
23
granted ordinary citizens the right to access the Grand Jury directly. It is a
24
centuries old system of checks and balances imported from England, installed in
25
America to protect ordinary citizens against judicial tyranny.
26 Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 provides that judges are liable for criminal acts
27 committed under “color of law” meaning that judges may be immune from
28 ~4~

1 prosecution for civil misbehavior, but they are NOT immune from prosecution for
2 criminal behavior.
3
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

5 This complaint involves unlawful detainer action case No. 1-15-cv-285290
6 filed by Deutsche Bank National Trustee Company. (Deutsche) September 04, 2015.
7
The case was filed in the Superior Court Santa Clara County California debt. No. 6.
The Complaint names William Cutlip and Chikako Cutlip as defendants (the
8
Cutlip’s) .The Cutlip’s privately owned land located in Campbell CA (Campbell
9
Property.) is the subject matter of the action. Judge Theodore C. Zayner presided
10
over the case.
11
The entire case comes down to whether or not Deutsche has an assignment of
12
the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips endorsed promissory note it is
13
really that simple.
14
Once is it established that no assignment of the deed of trust exist in the
15 record and no transfer of the note exist in the record then its easily discernible the
16 foreclosure was unlawful and Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence of the fact there
17 is no assignment of the Deed of trust or transfer of the promissory note violating the
18 Cutlips civil rights.
19 THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER PLAINTIFF PERFECTION OF TITLE IS
20 THE SOLE SOURCE OF THE COURTS SUBJECT MATTER
21 JURISDICTION AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
22 DEFENDANT
23
The foreclosing party filing an unlawful detainer under California civil
procedure § 1161a must prove it acquired a perfected title.
24
A perfected title is good and valid beyond all reasonable doubt free from
25
litigation and properly recorded in the chain of title.
26
27
28 ~5~

1 Plaintiff’s failure to prove a perfection of title prevents the unlawful detainer
2 court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the
3 defendant.
4
5 (‘A restrictive jurisdictional prerequisite mandated by Unlawful detainer
6 statute the Plaintiff filing the action must have acquired a duly perfected title prior to
7
filing an action.” Cal. Civ. P. § 1161a (b) (3) Higgins v. Coyne, 75 Cal. App. 2d 69, 72-
73 (Ct. App. 1946.)
8
(“Failure of the plaintiff to prove perfection of title at the onset of litigation
9
bars the unlawful detainer court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and the
10
unlawful detainer five day summons does not vest the court with personal
11
jurisdiction over a defendant. Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 446,
12
451-452 [124 Cal. Rptr. 139].)
13
` The foreclosing party filing an unlawful detainer proves it
14
acquired a perfected title by proving it has an assignment of the beneficiary right
15 title and interest under the deed of trust. This proves that the foreclosing party had
16 the right to substitute the trustee and cause the sale of the property. Without an
17 assignment of the deed of trust and transfer of the subject promissory note the
18 substitution of trustee is unauthorized. An unauthorized agent of Deutsche cannot
19 issue a valid deed and the Deutsche could not prove a perfection of title barring the
20 Unlawful detainer courts subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over
21 the defendants.
22 JUDGE ZAYNER SANCTIONED A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE
23
OF THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY.
24
Without an assignment in the record of the Cutlips deed of trust judge Zayner
25
could not determine that the Deutsche purported trustee deed represented a valid
26
title and had full knowledge the unlawful detainer court was without jurisdiction.
27
28 ~6~

1 Judge Zayner had no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over
2 the defendants Cutlip’s. Judge Zayner Lacked the jurisdiction to substitute the
3 Party plaintiff with an assignee of a Deutsche when Deutsche failed to prove it had
4 title this was not a substitution of the party plaintiff (Chiang) parenthetically straw
5 man assignee. This was a sanctioning of a fraudulent conveyance; there is no other
6 way to describe it.
7
Judge Zayner suppressed the fact the foreclosure was void and the fact the
court was in the total absence of jurisdiction. And the fact that Deutsche had no
8
title, this alone was enough to show Judge Zayner’s criminal intent.
9
Judge Zayner based his final Judgment on his claim the trustee deed
10
represented a perfected title. Judge Zayner also claimed the prior unlawful
11
detainer Judgment was res Judicata to the Cutlips claims.
12
The Cutlip’s compulsory cross complaint claim came after final judgment in
13
the prior unlawful detainer and the fact that Chiang’s deed is void came after the
14
final judgment in the prior case and has no effect on their application to defeat this
15 instant action for the courts lack of jurisdiction. The courts lack of jurisdiction is
16 based on among other things the fact the deed relied on by Chiang is void on its
17 face preventing the court from acquiring any jurisdiction, The unlawful detainer
18 court hearing case 1-15-cv-285290 has never acquired jurisdiction because there
19 has never been proof of perfected title in Deutsche or Chiang.
20 Moreover the California compulsory cross complaint statute is a bar to both
21 Deutsche and Chiang from asserting a claim to the Cutlips Campbell property and
22 proving a perfected title leaving the court in the total absence of jurisdiction.
23
The compulsory cross complaint statute is a complete bar to Deutsche and its
assignee from stating a claim to the Campbell property. Opposition does not even
24
superficially address the Cutlips claims.
25
It has already been shown that without an assignment of the Cutlips Deed of
26
trust there can be no perfection of title barring the unlawful detainer court’s
27
28 ~7~

1 jurisdiction and there is no assignment in the record of the prior unlawful detainer
2 case 1-12-cv-230319 establishing that court was without jurisdiction and its
3 judgment cannot be on the merits. Therefore there is no proof in the record of
4 jurisdiction that Judge Zayner can try to rationalize. For a judgment to be res-
5 judicata it must be on the merits. There can be no judgment on the merits in favor of
6 a party without an assignment. No assignment means no title and no standing.
7
The absence of an allegation or evidence of an assignment of the Cutlips
Deed of trust or transfer of the Cutlip’s promissory note during any
8
proceeding makes the claims by Judge Zayner of res judicata knowingly false. ...
9
There could be no proof of perfection of title in any case absent an assignment of
10
the Cutlips deed of trust and the record shows no proof of an assignment has ever
11
been produce in any proceeding.
12
Absent an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust the prior unlawful detainer
13
judgments could not have been on the merits therefore there could be no res
14
judicata consequences.
15 Once it is shown No assignment exist of the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer
16 of the Cutlip promissory note the judge Zayner’s façade falls away as nothing Judge
17 Zayner is portraying could be true without an assignment.
18 As explained the purported trustee deed could not be valid and the prior
19 judgment could not be on the merits. Case law is undivided; the failure to prove a
20 valid assignment is fatal to the U.D. action. This case should have been no
21 different. The prior unlawful detainer was not on the merits absent an assignment
22 the Cutlips would have prevailed on the merits.
23
The trustee deed could not be proof of a perfection of title without an
assignment to validate the substitution of trustee. Judge Zayner suppressed the
24
fact that Deutsche failed to prove an assignment of the Cutlip deed of trust or a
25
Transfer of the Cutlip promissory note.
26
27
28 ~8~

1 Judge Zayner Knew that absent an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust and
2 absent a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche the substitution of
3 trustee by Deutsche was unauthorized and the foreclosure was unlawful.
4 An unauthorized agent of Deutsche cannot conduct a valid sale or issue a valid
5 deed and the foreclosure was absolutely void.
6
. (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate the
7
substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
8
unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
9 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012.)
10
(Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing a valid assignment fatal to their
11
UD action,; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Brown, 2012 WL 6213737, at *5-6 (Cal.
12
App. Div. Super. Ct. July 31, 2012)
13
14 (“Failure of the plaintiff to prove perfection of title at the onset of litigation

15 bars the unlawful detainer court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and the
16 unlawful detainer five day summons does not vest the court with personal
17 jurisdiction over a defendant. Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 446,
18
451-452 [124 Cal. Rptr. 139].)
19
20 (Deutsche ordered the sale and acquired property and was neither the holder
21 of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the trustee substituted by
22 Deutsche was not the proper trustee therefore the recording of that document was
23 unauthorized.
24
An unauthorized trustee cannot issue a valid trustee deed Dimock v. Emerald
25
Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, In Dimock v Emerald Properties (2000)
26
the court held that a sale conducted by an unauthorized trustee was void rather
27
28 ~9~

1 than voidable because the conveying party was not the true trustee. (Id. at p. 877.)
2 Concluding the trustee had no power to convey the property, the court declared the
3 trustee's deed upon sale "was a complete nullity with no force or effect (Dimock,
4 supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.) (Id. at p. 876.)
5
This case squares with the fact the substitution of trustee was unauthorized
6
and that party has no power to convey a valid deed. Therefore Deutsche had no
7
standing because it could not prove a valid title.
8
Deutsche could not prove an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust.
9 Therefore the foreclosure caused by Deutsche was unlawful in violation of Penal
10 Code 532 Theft by false pretence.
11
In California, when a party authorizes a foreclosure without the power to do
12
so, the foreclosure is void, not voidable. See, e.g., Pro Value Properties, Inc. v.
13
Quality Loan service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 581,583 (2009), and Glaski v.
14
Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094 (2013).void when it is conducted by
15
an entity that lacks authority to do so.
16
17 (The party that ordered the sale and acquired property was
18
neither the holder of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the
trustee substituted by that party was not the proper trustee. Sciarratta v U.S. bank
19
(2016) 247 CA 4th 552
20
21 (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate

22 the substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
23 unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
24 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012)
25 DEUTSCHE KNEW IT WAS CREATING A FALSE TRUSTEE DEED
26 FOR ITS OWN GAIN BECAUSE DEUTSCHE HAS NEVER ALLEGED AN
27
ASSIGNMENT OF THE CUTLIPS DEED OF TRUST.
28 ~ 10 ~

1 Deutsche recorded the false trustee deed in the county records against the
2 Cutlips Title. Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any false
3 document with a public office.
4 Deutsche filed the false trustee deed into the Court records. Presenting
5 False Written Evidence is a felony crime under California Penal Code Section 132
6 PC and the broader offense of Preparing False Evidence is a felony crime pursuant
7
to California Penal Code Section 134 PC.
Deutsche presented the false trustee deed as valid .passing off a false deed as
8
valid, for your own benefit and gain is a felony. Penal Code.PC-470 (d)
9
Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche knew it lacked
10
the requisite authority to create, record and file into evidence and present as valid
11
false trustee deed and has used it obtain judgment against the rightful owner. This
12
could never have been possible without Judge Zayner’s suppression of the evidence
13
and whitewashing of the jurisdictional defects.
14
JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF A 'MISPRISION OF FELONY'
15 “(1) Deutsche committed and completed the felonies Alleged above; (2)
16 Judge Zayner had knowledge of the fact; (3) Judge Zayner failed to notify the
17 authorities; and (4) Judge Zayner took affirmative steps to conceal the crimes by
18 Deutsche.
19 JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF PENAL CODE 31 PC
20 (CALIFORNIA'S AIDING AND ABETTING LAW) reads: "All persons
21 concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it is felony or misdemeanor, and
22 whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its
23
commission, are principals in any crime so committed."
Judge Zayner committed moral turpitude when Judge Zayner decided to
24
suppress the Cutlips critical defense evidence and allegedly took bribes, what else
25
could explain Judge Zayner’s actions.
26
27
28 ~ 11 ~

1 IN THE DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW IT IS SHOWN THAT JUDGE
2 ZAYNER CONSPIRED WITH THE PLAINTIFF TO SUPPRESS THE
3 CUTLIPS EVIDENCE
4 The copies of the Cutlips Deed of trust and promissory note certified and
5 attested to be true and exact copies of the original sent in compliance to California
6 Civil code of Procedure § 2943 created a rebuttable presumption under Evidence
7
code § 602 that the Cutlips DOT is a nullity. This prevented any entity from
making a valid claim to the Campbell property.
8
9
The California Compulsory cross complaint statute is a complete bar to
10
Deutsche and its assignee alleging a claim to the Cutlips Campbell property.
11
12
Judge Zayner further conspired to suppress the Cutlips evidence and
13
factual; allegation proving the deeds relied upon by plaintiffs are void under the
14
statute of frauds California Civil code section §§ 1091-1096 .
15
16 Judge Zayner suppressed the fact that The Complaint filed by Deutsche on
17 September 04, 2015 has never been amended and proves that Deutsche relied on
18 an after acquired interest to enforce the Cutlips written deed of trust contract
19 establishing that Deutsche is not the real party in interest.
20 Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence showing the Complaint filed by
21 Deutsche on September 04, 2015 failed to state a cause of action under Unlawful
22 detainer statute California civil code of procedure §1161a .
23
The factual allegation and supporting evidence described below in detail was
24
suppressed by Judge Zayner.
25
26
27
28 ~ 12 ~

1 RELEVANT FACTUAL HISTORY establishing that Deutsche cannot have a legal
2 interest in the Cutlips property and Judge Zayner has acted unlawfully in its effort
3 to gain favor from Deutsche. Judge Zayner suppressed this evidence falsely
4 claiming the certified documents were not signed.
5 In 2001 the Cutlips purchased land in Campbell CA. in 2007 the Cutlips
6 entered into a financial contract with Downey savings and loan using the Campbell
7
property as collateral. The contract consists of a written deed of trust and a written
promissory note.
8
The contract identifies Downey as the lender, beneficiary and trustee and the
9
Cutlips as trustor’s DSL subsidiary of Downey savings and loan is the named trustee.
10
In 2008 Downey failed and was sold by the federal deposit insurance
11
corporation acting as receive to U.S. Bank.
12
On or about August 5, 2009 U.S Bank acquired possession of the Cutlips original
13
deed and note, in its acquisition of Downey. U.S. Bank sent the Cutlips a notice of
14
new creditor and noticed the Cutlips it was transferring servicing from PNY to
15 Ocwen.
16 U. S. BANK CLAIMED OWNERSHIP, THE CUTLIPS SENT A
17 QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. CODE PROC. §2943
18 The Cutlips sent a written request for proof of debt pursuant to
19 Cal Civ. Code Proc. § 2943. Within 21 Day of the receipt of the request U.S. Bank
20 was required to send complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips original
21 deed and not showing any sign of movement and a beneficiary statement.
22 On January 21 2010 the Vice President of compliance for U.S.
23
Bank sent complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips deed and note
certified to be true and exact copies of the original. The certified copies show no
24
sign of movement from Downey. The V.P. for U.S. Bank sent a letter of attestation
25
confirming the document authenticity and U.S. Banks possession.
26
REQUEST TO THE FDIC UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
27
28 ~ 13 ~

1 The Cutlips sent a request to The Federal Deposit Insurance
2 Corporation under the freedom of information act and requested among other
3 things information on the disposition or the Cutlips Deed and Note at the time of
4 Downey’s failure.
5 On or about May 03, 2010 A Senior ombudsman specialist for
6 the FDIC replied to the Cutlips request stating: we have researched your loan as
7
requested and found that DSL sold your loan prior to its failure to a group of
investors, parenthetically not Deutsche or U.S. Bank. Further U.S. Bank is not
8
servicing your loan and U.S Bank has no ownership interest in your loan. Your
9
loan was not part of the sale and assumption agreement between U.S. Bank and the
10
FDIC to purchase Downey Savings & loan as a whole bank.
11
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation notified U.S. Bank
12
that the Cutlips deed of trust and promissory note was not part of the sales and
13
assumption agreement.
14
Consequently U.S. Bank had no authority to transfer the servicing of the
15 Cutlips loan and the servicer had no right to collect payments or to have placed
16 forced insurance on the Campbell property. The certified and attested copies of the
17 Cutlips DOT and Note are self authenticating domestic business record sent in the
18 normal course of business under California evidence code § §1450-1453 , §1530 and
19 Federal evidence rule § 902 (11) .
20 California Evidence Code section § 602 provides
21 that "[a] statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of
22 another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption." This presumption extends to
23
deeds of trust. See Hernandez v. Madrigal, No. 2:09-cv-00413-MCE-GGH, 2010
WL 1493506, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2010)). Therefore, the certified Deed of Trust
24
and Promissory Note are presumed genuine, and the documents are "as strong as if
25
the facts certified had been duly sworn to in open court by a witness apparently
26
27
28 ~ 14 ~

1 disinterested and worthy of belief." Ware v. Julien, 122 Cal. App. 354, 355 (1932)
2 "The burden of overcoming [the presumption] is on the one who disputes it.
3
4 U.S. Bank is a holder without the rights of a holder; consequently U.S. Bank
5 cannot transfer, assign or enforce the Cutlips contract rendering the Cutlips deed of
6 trust and promissory note a complete nullity.
7
Deutsche has never addressed this issue; Judge Zayner omitted the factual
allegation and evidence from his tentative ruling. Judge Zayner did not file a
8
judgment and relied on opposing councils one paragraph proposed judgment. The
9
tentative ruling attempts to rationalize the courts finding but considering there is no
10
assignment it proven to be wholly fabricated on illegitimate inferences and
11
unfounded presumptions. This is not incompetency this is knowingly criminal.
12
13
14
15 THE CUTLIPS COMPULSORY CROSS COMPLAINT DEFENSE

16 ARTICLE 2 - Compulsory Cross-Complaints Section § 426.30.
17 if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a
18 cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his
19 answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter
20 in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not
21 pleaded.
22
23
See Al Holding Co. v O’Brian & Hicks, Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999)
this case is directly on point.
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 15 ~

1 On January 25, 2012 William J. Cutlip’s and Chikako K. Cutlip collectively
2 (Plaintiffs’ ( The Cutlip’s)) filed a complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior
3 Courts Unlimited Civil Division case No. 1-12-cv-217452.
4 The Cutlip’s filed their second amended complaint on September 05, 2012.
5 In the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed the Cutlip’s alleged several
6 causes of action including Quiet title to the property commonly known as 619 Union
7
Avenue Campbell California, (Campbell property).
The Cutlip’s named several defendants including Deutsche Bank National
8
Trust Company as trustee for the Harborview mortgage backed loan trust 2007-7.
9
The Cutlip’s alleged that they are the legal owner of the Campbell property in
10
fee by way of a deed of trust recorded in their name and have superior title.;
11
The Cutlip’s second amended complaint The Cutlip’s sought damages. The
12
Cutlip’s also alleged a tortuous interference with contract with unjust enrichment
13
and breach of contract cancellation of an instrument.
14
Deutsche filed its demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint on
15 October 5, 2012 and its reply in support of demurer was filed November 03, 2012 In
16 each Deutsche did not alleged that the Campbell property was an asset of the
17 Harborview Mortgage backed Loan Trust Pass-Through Certificate 2007-7 or that
18 Deutsche had an assignment of the beneficiary right title or interest to the Cutlip’s
19 Campbell property.
20 Deutsche failed to state a claim to the Campbell property and Deutsche did
21 not file a cross complaint. Consequently Deutsche and its assignee Chiang are
22 estopped from asserting a claim to the Campbell property see Al Holding Co. v
23
O’Brian & Hicks , Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999) assignor and assignee
barred for assignors failure to file a related cause of action cross complaint in the
24
prior action.
25
26
27
28 ~ 16 ~

1 There is no requirement that the first action be decided on the
2 merits; the bar applies even if the prior action is dismissed (see Currie
3 Medical specialties, Inc V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186 CR 543 (1982.)
4 .
5 There are No applicable exceptions to the mandatory requirement for
6 Deutsche to have filed a cross complaint in the prior action. Deutsche failed to state
7
a claim to the property, failed to file a cross complaint to the Campbell property,
failed to pray for possession of the Campbell property. See Exhibit (4) certified
8
copy of the Deutsche demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed
9
October 05, 2012 See Exhibit (5) certified copy of the Deutsche reply in support of
10
demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed November 03, 2012.
11
12 The Deutsche claim for possession of the Campbell property against the
13 Cutlip’s, must have been asserted as a Cross-Complaint arising out of the transaction
14 on which the complaint in prior actions in the quiet title was founded, the present
15 suit on that claim is barred. Medical Specialties, Inc. V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186
16 CR543(1982) Align Technology Inc. v Tran 179 CA4th 949, 962-65, 102 CR3d 343,
17
353-56 (2009.)
18
`The purpose of the California cross-complaint statute is to provide for the
19
settlement in a single action of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out
20 of the same transaction. The defendant is required to assert all related causes of
21 action in a cross complaint CCP § 426.30.
22
It is clear this is the case. The same "transaction" was involved in the prior
23
quiet title Cutlip v Deutsche (2012) case No. 1-12-cv-217452 filed by the Cutlip’s
24
January 25, 2012 litigated in the Superior Court Santa Clara County and the present
25
action in unlawful detainer was filed by Deutsche on September 04, 2015, case
26
115cv285290 .
27
28 ~ 17 ~

1 The parties are the same in that the plaintiff in the prior quiet title is the
2 defendant and Deutsche was the defendant in the prior action is now plaintiff.
3
Deutsche filed the present action knowing it was barred by the California
4
compulsory cross complaint statute from asserting a claim in the Campbell property.
5
Deutsche knows it does not have proof of an assignment of the beneficiary right title
6
or interest to have foreclosed on the Campbell property. IE: no proof of perfection of
7
title! Prevent this court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and personal
8
jurisdiction over the Cutlip’s.
9
Deutsche attempts to confuse the issues by purporting to assign the Campbell
10 property and substitute its assignee as the party plaintiff. However the elementary
11 test of a cross complaint, that it can be set up only between a prior plaintiff now
12 defendant and against a prior defendant now plaintiff or his assignee in an action
13 involving the same transaction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10-426.70), is met.
14 Deutsche was aware of its cause of action for possession of the subject property at
15 the time of the prior quiet title; Deutsche must have attempted to set it up his right
16 by a cross-complaint. This would have involved Deutsche alleging its source of
17
authority to have foreclosed on the Cutlip’s Campbell property and thus its right to
possession and did not. The choice was in hands of Deutsche. There is a
18
compulsory cross-complaint statute; the bar of section §§ 426.10-426.70 of the
19
Code of Civil Procedure applies where the cause of action may properly be pleaded
20
as a cross -Complaint arising out of the transaction forming the foundation of the
21
complaint. (See Schrader v. Neville, 34 Cal.2d 112 [207 P.2d 1057].) [46 Cal.2d
22
883]
23
"If the defendant omits to set up a cross complaint upon a cause arising out of the
24
transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim,
25
neither he nor his assignee can afterwards maintain an action against the plaintiff
26 therefore." Under that provision, the claim by Deutsche must have [34 Cal.2d 115]
27 been pleaded by them in the Cutlip’s quiet titles' or it is barred, because it is
28 ~ 18 ~

1 established that all causes of action arising out of a quiet title to real property are
2 part of one transaction" within the meaning of the code sections relating to cross-
3 complaint. (Todhunter v. Smith, 219 Cal. 690 [28 P.2d 916]; Englemen v. Superior
4 Court, 105 Cal.App. 754 [288 P. 723].)-426.70.
5
6 Deutsche and Chiang were barred from asserting an unlawful detainer claim to
7
the Cutlips Campbell property.
8
THE DEEDs RELIED ON BY DEUTSCHE AND CHIANG ARE VOID
9
10
If the deed is void, it does not pass title and cannot be enforced even if
11
recorded and even if title is later acquired by a bona fide purchaser. (Gibson v.
12
Westoby (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 273.)
13
Where a deed of conveyance is void upon its face as being in violation of the law, the
14
party claiming under it is charged with knowledge of the law and the invalidity of the
15 deed; this is the rule in American law. In such case the party does not even derive a
16 color of title which will give him constructive possession of a tract of land not in his
17 possession Sufiol v Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 U.S. Supreme Court.
18 JUDGE ZAYNER SANCTIONS A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF
19 THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY AND IS ACTING WORSE THAN A DOMESTIC
20 TERRORIST ASSISTING THE FOREIGN OWNED DEUTSCHE IN
21 STEALING THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY BREAKING EVERY CANNON AND
22 OATH OF OFFICE AND RULE OF LAW TO DO SO.
23
The day before the Cutlips unopposed motion to dismiss was to be heard
24
based on the courts total absence of jurisdiction from the absence of a perfected title
25
or assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory
26
note.
27
28 ~ 19 ~

1 Deutsche held a UN noticed ex-parte hearing to substituent its straw man
2 assignee as the party plaintiff from a fraudulent conveyance of the Cutlips property.
3
(“If a party in an action on a note sue on their own interest declare on their
4
own right and acknowledge no participation with another person in the interest or
5
the action until the time to answer the notion to dismiss or summary judgment it is
6
too late to permit them to assume a new character or interpose a new party however
7
liberally the court might be disposed to sacrifice the forms and rules of law Gaither v
8
Farmers’, etc Bank 1 Pet. 37, 43, 7. Ed,. 43
9
The fraudulent conveyance was done to avoid the fact Deutsche has no
10
assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or promissory note and foreclosed
11
unlawfully. This was done to avoid the fact that Deutsche is barred by the
12
compulsory cross complaint statuette from asserting a claim to the Cutlips property.
13
To hide the fact Deutsche has no predecessor in interest of record and has never
14
maintained a recorded or unrecorded interest in the Cutlips deed of trust. There is
15
no allegation or evidence of an assignment in the recorded there is no proof of
16
perfection of title in the record the entire case is colored in fraud. Title has never
17
been decided in Deutsche by any court other that Judge Zayner whose judgment is
18 void from fraud the unlawful detainer court lacks jurisdiction by statute to
19 determine title to real property California civil code of procedure 580 (b) (3) limits
20 on relief in a limited civil case.
21 JUDGE ZAYNER KNOWINGLY SANCTIONED A FRAUDULENT
22 CONVEYANCE OF THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY
23
Judge Zayner whitewashed the jurisdictional defect proving the court has
24
been acting in the total absence of jurisdiction outside the normal practices of a
25
judge by conspiring with the plaintiffs to conceal the fact the Cutlips evidence
26 establishes the fact the Cutlips Deed and note have been render a complete nullity
27 that barred Deutsche from acquiring a legal interest.
28 ~ 20 ~

1 It is already established that without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of
2 trust the purported trustee deed is void. Here it is conclusively proven the grant deed
3 is equally as void.
4 Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence showing the purported Grant deed to
5 the straw man assignee is void under the California statute of frauds.
6 IN ADDITION TO BEING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE
7
THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §
§ 1091, 1095 CHIANG’S DEED IS VOID ON IT’S FACE (.
8
The Supreme Court of California; The authority of an attorney to execute for
9
his principal a conveyance of real estate must be in writing and a deed purporting
10
to have been executed by an agent is inadmissible in evidence without proof being
11
first made of the signers written authority . Videau v. Griffin et al. 21 Cal. 389(1863
12
) id @ 114
13
THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN WRITING FOR THE
14
SIGNER OF THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED.
15 the statute of frauds declares that no estate or interest in
16 lands other than for lease for a term not exceeding one year nor any trust or power
17 over or concerning land or any, matter relating thereto shall hereafter be created
18 granted , assigned , surrendered or declared unless by operation of law or by deed or
19 conveyance or an assignment in writing subscribed by the party creating granting
20 assigning surrendering or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.
21 Guirlene Dolcine signed the purported grant deed there is no evidence
22 Guirlene Dolcine ever had any authority in writing to execute the purported grant
23
deed to Charlie Chiang for the Harborview mortgage loan trust 2007-7 or for any
other entity. The certificate of the notary does not show the existence of any such
24
authority in writing, or the acknowledgment of the existence of any.
25
If any authority in fact existed it should have been produced. In the absence of
26
its production the presumption is that it did not exist and acknowledgement by
27
28 ~ 21 ~

1 parole does not remove its insufficiency. ( Hanford v Mcnair, 9 wend. 54) ((Kline v.
2 Brooks, 9 Iredell, 219; M ackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285.) ,( Tannahill v.
3 Greening •85 Cal.App. 714, 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) the grantor was not
4 present when the deed was signed nor its consent in writing the deed is
5 unquestionably void.. Harris v. Barlow•180 Cal. 142, 143 (Cal. 1919 Upton v.
6 Aecher , 41 Cal. 85 [20 Sm. Rep. 266]., Wunderlin v. Cadogan et al., 50 Cal. 613
7
Harris v. Batlow et al,. 180 Cal 142 [179 P. 682]. And Jone v. Coulter, 75 Cal,
App.540[243 P. 487].
8
9
Attached hereto exhibit (7) Chiang’s purported grant deed
Smith v lickerson . 96Humph. 261) fraudulent conveyances and contracts
10
section six April 19, 1850
11
“In a conveyance for which an agent thereunto authority must be authorized
12
by writing by the statute of frauds could sign the other party's name to the
13
implementing document, without attaching its written authority "the Statute of
14
Frauds would be deprived of its meaning and reduced to an absurdity." (Tate v.
15
Shober (E.D. Pa. 1941) 41 F. Supp. 478, 481.)
16
An objection or motion to strike on grounds that evidence
17 violates the statute of frauds may be made at any time during the trial. (Carrier &
18 Braddock v. S. W. Straus & Co., 213 Cal. 508, 513 [2 P.2d 811]; fn. 2 see Pao Ch'en
19 Lee v. Gregoriou, 50 Cal. 2d 502, 506 [326 P.2d 135].)
20 This provision is part of California’s statute of frauds, (See
21 3 Miller & Starr, supra, Deeds, §8.27, p52 [“l, if some other person executes a deed
22 on behalf of the grantor, the grantor’s authorization must be in writing and attached
23 to the deed . If this were not the law the statute would be rendered mute.
24 Under the California statute of frauds the agent cannot
25
sign for the principal; in the absence of the latter, unless the agent's authority in
writing is attached if the authority of the agent in writing be not attached his
26
property does not pass the title. ( Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85 [ 10 Am. Rep. 266];
27
28 ~ 22 ~

1 Vaca Valley etc. R.R. v. Mansfield, supra [ 84 Cal. 560 ( 24 P. 145)]; Harris v.
2 Barlow, 180 Cal. 142 [ 179 P. 682]. See, also, Lund v. Thackery, 18 S.D. 113 [99 N.W.
3 856].) In Upton v. Archer, supra, the court says: ". . . as it could not become the
4 plaintiff's deed until it was executed by his agent in the absence of the plaintiff,
5 unless his authority in writing. Is attached to the deed.
7
THE PUPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §
1095
8
The deed required by California law to convey title to Deutsche purported
9
assignee is void and title to the Property did not pass.
10
The grant deed is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was
11
executed solely by Ocwen loan servicer as attorney-in-fact for Deutsche without
12
subscribing Deutsche followed by the name of the attorney and attorney in fact. See
13
Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin
14
Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.
15 CALIF. C.C. P. § , 1095, When an attorney in fact executes an instrument
16 transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his Principal
17 to it and his own name as attorney in fact. Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31
18 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967 the court also cites code section § 1095 of the Civil Code and
19 states that a failure to follow the mandate of the section renders a deed void.
20 The purported grant deed from Deutsche to Chiang has not been subscribed
21 pursuant to California C.C.P. § 1095 and is void as a matter of law.
22 The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
23
transaction.
In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d 447,
24
448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed in the name of an agent and
25
to which failed to add "atty in fact for" [principals] was ineffective to convey title,
26
27
28 ~ 23 ~

1 does not pass the title of the property described in the deed, under section§ 1095
2 of the Civil Code.
3 In Azevedo v. Pimentel, 127 Cal. App. 299, 304 [15 P.2d 795], the court stated:
4 the deed not being 'An instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of
5 the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing' (Civ. Code, § 1091), is not
6 a valid conveyance. The court also determined that even though the deed might be
7
valid outside California its void.
IN THE CASE OF HODGE V. HODGE, 257 CAL. APP. 2D 31
8
(CAL. CT. APP. 1967
9
Mrs. Hodge wrote the name "Colman Hodge," on the deed but did not sign
10
her own name. The written name of her husband was followed by the following
11
words and figures in typewriting prepared in a law office: "Colman Hodge, By
12
Dorothy E. Hodge, Attorney in Fact as Per Power of Attorney Recorded in Book 5018
13
[5019] at Page 803 Official Records of Sacramento County. The court found this
14
execution of the deed insufficient to comply with section § 1095 of the Civil Code.
15 Requires for the attorney to subscribe the name for possible future hand writing
16 analysis the statute of frauds it does not require the principle name to be typed in a
17 letter box or stamped legislation specifically requires the principles name to be
18 subscribed by the agent signing as attorney in fact.
19 PRINCIPLES NAME, AGENTS NAME ATTORNEY IN FACT
20 The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
21 transaction. In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d
22 447, 448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed with the principles
23
name typed in a letterbox and the name of an agent to which was added "contract
management coordinator for some unknown company ] was ineffective to convey
24
the principal's title to the property described in the instrument. The court held that
25
the law is well settled that a deed in the name of an attorney in fact, even if to the
26
27
28 ~ 24 ~

1 signature is added the words "atty in fact”. For (a named principal), does not pass
2 the principals' property described in the deed, under section 1095 of the Civil Code.
3 The rule is thus enunciated in 15 California Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
4 Deeds, section 71, and page 470: "The manner of execution of a deed by an attorney
5 in fact for the grantor is prescribed by statute. He must subscribe the name of his
6 principal to the instrument, and then his own as attorney in fact. If the instrument is
7
not executed in this manner, it does not operate as a conveyance.
Especially as the attorney-in-fact did not 'subscribe the name of his principal
8
to it and his own name as attorney-in-fact.' (Civ. Code, § 1095.)" [257 Cal. App. 2d
9
35] even if the transaction was honest and fair in its inception, and statute
10
Attempted consummation, effectual to transfer the property therein
11
described.
12
In Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967 Puccetti v. Girola,
13
20 Cal. 2d 574, 577 [128 P.2d 13], the court also cites code section 1095 of the Civil
14
Code and states that a failure to follow the mandate of the section renders a deed
15 void. Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967
16 (See also the following early cases which laid down the same rule from the
17 beginning of the Supreme Court reports: Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413 [54 Am.Dec.
18 297]; Echols v. Cheney, 28 the sole consideration before the court is whether or not
19 the legislative mandates have been complied with." And so here, the sole
20 consideration must be whether the "legislative mandate" has been complied with.
21 It is obvious that the specific requirements of section, § 1095 of the Civil
22 Code were not followed; and the deed being void, Plaintiff has no semblance of a
23
right to the property. Cal. 157; Morrison v. Bowman, supra, 29 Cal. 337, 352.) .
Issues and void under Calif C.C.P. § 1095
24
Even if the grant deed is replaced there is no avenue to prove a perfected
25
title when Chiang’s purported grantor has never been an assignee of the beneficiary
26
right title or interest to have purported to cause a foreclosure of Cutlip’s residence
27
28 ~ 25 ~

1 and the sale is void.
2 Charlie Chiang‘s Attorney Kevin Harris is well aware of the fact the deed is void and
3 continue to represent the deed as valid and is guilty of the fact that the grant deed is
4 void under the law and continues to present it as valid is guilty of presenting a void
5 deed as valid .passing off a void deed as valid, is a felony. Penal Code.PC-470 (d)
7
Where a deed of conveyance is void upon its face as being in violation of the
law, the party claiming under it is charged with knowledge of the law and the
8
invalidity of the deed; this is the rule in American law. In such case the party does
9
not even derive a color of title which will give him constructive possession of a tract
10
of land not in his possession Sufiol v Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 U.S. Supreme Court.
11
12 IN THIS INSTANT CASE OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING FOR THAT

13 MATTER THERE IS NO ASSIGNMENT TO DEUTSCHE OF THE CUTLIPS
14
DEED OF TRUST OR A TRANSFER OF THE CUTLIPS PROMISSORY
NOTE.
15
Deutsche purported to substitute the trustee and cause the sale of the Cutlips
16
residence those actions were unauthorized and a unlawful assumption of authority
17
and void preventing any semblance of a perfected title thus barring the unlawful
18
detainer court in case 1-15-cv-285290 or 1-12 cv 230319 from acquiring jurisdiction
19
the only order Judge Zayner could make was one dismissing the case for lack of
20
jurisdiction.
21
It is not in dispute that there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to
22
Deutsche or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note o to Deutsche
23 Deutsche has never alleged or produced evidence of an assignment of the
24 Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips note.
25 The face of the record in the unlawful detainer case 1-15 cv-285290 and 1-12
26 cv-230319 shows there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or evidence of a
27 transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche or any other entity.
28 ~ 26 ~

1 Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to Deutsche, the
2 substitution of trustee by Deutsche is unauthorized only the beneficiary under the
3 deed of trust can substitute the trustee. An n unauthorized party cannot hold a valid
4 foreclosure sale and or issue a valid deed.
5 In itself, the principle that only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt
6 may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt is not, or at least
7
should not be, controversial it is a ―straightforward application of well-established
commercial and real-property law: Deutsche cannot foreclose on the Cutlips written
8
deed of trust unless it is the beneficiary under the Deed of trust (or its agent) in
9
order to foreclose the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche had to have the right to enforce
10
the debt that the deed of trust secured. It is hard to imagine how this well settled
11
commercial and real-property law could be controversial or misconstrued by the
12
state court.
13
The Supreme Court of California states having a valid transfer under
14
California law is essential to instituting a valid no judicial foreclosure. Judge Zayner
15 know there is no assignment to Deutsche and that the substitution of trustee is
16 unauthorized and the trustee deed is void
17 The Cutlips also alleged that the Compulsory cross complaint statute
18 prevented Deutsche from stating a claim to the property and the purported trusted
19 deed was recorded as an accommodation only and has the express language stamped
20 on the face of the recorded document stating (“no representations to its effect upon
21 title.”) pursuant to the court of appeal in Rooz v Kimmel (1997) an accommodation
22 recording is not proof of title just as the documents s title disclaimer states.
23
The statute of frauds primarily serves an evidentiary purpose. (Sterling v.
Taylor (2007) 40 cal.4th 757, 766, 55 cal.rptr.3d 116, 152 P.3d 420.) It requires
24
reliable evidence of the existence and terms of the contract so as to prevent
25
enforcement through fraud or perjury of a contract that was never in fact made.
26
27
28 ~ 27 ~

1 California Civil Code of procedure 1091 is part of the California Statute of
2 frauds and dictates that a conveyance in real property must be evidence in writing.
3 Deutsche would have had to have evidence in writing of a conveyance of the Cutlips
4 property to have lawfully foreclosed. Deutsche has had over six years to make the
5 necessary inquiries and obtain proof of a conveyance ample time if it existed and
6 Deutsche has not, absent the proof of an assignment the presumption is that it does
7
not exist and the foreclosure is void
It was not the Cutlips burden of proof to vet out the true beneficiary it was
8
Deutsche and Deutsche failed. The actions of Deutsche over the last six year against
9
the Cutlips have been unlawful.
10
On April 20, 2017 in unlawful detainer case 1-15-cv-285290Judge Zayner
11
granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff t. On April 22, 2017 The
12
Judgment was filed and a writ of possession issued.
13
The Cutlips filed a timely notice of appeal.
14
On April 13, 2018 Judge Zayner, vacated the April 20, 2017 judgment in an
15
UN notice ex-parte hearing and set rehearing for May 10, 2018
16
The tentative ruling for May 10, 2018 removed the hearing from calendar
17
for failure of plaintiff to file a proof of service on the Cutlips and f0r failure to file
18
its moving papers.
19
A motion removed from the law and motion calendar means it won’t be
20
heard. Law and motion hearings removed from calendar must be re noticed.
21
The Cutlip’s discovered June 12, 2018 that Judge Zayner issued an order
22
on May 10, 2018 in the hearing that he had been removed from calendar for
23
plaintiff’s failure to file moving papers and failure to notice the Cutlips. The
24 Cutlips did not receive notice of opposition or notice that the hearing had been
25 restored to calendar. A copy of the order was not sent to the Cutlip’s.
26
27
28 ~ 28 ~

1 The Cutlips had checked the case file May 22, 2018 and there was not an
2 order in the file, the order was not filed until after the time for the Cutlips to
3 appeal had passed after June 10, 2018.
4 The Cutlips contend that the unlawful detainer did not have jurisdiction to
5 vacate is judgment after a year because the time had run under California Civil
6 code of procedure 473 dictating the court’s jurisdiction to vacate judgment to six
7 months.
8 Judge Zayner knew That Plaintiff failed to notice the Cutlip of the hearing
9 and failed to file its moving papers and held a hearing in a case removed from
10 calendar. Moving paper were required by statute to be attached to the motion the
11 Cutlips reviews the case file and they are not in the file nor is their proof of
12 service.
13 in Blonlairz · V. Roloson (1969) The Supreme Court Of California determined)
14 that a limited civil proceeding has no jurisdiction by statute or by virtue of
15 inherent power to consider a motion to dismiss a judgment that was not by
16 default after the six month have run under California Civil code of Procedure §
17
473 or under § 89, § 128, subd. 8. In any event, lack of diligence in
18
pursuing this equitable relief precludes any relief.
19
(a) . EXCLUSIVE PRIORITY JURISDICTION OF THE ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDING AND THE CUTLIPS APPEAL AMONG OTHER
20
REASON BARRED THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER JURISDICTION
21
22 Cutlip’s bankruptcy case No. 5:17 a. p. 05053 that court had exclusive
23 priority in rem jurisdiction. George Chapman, Jr. V. Deutsche Bank National
24 Trust, no. 14-15927 (9th cir. 2016)
25
26
27
28 ~ 29 ~

1 1The Cutlip’s contend after the federal court acquired jurisdiction on June
2 02, 2017 the doctrine of exclusive priority jurisdiction barred the unlawful
3 detainer from acquiring jurisdiction.
4 THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
5 OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT CUTLIPS
6 The Cutlip assert as they did in the trial court in their January 14, 2016
7 motion to dismiss and in their motion for summary judgment. Their motion to
8 dismiss in the trial court denied July 02, 2018 and in their writ of prohibition in
9 the appellate court summarily denied the day it was filed and the writ of
10 prohibition in the sixth district court of appeal summarily denied July 12, 2018
11 that the court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction.
12 The judgment was concealed from the Cutlips until the time for appeal had
13 run. The trial court denied the Cutlips motion to vacate the unnoticed hearing
14 and resulting judgment from May 10, 2018. The courts of review have summarily
15 denied the Cutlips writs of prohibition.
16 The Cutlips are left with no appeal to correct the taking of their property
17
this was orchestrated by Judge Zayner .
18
The actions by Judge Zayner have been not only criminal but given his
position they have been vile that no civilized society should have to endure.
19
The Cutlips have been denied relief from the court of appeal; and the Supreme
20
Court of California presumably on technical deficiencies in the pleading.
21
This case represents a miscarriage of justice and judicial oppression that the
22
Cutlips pray that this criminal grand jury does not hesitate to rectify.
23
24
25 1
Where parallel state and federal proceedings seek to “ ‘determine interests in specific property
26 as against the whole world’ “ (in rem), or where “ ‘the parties' interests in the property ․serve as
the basis of the jurisdiction’ “ for the parallel proceedings (quasi in rem), then “the doctrine of
27
prior exclusive jurisdiction fully applies.” (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1245 (6th ed.1990)).
28 ~ 30 ~

1 Respectfully submitted
2
3 William Cutlip Chikako Cutlip

4
5 NOW THEN William J. Cutlip, to propound an Affidavit of Truth

6
7 California Republic )
8 ) ss AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
Santa Clara county ) FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
9
10
11
CLAIMS NOW your Affiant: William J. Cutlip;
12
13
1. Your Affiant makes these statements under oath;
14
2. Your Affiant states that an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth as follows;
15
16 3. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the California state, Santa Clara county, on
August 14 2018;
17
18
4. Your Affiant revokes any presumptions of power of attorney;
19
20 5. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
occurred in the Santa Clara county;
21
22 6. Your Affiant states that your Affiant makes these statements freely;
23
24 7. Your Affiant states that these statements are true, complete, and not
misleading by the best of his knowledge/beliefs and due diligence;
25
26
27
28 ~ 31 ~

1 8. Your Affiant has personal first-hand knowledge of all the
2 facts/claims/reasonable reliance’s which are stated herein;
4
9. Your Affiant Accepts the Oath of Office of the Bonded-Public-Trustee Jeffrey
Francis Rosen, District-Attorney by his duties to follow the law without
5 “shielding” and to inform the Criminal Grand Jury of this formal verified
6
criminal complaint against Theodore C. Zayner #, Judge;
8
10. Your Affiant will provide 19 courtesy copies of this complaint as requested to
Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney to be handed over to the Criminal
9 Grand Jury;
10
11 11. Your Affiant Claims that he has been deprived of the reasonable expectation of
rights being protected (relying on) Title 18 USC 241-242 and other laws rules,
12
codes and regulations set for herein;
13
14
12. Your Affiant enters his mandatory judicially noticed evidence filing of court
15 transcripts regarding plea as to constructive-trust-case FELONY
COMPLAINT
16
17
13. (EXHIBIT 1) Department six of the Superior Court of California Santa
18
Clara County tentative Ruling for May 10,, 2018 ;showing the Hearing was
19 removed from Calendar
20
21 14. (EXHIBIT 2)Your Affiant enters true correct court order filed the same day
as the hearing was removed from calendar May 10, 2018
22
23
15. (EXHIBIT 7) Certified Copy of Charlie Chiang’s purported grant deed
24
no authorization in writing for party signing the document as mandated
25 under California Civil code 1091. California Civil code 1095 requires the
party signing for the principal to subscribe the principles name and their own
26 as attorney in fact. Failure to follow the mandates of the statute of frauds
27 renders the deed void and not just voidable.
28 ~ 32 ~

1
2
16. (, California civil code 1091 is part of the statute of frauds and requires
3 an instrument in writing to transfer an interest in real property IE an
4 assignment. Deutsche does not allege or produce evidence of an assignment an
assignment and under the statute of frauds the trustee deed is unauthorized
5 because there is no instrument in writing to validate the authority of Deutsche
6
to have caused the creation of the trustee deed,
17. Deutsche is not an assignee of record or off record. Deutsche has no
7 predecessor in interest of record. Deutsche has never maintained a recorded
8
interest in the deed of trust or promissory note. It’s well settled that someone
not a party to a contract has no standing to enforce that contract.
9 When someone enforced a contract that they have no legal right to enforce its
10
an unlawful assumption of authority and void ab initio,
11
18. Judge Zayner believes the Cutlips don’t deserve to have equal protection
12
under the law that’s socioeconomic bias.
13
14
19. Your Affiant believes that Theodore C. Zayner Judge violated due process
15 right by concealing the hearing from the Cutlips rights) by and not limited to
the following =
16
17
a) Failed to Notice the Cutlips judgment so they could appeal ;
18
b) Omitting the Cutlips critical defense evidence ;
19 c) Holding unnoticed hearings
d) Hearing unnoticed motions
20
e) Mischaracterized allegations
21 f) Allowed plaintiff to claim an unlawful assumption of authority
g) Allowed Deutsche to fraudulently convey the Cutlips title and then allowed
22
the assignee with a void deed substitute as party plaintiff
23 h) Allowed plaintiff to enforce a contract it was not a party to
i) Failed to apply the compulsory cross complaint statute
24
j) Failed to apply the California statute of fraud
25 k) Failed to comply with the supreme Court of California case law
l) Vacated A judgment for plaintiff a year after its entry when it denied the
26 Cutlips same request the day of the judgment
27 m) Failed to honor oath of office
28 ~ 33 ~

1 n) Failed to uphold The United States Constitutions due process
2 Failed to uphold The United States Constitution’s equal protection under
the law;
3 Failed to report a felony
4
Bias , prejudice ,Socioeconomic prejudice
o) conspired with the plaintiffs
5 p) Knowingly adjudicated the case in the total absence of jurisdiction;
6
q) Overtly assisted plaintiffs in the taking of the Cutlip[s real property,
Told plaintiff to not respond to summary judgment material allegations
7 r) Jurisdiction has been challenged multiple times with silence;
8
s) No verified claimant has come forward;
t) Allowed the deprivation of the Cutlips rights ;
9 u) The District-Attorney has failed to investigate the Cutlips complaint
v) The information in the tentative ruling was knowingly false s Simulated
10
Legal Process (unidentified venue, no oath, bond or subject matter)
11 w) ETC.
12
13 20. Your Affiant reasonably believes that criminal charges (bill) apply but not
limited to by the counts; 1. Official Misconduct, 2. Judicial Oppression, 3.
14
Deprivation of Rights 4.Violations of Due Process;5Misprison of a felony
15 Aiding and abetting
16
IN CONCLUSION
17
18
19
PLEA BEING MADE TO The “People” of the Grand Jury for their
20 consideration and investigation by their un-influenced decisions in the interest of justice
21 for the equal protections under the law; for violations of due process. Please read the
22 tentative ruling adopted at the UN noticed hearing the Cutlips motion for summary
23 judgment and plaintiff opposition to the Cutlips motion for summary judgment. The
24 collusion and conspiracy is transparent (EXHIBIT (1 )judge Zayner removed the hearing
25 from the May 10, 2018 law and motion calendar for failure to file proof of service on the
26 Cutlips and failure to file moving papers. A hearing removed from the law and motion
27
28 ~ 34 ~

1 calendar means it won’t be heard, a hearing removed from the law and motion calendar
2 must be re noticed.
3 Exhibit (2) It was not discovered until the middle of June that Judge Zayner had
4 held the hearing after having removed the hearing from calendar when the order was
5 placed into the case file over a month later concealed the file and concealed the judgment
6 until after the time had run to appeal. Judge Zayner knows he has acted criminally and
7 does not want the Cutlips to publicize it in an appeal. Judge Zayner orchestrated the
8 entire scenario vacating on April 13, 2018 vacated the April 20 2017 judgment.
9 Canceling the Cutlips appeal from that judgments that the Cutlips had already waited d a
10 year on. So judge Zayner could pretend to move a hearing off calendar hold the hearing
11 conceal the judgment until after time for an appeal had run, this is monstrous. If it can
12 happen once if not stopped it will happen again if it hasn’t already.
13
14 After a review of the Cutlips evidence it will be clear that he Theodore C.

15 Zayner has violated my due process and deprived me of rights under a simulation of
16 process. NOTE: is the expired Oath of Office showing cause for want of authority; I also
17 ask that before the People of the Grand Jury make a decision (to bill or no bill) that the
18 court record from April 20, 2017 be ordered The Cutlips have not been able to obtain it
19 and reviewed by this Jury and that I be brought before them for my testimony regarding
20 this matter in its entirety by the FELONY COMPLAINT as I have further complaints and
21 information about several other Public Officials/Agents, QUO WARRANTO to follow;
22
23 //Respectfully Submitted//
24
William Joseph Cutlip
25
26
27
28 ~ 35 ~

1
VERIFICATION
2
4 The signer certifies that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed
5 after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
6 (1)William J Cutlip it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
7 such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
8 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
9 existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
10 existing law or for establishing new law;
11 (3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
12 so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
13
further investigation or discovery; and
14
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
15
if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of a competent-
17
jurisdiction that the foregoing is true and correct.
18
Further your Affiant/Complainant/Victim sayeth naught but reserves all rights
waives none;
19
20
______________________________________
21
William J. Cutlip, Claimant/Victim
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 36 ~

1
5
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
6 FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
7 THEODORE C. ZAYNER
8
In the California Republic state, of the Santa Clara county. I, the undersigned, herein
9
declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and NOT a party to the within entitled
10
action. My business address is: P O Box 694 San Jose, CA 95106;
11
I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury of the California Republic state and these
12
united States of America, that I served the foregoing registered document as entitled: on
13
the opposing party(s) by registering or mailing with the post office maintained by the
14
United States, Postal Service with postage paid, addressed as follows:
15
16 Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury/Foreman

70 West Hedding St., West Wing
17
18
Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney
19
70 W. Hedding St. 1st Flr -West Wing
20 San Jose, California 95110
FILE STAMP PROOF OF SERVICE
21
22
Rebecca Fleming, Chief Executive Officer
23 C/o Case No. C1503585
24 191 North First Street
25 First Class Mail
26
Kenneth D. Watnick, Agent-Trustee
27 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000
28 ~ 37 ~

1 Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
2 First Class Mail
3 Xavier Becerra, Attorney General

4
1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, California 95814
5 First Class Mail
6
ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC
7 C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
as Producer-Agent-Trustee
8
1301 DOVE ST
9 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
First Class Mail
10
11 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
12 as Bonding-Trustee
175 Water Street
13
New York, NY, 10038
14 First Class Mail
15
Santa Clara County Risk Management
16 2310 North 1st Street
17
First Class Mail
18
Robert Handa
19
Investigative Reporter/Witness NBC News
20 2450 North 1st Street San Jose, California 95131
Direct: 408-316-1517 [email protected]
21
First Class Mail/Wire
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 38 ~

1
9
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the California
10
Republic and these united States of the America (unincorporated), that
11
the foregoing is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge,
12
information and belief, and that this declaration is executed by the
13
voluntary act of my own hand in San Jose Township and is dated below;
14
15
16
17
18
19
Date: X________________________
20 William J. Cutlip
21
Complainant/Victim
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 39 ~

1
8
*
*
9 *
10
*
*
11 *
*
12
*
13 *
*
14
*
15 *
16
Word Count /Comprehension Level 14.9
17 Body of complaint 8325
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 40 ~

Theodore C. Zayner, Criminal Grand Jury Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theodore C. Zayner, Criminal Grand Jury Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theodore C. Zayner, Criminal Grand Jury Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 William J.

6 Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

3 claiming/charging/noticing/registering for the private relief about; FELONY

7 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, 2. JUDICIAL OPPRESSION, 3. DEPRIVATION OF

11 CRIMINAL GRAND JURY BY HIS DUTY AND OATH OF OFFICE,

15 SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, EXHIBITS 1-8, MAIL SERVICE;

24 1. The Supremacy Clause of the United States state constitutions subordinate

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

5 7. California Code Penal Code § 422.6, oppression etc.

9 10. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) disclosure of exculpatory evidence

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

7 information-inquiry that is a verified and registered complaint/affidavit to the Criminal

11 I, William J. Cutlip as the Complainant/Victim and Declarant lodge the enclosed

17 manifestly indefensible proving the Cutlips allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

5 (‘A restrictive jurisdictional prerequisite mandated by Unlawful detainer

22 JUDGE ZAYNER SANCTIONED A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 way to describe it.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 a party without an assignment. No assignment means no title and no standing.

22 the Cutlips would have prevailed on the merits.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

14 (“Failure of the plaintiff to prove perfection of title at the onset of litigation

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

21 (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate

26 FOR ITS OWN GAIN BECAUSE DEUTSCHE HAS NEVER ALLEGED AN

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 Civil code of Procedure § 2943 created a rebuttable presumption under Evidence

22 detainer statute California civil code of procedure §1161a .

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 On January 21 2010 the Vice President of compliance for U.S.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption." This presumption extends to

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 trust and promissory note a complete nullity.

15 THE CUTLIPS COMPULSORY CROSS COMPLAINT DEFENSE

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

16 by a cross-complaint. This would have involved Deutsche alleging its source of

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 OATH OF OFFICE AND RULE OF LAW TO DO SO.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 IN ADDITION TO BEING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

24 Under the California statute of frauds the agent cannot

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

12 IN THIS INSTANT CASE OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING FOR THAT

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER