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
5 straw man assignee. This was a sanctioning of a fraudulent conveyance; there is no
6 other 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. It has already been
12
shown that without an assignment of the Cutlips Deed of trust the substitution of
13
rhe trustee ia unauthorized and its deed is void.
14
15 FRAUD ON THE COURT IN THE PRIOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

16 CASE 1-12-CV-230319
17 Judge Zayner omits the Cutlips attack and evidence showing that it was
18 discovered after the close of briefing on appeal from the prior unlawful detainer
19 case 1-12-cv-230319 that Deutsche through its attorney on August 14, 2012 filed
20 into evidence under penalty of perjury a tampered with copy of the purported
21 trustee deed that had its title disclaimer rendered completely illegible .The express
22 language stating “this document was recorded as an accommodation only and has
23
no representation as to its effect upon title was completely illegible not one letter
of the 90 letters making up the disclaimer was identifiable.
24
When presiding Judge Greenwood was made aware of the fraud on the court
25
by an officer of the court presenting altered documents to proof its perfection of
26
title and jurisdiction of the court Judge greenwood recalled the writ of possession
27
28 ~7~

1 and refused to issue another writ. Both the court of appeal and the trial court relied
2 on facts that were not true and the testimony of an officer of the court that the
3 document was a true certified copy of the recorded document 21756912 and proof
4 of perfection of title.
5 The prior unlawful detainer is not res Judicata it is void for fraud on the court.
6 Judge Zayner knew this and suppressed the evidence and the facts to falsely
7
claim the prior action was res judicata see exhibit 15 recalled writ of possession.
The issue is title and not possession Deutsche never held possession and is
8
impermissibly attempting to establish title through the unlawful detainer
9
proceedings.
10
There is no proof of perfection of title for Deutsche in a void trustee deed with
11
a title disclaimer stamped on it face there can be no perfection of title barring the
12
unlawful detainer court’s jurisdiction.
13
The Cutlip’s compulsory cross complaint claim came after final judgment in
14
the prior unlawful detainer and the fact that Chiang’s deed is void came after the
15 final judgment in the prior case and has no effect on their application to defeat this
16 instant action for the courts lack of jurisdiction. The courts lack of jurisdiction is
17 based on among other things the fact the deed relied on by Chiang is void on its
18 face preventing the court from acquiring any jurisdiction, The unlawful detainer
19 court hearing case 1-15-cv-285290 has never acquired jurisdiction because there
20 has never been proof of perfected title in Deutsche or Chiang.
21 There is no assignment in the record of the prior unlawful detainer case 1-12-
22 cv-230319 establishing that court was without jurisdiction and its judgment cannot
23
be on the merits. Therefore there is no proof in the record of jurisdiction that Judge
Zayner can try to rationalize. For a judgment to be res- judicata it must be on the
24
merits. There can be no judgment on the merits in favor of a party without an
25
assignment. No assignment means no title and no standing.
26
The absence of an allegation or evidence of an assignment of the Cutlips
27
28 ~8~

1 Deed of trust or transfer of the Cutlip’s promissory note during any
2 proceeding makes the claims by Judge Zayner of res judicata knowingly false. ...
3 There could be no proof of perfection of title in any case absent an assignment of
4 the Cutlips deed of trust and the record shows no proof of an assignment has ever
5 been produce in any proceeding.
6 Absent an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust the prior unlawful detainer
7
judgments could not have been on the merits therefore there could be no res
judicata consequences.
8
Once it is shown No assignment exist of the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer
9
of the Cutlip promissory note the judge Zayner’s façade falls away as nothing Judge
10
Zayner is portraying could be true without an assignment.
11
As explained the purported trustee deed could not be valid and the prior
12
judgment could not be on the merits. Case law is undivided; the failure to prove a
13
valid assignment is fatal to the U.D. action. This case should have been no
14
different. The prior unlawful detainer was not on the merits absent an assignment
15 the Cutlips would have prevailed on the merits.
16 The trustee deed could not be proof of a perfection of title without an
17 assignment to validate the substitution of trustee. Judge Zayner suppressed the
18 fact that Deutsche failed to prove an assignment of the Cutlip deed of trust or a
19 Transfer of the Cutlip promissory note.
20 Judge Zayner Knew that absent an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust and
21 absent a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche the substitution of
22 trustee by Deutsche was unauthorized and the foreclosure was unlawful.
23
An unauthorized agent of Deutsche cannot conduct a valid sale or issue a valid
deed and the foreclosure was absolutely void.
24
25 . (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate the

26 substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
27
28 ~9~

1 unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
2 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012.)
3
(Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing a valid assignment fatal to their
4
UD action,; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Brown, 2012 WL 6213737, at *5-6 (Cal.
5
App. Div. Super. Ct. July 31, 2012)
6
7 (“Failure of the plaintiff to prove perfection of title at the onset of litigation
8 bars the unlawful detainer court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and the
9
unlawful detainer five day summons does not vest the court with personal
jurisdiction over a defendant. Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 446,
10
451-452 [124 Cal. Rptr. 139].)
11
12
13 (Deutsche ordered the sale and acquired property and was neither the holder
14 of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the trustee substituted by
15 Deutsche was not the proper trustee therefore the recording of that document was
16 unauthorized.
17
An unauthorized trustee cannot issue a valid trustee deed Dimock v. Emerald
18
Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, In Dimock v Emerald Properties (2000)
19 the court held that a sale conducted by an unauthorized trustee was void rather
20 than voidable because the conveying party was not the true trustee. (Id. at p. 877.)
21 Concluding the trustee had no power to convey the property, the court declared the
22 trustee's deed upon sale "was a complete nullity with no force or effect (Dimock,
23 supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.) (Id. at p. 876.)
24
This case squares with the fact the substitution of trustee was unauthorized
25
and that party has no power to convey a valid deed. Therefore Deutsche had no
26
standing because it could not prove a valid title.
27
28 ~ 10 ~

1 Deutsche could not prove an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust.
2 Therefore the foreclosure caused by Deutsche was unlawful in violation of Penal
3 Code 532 Theft by false pretence.
4
In California, when a party authorizes a foreclosure without the power to do
5
so, the foreclosure is void, not voidable. See, e.g., Pro Value Properties, Inc. v.
6
Quality Loan service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 581,583 (2009), and Glaski v.
7
Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094 (2013).void when it is conducted by
8
an entity that lacks authority to do so.
9
(The party that ordered the sale and acquired property was
10
neither the holder of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the
11
trustee substituted by that party was not the proper trustee. Sciarratta v U.S. bank
12
(2016) 247 CA 4th 552
13
14 (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate

15 the substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
16 unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
17 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012)
18
DEUTSCHE KNEW IT WAS CREATING A FALSE TRUSTEE DEED
FOR ITS OWN GAIN BECAUSE DEUTSCHE HAS NEVER ALLEGED AN
19
ASSIGNMENT OF THE CUTLIPS DEED OF TRUST.
20
Deutsche recorded the false trustee deed in the county records against the
21
Cutlips Title. Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any false
22
document with a public office.
23
Deutsche filed the false trustee deed into the Court records. Presenting
24
False Written Evidence is a felony crime under California Penal Code Section 132
25
PC and the broader offense of Preparing False Evidence is a felony crime pursuant
26 to California Penal Code Section 134 PC.
27
28 ~ 11 ~

1 Deutsche presented the false trustee deed as valid .passing off a false deed as
2 valid, for your own benefit and gain is a felony. Penal Code.PC-470 (d)
3 Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche knew it lacked
4 the requisite authority to create, record and file into evidence and present as valid
5 false trustee deed and has used it obtain judgment against the rightful owner. This
6 could never have been possible without Judge Zayner’s suppression of the evidence
7
and whitewashing of the jurisdictional defects.
JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF A 'MISPRISION OF FELONY'
8
“(1) Deutsche committed and completed the felonies Alleged above; (2)
9
Judge Zayner had knowledge of the fact; (3) Judge Zayner failed to notify the
10
authorities; and (4) Judge Zayner took affirmative steps to conceal the crimes by
11
Deutsche.
12
JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF PENAL CODE 31 PC
13
(CALIFORNIA'S AIDING AND ABETTING LAW) reads: "All persons
14
concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it is felony or misdemeanor, and
15 whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its
16 commission, are principals in any crime so committed."
17 Judge Zayner committed moral turpitude when Judge Zayner decided to
18 suppress the Cutlips critical defense evidence and allegedly took bribes, what else
19 could explain Judge Zayner’s actions.
20
21 IN THE DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW IT IS SHOWN THAT JUDGE
22 ZAYNER CONSPIRED WITH THE PLAINTIFF TO SUPPRESS THE
23
CUTLIPS EVIDENCE
The copies of the Cutlips Deed of trust and promissory note certified and
24
attested to be true and exact copies of the original sent in compliance to California
25
Civil code of Procedure § 2943 created a rebuttable presumption under Evidence
26
27
28 ~ 12 ~

1 code § 602 that the Cutlips DOT is a nullity. This prevented any entity from
2 making a valid claim to the Campbell property.
3 Moreover the California compulsory cross complaint statute is a bar to both
4 Deutsche and Chiang from asserting a claim to the Cutlips Campbell property and
5 proving a perfected title leaving the court in the total absence of jurisdiction.
6 Neither Judge Zayner nor Opposition even superficially addresses the Cutlips
7
claims.
THE CALIFORNIA COMPULSORY CROSS COMPLAINT
8
STATUTE IS A COMPLETE BAR TO DEUTSCHE AND ITS ASSIGNEE
9
ALLEGING A CLAIM TO THE CUTLIPS CAMPBELL PROPERTY.
10
11
Judge Zayner further conspired to suppress the Cutlips evidence and
12
factual; allegation proving the deeds relied upon by plaintiffs are void under the
13
statute of frauds California Civil code section §§ 1091-1096 .
14
15 Judge Zayner suppressed the fact that The Complaint filed by Deutsche on
16 September 04, 2015 proves that Deutsche relied on an after acquired interest to
17 enforce the Cutlips written deed of trust contract the complaint has never been
18 amended and establishes that Deutsche is not the real party in interest to hasve
19 foreclosed or to have file the unlawful detainer..
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 for a perfected title.
23
The factual allegation and supporting evidence described below detail.s the
24
critical evidence that was suppressed by Judge Zayner.
25
26
27
28 ~ 13 ~

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 OF THE ORIGINAL DEED AND NOTE
17 THE CUTLIPS SENT A QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST PURSUANT TO CAL.
18 CIV. CODE PROC. §2943 FOR PROOF OF DEBT
19 The Cutlips sent a written request for proof of debt pursuant to
20 Cal Civ. Code Proc. § 2943. Within 21 Day of the receipt of the request U.S. Bank
21 was required to send complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips original
22 deed and not showing any sign of movement and a beneficiary statement.
23
On January 21, 2010 the Vice President of compliance for U.S.
Bank sent complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips deed and note
24
certified to be true and exact copies of the original. The certified copies show no
25
sign of movement from Downey. The V.P. for U.S. Bank sent a letter of attestation
26
confirming the document authenticity and U.S. Banks possession.
27
28 ~ 14 ~

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

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
THE CUTLIPS COMPULSORY CROSS COMPLAINT DEFENSE
14
ARTICLE 2 - Compulsory Cross-Complaints Section § 426.30.
15 if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a
16 cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his
17 answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter
18 in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not
19 pleaded.
20
21 See Al Holding Co. v O’Brian & Hicks, Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999)
22 this case is directly on point.
23
On January 25, 2012 William J. Cutlip’s and Chikako K. Cutlip collectively
24
(Plaintiffs’ ( The Cutlip’s)) filed a complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior
25
Courts Unlimited Civil Division case No. 1-12-cv-217452.
26
The Cutlip’s filed their second amended complaint on September 05, 2012.
27
28 ~ 16 ~

1 In the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed the Cutlip’s alleged several
2 causes of action including Quiet title to the property commonly known as 619 Union
3 Avenue Campbell California, (Campbell property).
4 The Cutlip’s named several defendants including Deutsche Bank National
5 Trust Company as trustee for the Harborview mortgage backed loan trust 2007-7.
6 The Cutlip’s alleged that they are the legal owner of the Campbell property in
7
fee by way of a deed of trust recorded in their name and have superior title.;
The Cutlip’s second amended complaint The Cutlip’s sought damages. The
8
Cutlip’s also alleged a tortuous interference with contract with unjust enrichment
9
and breach of contract cancellation of an instrument.
10
Deutsche filed its demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint on
11
October 5, 2012 and its reply in support of demurer was filed November 03, 2012 In
12
each Deutsche did not alleged that the Campbell property was an asset of the
13
Harborview Mortgage backed Loan Trust Pass-Through Certificate 2007-7 or that
14
Deutsche had an assignment of the beneficiary right title or interest to the Cutlip’s
15 Campbell property.
16 Deutsche failed to state a claim to the Campbell property and Deutsche did
17 not file a cross complaint. Consequently Deutsche and its assignee Chiang are
18 estopped from asserting a claim to the Campbell property see Al Holding Co. v
19 O’Brian & Hicks , Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999) assignor and assignee
20 barred for assignors failure to file a related cause of action cross complaint in the
21 prior action.
22 There is no requirement that the first action be decided on the
23
merits; the bar applies even if the prior action is dismissed (see Currie
Medical specialties, Inc V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186 CR 543 (1982.)
24
.
25
There are No applicable exceptions to the mandatory requirement for
26
Deutsche to have filed a cross complaint in the prior action. Deutsche failed to state
27
28 ~ 17 ~

1 a claim to the property, failed to file a cross complaint to the Campbell property,
2 failed to pray for possession of the Campbell property. See Exhibit (4) certified
3 copy of the Deutsche demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed
4 October 05, 2012 See Exhibit (5) certified copy of the Deutsche reply in support of
5 demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed November 03, 2012.
6
The Deutsche claim for possession of the Campbell property against the
7
Cutlip’s, must have been asserted as a Cross-Complaint arising out of the transaction
8
on which the complaint in prior actions in the quiet title was founded, the present
9
suit on that claim is barred. Medical Specialties, Inc. V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186
10 CR543(1982) Align Technology Inc. v Tran 179 CA4th 949, 962-65, 102 CR3d 343,
11 353-56 (2009.)
12
`The purpose of the California cross-complaint statute is to provide for the
13
settlement in a single action of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out
14
of the same transaction. The defendant is required to assert all related causes of
15
action in a cross complaint CCP § 426.30.
16
17 It is clear this is the case. The same "transaction" was involved in the prior
18 quiet title Cutlip v Deutsche (2012) case No. 1-12-cv-217452 filed by the Cutlip’s
19 January 25, 2012 litigated in the Superior Court Santa Clara County and the present
20 action in unlawful detainer was filed by Deutsche on September 04, 2015, case
21 115cv285290 .
22
The parties are the same in that the plaintiff in the prior quiet title is the
23
defendant and Deutsche was the defendant in the prior action is now plaintiff.
24
25 Deutsche filed the present action knowing it was barred by the California
26 compulsory cross complaint statute from asserting a claim in the Campbell property.
27
Deutsche knows it does not have proof of an assignment of the beneficiary right title
28 ~ 18 ~

1 or interest to have foreclosed on the Campbell property. IE: no proof of perfection of
2 title! Prevent this court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and personal
3 jurisdiction over the Cutlip’s.
4 Deutsche attempts to confuse the issues by purporting to assign the Campbell
5 property and substitute its assignee as the party plaintiff. However the elementary
6 test of a cross complaint, that it can be set up only between a prior plaintiff now
7
defendant and against a prior defendant now plaintiff or his assignee in an action
involving the same transaction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10-426.70), is met.
8
Deutsche was aware of its cause of action for possession of the subject property at
9
the time of the prior quiet title; Deutsche must have attempted to set it up his right
10
by a cross-complaint. This would have involved Deutsche alleging its source of
11
authority to have foreclosed on the Cutlip’s Campbell property and thus its right to
12
possession and did not. The choice was in hands of Deutsche. There is a
13
compulsory cross-complaint statute; the bar of section §§ 426.10-426.70 of the
14
Code of Civil Procedure applies where the cause of action may properly be pleaded
15 as a cross -Complaint arising out of the transaction forming the foundation of the
16 complaint. (See Schrader v. Neville, 34 Cal.2d 112 [207 P.2d 1057].) [46 Cal.2d
17 883]
18 "If the defendant omits to set up a cross complaint upon a cause arising out of the
19 transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim,
20 neither he nor his assignee can afterwards maintain an action against the plaintiff
21 therefore." Under that provision, the claim by Deutsche must have [34 Cal.2d 115]
22 been pleaded by them in the Cutlip’s quiet titles' or it is barred, because it is
23
established that all causes of action arising out of a quiet title to real property are
part of one transaction" within the meaning of the code sections relating to cross-
24
complaint. (Todhunter v. Smith, 219 Cal. 690 [28 P.2d 916]; Englemen v. Superior
25
Court, 105 Cal.App. 754 [288 P. 723].)-426.70.
26
27
28 ~ 19 ~

1 Deutsche and Chiang were barred from asserting an unlawful detainer claim to
2 the Cutlips Campbell property.
3
4 THE DEEDs RELIED ON BY DEUTSCHE AND CHIANG ARE VOID

5
6 If the deed is void, it does not pass title and cannot be enforced even if
7
recorded and even if title is later acquired by a bona fide purchaser. (Gibson v.
Westoby (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 273.)
8
Where a deed of conveyance is void upon its face as being in violation of the law, the
9
party claiming under it is charged with knowledge of the law and the invalidity of the
10
deed; this is the rule in American law. In such case the party does not even derive a
11
color of title which will give him constructive possession of a tract of land not in his
12
possession Sufiol v Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 U.S. Supreme Court.
13
JUDGE ZAYNER SANCTIONS A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF
14
THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY AND IS ACTING WORSE THAN A DOMESTIC
15 TERRORIST ASSISTING THE FOREIGN OWNED DEUTSCHE IN
16 STEALING THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY BREAKING EVERY CANNON AND
17 OATH OF OFFICE AND RULE OF LAW TO DO SO.
18
19 The day before the Cutlips unopposed motion to dismiss was to be heard
20 based on the courts total absence of jurisdiction from the absence of a perfected title
21 or assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory
22 note.
23
Deutsche held a UN noticed ex-parte hearing to substituent its straw man
assignee as the party plaintiff from a fraudulent conveyance of the Cutlips property.
24
25 (“If a party in an action on a note sue on their own interest declare on their
26 own right and acknowledge no participation with another person in the interest or
27 the action until the time to answer the notion to dismiss or summary judgment it is
28 ~ 20 ~

1 too late to permit them to assume a new character or interpose a new party however
2 liberally the court might be disposed to sacrifice the forms and rules of law Gaither v
3 Farmers’, etc Bank 1 Pet. 37, 43, 7. Ed,. 43
4
The fraudulent conveyance was done to avoid the fact Deutsche has no
5
assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or promissory note and foreclosed
6
unlawfully. This was done to avoid the fact that Deutsche is barred by the
7
compulsory cross complaint statuette from asserting a claim to the Cutlips property.
8
To hide the fact Deutsche has no predecessor in interest of record and has never
9 maintained a recorded or unrecorded interest in the Cutlips deed of trust. There is
10 no allegation or evidence of an assignment in the recorded there is no proof of
11 perfection of title in the record the entire case is colored in fraud. Title has never
12 been decided in Deutsche by any court other that Judge Zayner whose judgment is
13 void from fraud the unlawful detainer court lacks jurisdiction by statute to
14 determine title to real property California civil code of procedure 580 (b) (3) limits
15 on relief in a limited civil case.
16
JUDGE ZAYNER KNOWINGLY SANCTIONED A FRAUDULENT
CONVEYANCE OF THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY
17
18 Judge Zayner whitewashed the jurisdictional defect proving the court has
19 been acting in the total absence of jurisdiction outside the normal practices of a
20 judge by conspiring with the plaintiffs to conceal the fact the Cutlips evidence
21 establishes the fact the Cutlips Deed and note have been render a complete nullity
22 that barred Deutsche from acquiring a legal interest.
23 It is already established that without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of
24 trust the purported trustee deed is void. Here it is conclusively proven the grant deed
25
is equally as void.
Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence showing the purported Grant deed to
26
the straw man assignee is void under the California statute of frauds.
27
28 ~ 21 ~

1 IN ADDITION TO BEING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE
2 THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §
3 § 1091, 1095 CHIANG’S DEED IS VOID ON IT’S FACE
4 The Supreme Court of California; The authority of an attorney to execute for
5 his principal a conveyance of real estate must be in writing and a deed purporting
6 to have been executed by an agent is inadmissible in evidence without proof being
7
first made of the signers written authority . Videau v. Griffin et al. 21 Cal. 389(1863
) id @ 114
8
THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN WRITING FOR THE
9
SIGNER OF THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED.
10
the statute of frauds declares that no estate or interest in
11
lands other than for lease for a term not exceeding one year nor any trust or power
12
over or concerning land or any, matter relating thereto shall hereafter be created
13
granted , assigned , surrendered or declared unless by operation of law or by deed or
14
conveyance or an assignment in writing subscribed by the party creating granting
15 assigning surrendering or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.
16 Guirlene Dolcine signed the purported grant deed there is no evidence
17 Guirlene Dolcine ever had any authority in writing to execute the purported grant
18 deed to Charlie Chiang for the Harborview mortgage loan trust 2007-7 or for any
19 other entity. The certificate of the notary does not show the existence of any such
20 authority in writing, or the acknowledgment of the existence of any.
21 If any authority in fact existed it should have been produced. In the absence of
22 its production the presumption is that it did not exist and acknowledgement by
23
parole does not remove its insufficiency. ( Hanford v Mcnair, 9 wend. 54) ((Kline v.
Brooks, 9 Iredell, 219; M ackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285.) ,( Tannahill v.
24
Greening •85 Cal.App. 714, 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) the grantor was not
25
present when the deed was signed nor its consent in writing the deed is
26
unquestionably void.. Harris v. Barlow•180 Cal. 142, 143 (Cal. 1919 Upton v.
27
28 ~ 22 ~

1 Aecher , 41 Cal. 85 [20 Sm. Rep. 266]., Wunderlin v. Cadogan et al., 50 Cal. 613
2 Harris v. Batlow et al,. 180 Cal 142 [179 P. 682]. And Jone v. Coulter, 75 Cal,
3 App.540[243 P. 487].
4 Attached hereto exhibit (7) Chiang’s purported grant deed
5 Smith v lickerson . 96Humph. 261) fraudulent conveyances and contracts
6 section six April 19, 1850
7 “In a conveyance for which an agent thereunto authority must be authorized
8 by writing by the statute of frauds could sign the other party's name to the
9
implementing document, without attaching its written authority "the Statute of
Frauds would be deprived of its meaning and reduced to an absurdity." (Tate v.
10
Shober (E.D. Pa. 1941) 41 F. Supp. 478, 481.)
11
An objection or motion to strike on grounds that evidence
12
violates the statute of frauds may be made at any time during the trial. (Carrier &
13
Braddock v. S. W. Straus & Co., 213 Cal. 508, 513 [2 P.2d 811]; fn. 2 see Pao Ch'en
14
Lee v. Gregoriou, 50 Cal. 2d 502, 506 [326 P.2d 135].)
15
This provision is part of California’s statute of frauds, (See
16
3 Miller & Starr, supra, Deeds, §8.27, p52 [“l, if some other person executes a deed
17 on behalf of the grantor, the grantor’s authorization must be in writing and attached
18 to the deed . If this were not the law the statute would be rendered mute.
19 Under the California statute of frauds the agent cannot
20 sign for the principal; in the absence of the latter, unless the agent's authority in
21 writing is attached if the authority of the agent in writing be not attached his
22 property does not pass the title. ( Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85 [ 10 Am. Rep. 266];
23 Vaca Valley etc. R.R. v. Mansfield, supra [ 84 Cal. 560 ( 24 P. 145)]; Harris v.
24 Barlow, 180 Cal. 142 [ 179 P. 682]. See, also, Lund v. Thackery, 18 S.D. 113 [99 N.W.
25
856].) In Upton v. Archer, supra, the court says: ". . . as it could not become the
plaintiff's deed until it was executed by his agent in the absence of the plaintiff,
26
unless his authority in writing. Is attached to the deed.
27
28 ~ 23 ~

1
2 THE PUPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §

3 1095
4 The deed required by California law to convey title to Deutsche purported
5 assignee is void and title to the Property did not pass.
6 The grant deed is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was
7
executed solely by Ocwen loan servicer as attorney-in-fact for Deutsche without
subscribing Deutsche followed by the name of the attorney and attorney in fact. See
8
Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin
9
Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.
10
CALIF. C.C. P. § 1095, When an attorney in fact executes an instrument
11
transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his Principal
12
to it and his own name as attorney in fact. Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31
13
(Cal. Ct. App. 1967 the court also cites code section § 1095 of the Civil Code and
14
states that a failure to follow the mandate of the section renders a deed void.
15 The purported grant deed from Deutsche to Chiang has not been subscribed
16 pursuant to California C.C.P. § 1095 and is void as a matter of law.
17 The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
18 transaction.
19 In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d 447,
20 448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed in the name of an agent and
21 to which failed to add "atty in fact for" [principals] was ineffective to convey title,
22 does not pass the title of the property described in the deed, under section§ 1095
23
of the Civil Code.
In Azevedo v. Pimentel, 127 Cal. App. 299, 304 [15 P.2d 795], the court stated:
24
the deed not being 'An instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of
25
the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing' (Civ. Code, § 1091), is not
26
27
28 ~ 24 ~

1 a valid conveyance. The court also determined that even though the deed might be
2 valid outside California its void.
3 IN THE CASE OF HODGE V. HODGE, 257 CAL. APP. 2D 31
4 (CAL. CT. APP. (1967)
5 Mrs. Hodge wrote the name "Colman Hodge," on the deed but did not sign
6 her own name. The written name of her husband was followed by the following
7
words and figures in typewriting prepared in a law office: "Colman Hodge, By
Dorothy E. Hodge, Attorney in Fact as Per Power of Attorney Recorded in Book 5018
8
[5019] at Page 803 Official Records of Sacramento County. The court found this
9
execution of the deed insufficient to comply with section § 1095 of the Civil Code.
10
Requires for the attorney to subscribe the name for possible future hand writing
11
analysis the statute of frauds it does not require the principle name to be typed in a
12
letter box or stamped legislation specifically requires the principles name to be
13
subscribed by the agent signing as attorney in fact.
14
PRINCIPLES NAME, AGENTS NAME ATTORNEY IN FACT
15 The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
16 transaction. In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d
17 447, 448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed with the principles
18 name typed in a letterbox and the name of an agent to which was added "contract
19 management coordinator for some unknown company ] was ineffective to convey
20 the principal's title to the property described in the instrument. The court held that
21 the law is well settled that a deed in the name of an attorney in fact, even if to the
22 signature is added the words "atty in fact”. For (a named principal), does not pass
23
the principals' property described in the deed, under section 1095 of the Civil Code.
The rule is thus enunciated in 15 California Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
24
Deeds, section 71, and page 470: "The manner of execution of a deed by an attorney
25
in fact for the grantor is prescribed by statute. He must subscribe the name of his
26
27
28 ~ 25 ~

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

1
2 Where a deed of conveyance is void upon its face as being in violation of the
3 law, the party claiming under it is charged with knowledge of the law and the
4 invalidity of the deed; this is the rule in American law. In such case the party does
5 not even derive a color of title which will give him constructive possession of a tract
6 of land not in his possession Sufiol v Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 U.S. Supreme Court.
7 IN THIS INSTANT CASE OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING FOR THAT

8 MATTER THERE IS NO ASSIGNMENT TO DEUTSCHE OF THE CUTLIPS
9 DEED OF TRUST OR A TRANSFER OF THE CUTLIPS PROMISSORY
10 NOTE.
11 Deutsche purported to substitute the trustee and cause the sale of the Cutlips
12 residence those actions were unauthorized and a unlawful assumption of authority
13 and void preventing any semblance of a perfected title thus barring the unlawful
14
detainer court in case 1-15-cv-285290 or 1-12 cv 230319 from acquiring jurisdiction
the only order Judge Zayner could make was one dismissing the case for lack of
15
jurisdiction.
16
It is not in dispute that there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to
17
Deutsche or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note o to Deutsche
18
Deutsche has never alleged or produced evidence of an assignment of the
19
Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips note.
20
The face of the record in the unlawful detainer case 1-15 cv-285290 and 1-12
21
cv-230319 shows there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or evidence of a
22
transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche or any other entity.
23 Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to Deutsche, the
24 substitution of trustee by Deutsche is unauthorized only the beneficiary under the
25 deed of trust can substitute the trustee. An n unauthorized party cannot hold a valid
26 foreclosure sale and or issue a valid deed.
27
28 ~ 27 ~

1 In itself, the principle that only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt
2 may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt is not, or at least
3 should not be, controversial it is a ―straightforward application of well-established
4 commercial and real-property law: Deutsche cannot foreclose on the Cutlips written
5 deed of trust unless it is the beneficiary under the Deed of trust (or its agent) in
6 order to foreclose the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche had to have the right to enforce
7
the debt that the deed of trust secured. It is hard to imagine how this well settled
commercial and real-property law could be controversial or misconstrued by the
8
state court.
9
The Supreme Court of California states having a valid transfer under
10
California law is essential to instituting a valid no judicial foreclosure. Judge Zayner
11
know there is no assignment to Deutsche and that the substitution of trustee is
12
unauthorized and the trustee deed is void.
13
The Cutlips also alleged that the Compulsory cross complaint statute
14
prevented Deutsche from stating a claim to the property and the purported trusted
15 deed was recorded as an accommodation only and has the express language stamped
16 on the face of the recorded document stating (“no representations to its effect upon
17 title.”) pursuant to the court of appeal in Rooz v Kimmel (1997) an accommodation
18 recording is not proof of title just as the documents s title disclaimer states.
19 The statute of frauds primarily serves an evidentiary purpose. (Sterling v.
20 Taylor (2007) 40 cal.4th 757, 766, 55 cal.rptr.3d 116, 152 P.3d 420.) It requires
21 reliable evidence of the existence and terms of the contract so as to prevent
22 enforcement through fraud or perjury of a contract that was never in fact made.
23
California Civil Code of procedure 1091 is part of the California Statute of
frauds and dictates that a conveyance in real property must be evidence in writing.
24
Deutsche would have had to have evidence in writing of a conveyance of the Cutlips
25
property to have lawfully foreclosed. Deutsche has had over six years to make the
26
necessary inquiries and obtain proof of a conveyance ample time if it existed and
27
28 ~ 28 ~

1 Deutsche has not, absent the proof of an assignment the presumption is that it does
2 not exist and the foreclosure is void.
3 It was not the Cutlips burden of proof to vet out the true beneficiary it was
4 Deutsche and Deutsche failed. The actions of Deutsche over the last six year against
5 the Cutlips have been unlawful.
6 On April 20, 2017 in unlawful detainer case 1-15-cv-285290Judge Zayner
7 granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff t. On April 22, 2017 The
8 Judgment was filed and a writ of possession issued.
9
The Cutlips filed a timely notice of appeal.
10
On April 13, 2018 Judge Zayner, vacated the April 20, 2017 judgment in an
11
UN notice ex-parte hearing and set rehearing for May 10, 2018.
The tentative ruling for May 10, 2018 removed the hearing from calendar
12
for failure of plaintiff to file a proof of service on the Cutlips and f0r failure to file
13
its moving papers.
14
A motion removed from the law and motion calendar means it won’t be
15
heard. Law and motion hearings removed from calendar must be re noticed.
16
The Cutlip’s discovered June 12, 2018 that Judge Zayner issued an order
17
on May 10, 2018 in the hearing that he had been removed from calendar for
18
plaintiff’s failure to file moving papers and failure to notice the Cutlips. The
19
Cutlips did not receive notice of opposition or notice that the hearing had been
20
restored to calendar. A copy of the order was not sent to the Cutlip’s.
21
The Cutlips had checked the case file May 22, 2018 and there was not an
22
order in the file, the order was not filed until after the time for the Cutlips to
23
appeal had passed after June 10, 2018.
24
The Cutlips contend that the unlawful detainer did not have jurisdiction to
25
vacate is judgment after a year because the time had run under California Civil
26
27
28 ~ 29 ~

1 code of procedure 473 dictating the court’s jurisdiction to vacate judgment to six
2 months.
3 Judge Zayner knew That Plaintiff failed to notice the Cutlip of the hearing
4 and failed to file its moving papers and held a hearing in a case removed from
5 calendar. Moving paper were required by statute to be attached to the motion the
6 Cutlips reviews the case file and they are not in the file nor is their proof of
7 service.
8 in Blonlairz · V. Roloson (1969) The Supreme Court Of California determined)
9 that a limited civil proceeding has no jurisdiction by statute or by virtue of
10 inherent power to consider a motion to dismiss a judgment that was not by
11 default after the six month have run under California Civil code of Procedure §
12 473 or under § 89, § 128, subd. 8. In any event, lack of diligence in
13 pursuing this equitable relief precludes any relief.
14 (a) EXCLUSIVE PRIORITY JURISDICTION OF THE
15 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING AND THE CUTLIPS APPEAL
16 AMONG OTHER REASON BARRED THE UNLAWFUL
17
DETAINER JURISDICTION
18 Cutlip’s bankruptcy case No. 5:17 a. p. 05053 that court had exclusive
19 priority in rem jurisdiction. George Chapman, Jr. V. Deutsche Bank National
20 Trust, no. 14-15927 (9th cir. 2016)
21 1The Cutlip’s contend after the federal court acquired jurisdiction on June
22 02, 2017 the doctrine of exclusive priority jurisdiction barred the unlawful
23 detainer from acquiring jurisdiction.
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 THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
2 OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT CUTLIPS
3 The Cutlip assert as they did in the trial court in their January 14, 2016
4 motion to dismiss and in their motion for summary judgment. Their motion to
5 dismiss in the trial court denied July 02, 2018 and in their writ of prohibition in
6 the appellate court summarily denied the day it was filed and the writ of
7 prohibition in the sixth district court of appeal summarily denied July 12, 2018
8 that the court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction.
9 The judgment was concealed from the Cutlips until the time for appeal had
10 run. The trial court denied the Cutlips motion to vacate the unnoticed hearing
11 and resulting judgment from May 10, 2018. The courts of review have summarily
12 denied the Cutlips writs of prohibition.
13 The Cutlips are left with no appeal to correct the taking of their property
14 this was orchestrated by Judge Zayner.
15 The actions by Judge Zayner have been not only criminal but given his
16
position they have been vile that no civilized society should have to endure.
The Cutlips have been denied relief from the court of appeal; and the Supreme
17
Court of California presumably on technical deficiencies in the pleading.
18
This case represents a miscarriage of justice and judicial oppression that the
19
Cutlips pray that this criminal grand jury does not hesitate to rectify.
20
21
Respectfully submitted
22
23
William Cutlip Chikako Cutlip
24
25
NOW THEN William J. Cutlip, to propound an Affidavit of Truth
26
27
28 ~ 31 ~

1 California Republic )
2 ) ss AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
Santa Clara county ) FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
3
5
CLAIMS NOW your Affiant: William J. Cutlip;
7
1. Your Affiant makes these statements under oath;
8
2. Your Affiant states that an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth as follows;
9
10 3. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the California state, Santa Clara county, on
August 14 2018;
11
12
4. Your Affiant revokes any presumptions of power of attorney;
13
14 5. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
occurred in the Santa Clara county;
15
16 6. Your Affiant states that your Affiant makes these statements freely;
17
18 7. Your Affiant states that these statements are true, complete, and not
misleading by the best of his knowledge/beliefs and due diligence;
19
20
8. Your Affiant has personal first-hand knowledge of all the
21 facts/claims/reasonable reliance’s which are stated herein;
22
23 9. Your Affiant Accepts the Oath of Office of the Bonded-Public-Trustee Jeffrey

24 Francis Rosen, District-Attorney by his duties to follow the law without
“shielding” and to inform the Criminal Grand Jury of this formal verified
25 criminal complaint against Theodore C. Zayner #, Judge;
26
27
28 ~ 32 ~

1 10. Your Affiant will provide 19 courtesy copies of this complaint as requested to
2 Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney to be handed over to the Criminal
Grand Jury;
3
4
11. Your Affiant Claims that he has been deprived of the reasonable expectation of
5 rights being protected (relying on) Title 18 USC 241-242 and other laws rules,
6
codes and regulations set for herein;
8
12. Your Affiant enters his mandatory judicially noticed evidence filing of court
transcripts regarding plea as to constructive-trust-case FELONY
9 COMPLAINT
10
11 13. (EXHIBIT 1) Department six of the Superior Court of California Santa

Clara County tentative Ruling for May 10,, 2018 ;showing the Hearing was
12
removed from Calendar
13
14
14. (EXHIBIT 2)Your Affiant enters true correct court order filed the same day
15 as the hearing was removed from calendar May 10, 2018
16
17 15. (EXHIBIT 7) Certified Copy of Charlie Chiang’s purported grant deed

no authorization in writing for party signing the document as mandated
18
under California Civil code § 1091. California Civil code § 1095 requires the
19 party signing for the principal to subscribe the principles name and their own
as attorney in fact. Failure to follow the mandates of the statute of frauds
20
renders the deed void and not just voidable.
21
22
16. (, California civil code § 1091 is part of the statute of frauds and requires
23 an instrument in writing to transfer an interest in real property IE an
assignment. Deutsche does not allege or produce evidence of an assignment an
24
assignment and under the statute of frauds the trustee deed is unauthorized
25 because there is no instrument in writing to validate the authority of Deutsche
to have caused the creation of the trustee deed,
26 17. Deutsche is not an assignee of record or off record. Deutsche has no
27 predecessor in interest of record. Deutsche has never maintained a recorded
28 ~ 33 ~

1 interest in the deed of trust or promissory note. It’s well settled that someone
2 not a party to a contract has no standing to enforce that contract.
When someone enforced a contract that they have no legal right to enforce its
3 an unlawful assumption of authority and void ab initio,
4
5 18. Judge Zayner believes the Cutlips don’t deserve to have equal protection
6
under the law that’s socioeconomic bias.
8
19. Your Affiant believes that Theodore C. Zayner Judge violated due process
right by concealing the hearing from the Cutlips rights) by and not limited to
9 the following =
10
11 a) Failed to Notice the Cutlips judgment so they could appeal ;

b) Omitting the Cutlips critical defense evidence ;
12
c) Holding unnoticed hearings
13 d) Hearing unnoticed motions
e) Mischaracterized allegations
14
f) Allowed plaintiff to claim an unlawful assumption of authority
15 g) Allowed Deutsche to fraudulently convey the Cutlips title and then allowed
the assignee with a void deed substitute as party plaintiff
16
h) Allowed plaintiff to enforce a contract it was not a party to
17 i) Failed to apply the compulsory cross complaint statute
j) Failed to apply the California statute of fraud
18
k) Failed to comply with the supreme Court of California case law
19 l) Vacated A judgment for plaintiff a year after its entry when it denied the
Cutlips same request the day of the judgment
20
m) Failed to honor oath of office
21 n) Failed to uphold The United States Constitutions due process
Failed to uphold The United States Constitution’s equal protection under
22
the law;
23 Failed to report a felony
Bias , prejudice ,Socioeconomic prejudice
24
o) conspired with the plaintiffs
25 p) Knowingly adjudicated the case in the total absence of jurisdiction;
q) Overtly assisted plaintiffs in the taking of the Cutlip[s real property,
26 Told plaintiff to not respond to summary judgment material allegations
27 r) Jurisdiction has been challenged multiple times with silence;
28 ~ 34 ~

1 s) No verified claimant has come forward;
2 t) Allowed the deprivation of the Cutlips rights ;
u) The District-Attorney has failed to investigate the Cutlips complaint
3 v) The information in the tentative ruling was knowingly false s Simulated
4
Legal Process (unidentified venue, no oath, bond or subject matter)
w) ETC.
5
6
20. Your Affiant reasonably believes that criminal charges (bill) apply but not
7 limited to by the counts; 1. Official Misconduct, 2. Judicial Oppression, 3.
8
Deprivation of Rights 4.Violations of Due Process;5Misprison of a felony
Aiding and abetting
9
10 IN CONCLUSION
11
12 PLEA BEING MADE TO The “People” of the Grand Jury for their
13
consideration and investigation by their un-influenced decisions in the interest of justice
14
for the equal protections under the law; for violations of due process. Please read the
15
tentative ruling adopted at the UN noticed hearing the Cutlips motion for summary
16
judgment and plaintiff opposition to the Cutlips motion for summary judgment. The
17
collusion and conspiracy is transparent (EXHIBIT (1 )judge Zayner removed the hearing
18
from the May 10, 2018 law and motion calendar for failure to file proof of service on the
19
Cutlips and failure to file moving papers. A hearing removed from the law and motion
20
calendar means it won’t be heard, a hearing removed from the law and motion calendar
21
must be re noticed.
22
Exhibit (2) It was not discovered until the middle of June that Judge Zayner had
23 held the hearing after having removed the hearing from calendar when the order was
24 placed into the case file over a month later concealed the file and concealed the judgment
25 until after the time had run to appeal. Judge Zayner knows he has acted criminally and
26 does not want the Cutlips to publicize it in an appeal. Judge Zayner orchestrated the
27 entire scenario vacating on April 13, 2018 vacated the April 20 2017 judgment.
28 ~ 35 ~

1 Canceling the Cutlips appeal from that judgments that the Cutlips had already waited d a
2 year on. So judge Zayner could pretend to move a hearing off calendar hold the hearing
3 conceal the judgment until after time for an appeal had run, this is monstrous. If it can
4 happen once if not stopped it will happen again if it hasn’t already.
5
6 After a review of the Cutlips evidence it will be clear that he Theodore C.

7 Zayner has violated my due process and deprived me of rights under a simulation of
8 process in an unlawful obstruction of justice. NOTE: is the expired Oath of Office
9 showing cause for want of authority; I also ask that before the People of the Grand Jury
10 make a decision (to bill or no bill) that the court record from April 20, 2017 be ordered
11 The Cutlips have not been able to obtain it and reviewed by this Jury and that I be
12 brought before them for my testimony regarding this matter in its entirety by the
13 FELONY COMPLAINT as I have further complaints and information about several other
14 Public Officials/Agents, QUO WARRANTO to follow;
15
16 //Respectfully Submitted//
17
William Joseph Cutlip
18
VERIFICATION
19
20
21 The signer certifies that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed
22 after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
23 (1)William J Cutlip it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
24 such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
25 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
26 existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
27 existing law or for establishing new law;
28 ~ 36 ~

1 (3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
2 so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
3 further investigation or discovery; and
4 (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
5 if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of a competent-
7 jurisdiction that the foregoing is true and correct.
8 Further your Affiant/Complainant/Victim sayeth naught but reserves all rights
9 waives none;
10
11 ______________________________________
12 William J. Cutlip, Claimant/Victim
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

23 FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
24
THEODORE C. ZAYNER
25 In the California Republic state, of the Santa Clara county. I, the undersigned, herein
26 declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and NOT a party to the within entitled
27 action. My business address is: P O Box 694 San Jose, CA 95106;
28 ~ 37 ~

1 I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury of the California Republic state and these
2 united States of America, that I served the foregoing registered document as entitled: on
3 the opposing party(s) by registering or mailing with the post office maintained by the
4 United States, Postal Service with postage paid, addressed as follows:
5
6
Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury/Foreman
70 West Hedding St., West Wing
7 San Jose, California 95110
8
Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney
9 70 W. Hedding St. 1st Flr -West Wing
10
FILE STAMP PROOF OF SERVICE
11
12
Rebecca Fleming, Chief Executive Officer
13 C/o Case No. C1503585
191 North First Street
14
15 First Class Mail
16
Kenneth D. Watnick, Agent-Trustee
17 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
18
First Class Mail
19
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General
20
1300 “I” Street
21 Sacramento, California 95814
First Class Mail
22
23 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC

C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
24 as Producer-Agent-Trustee
25 1301 DOVE ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
26 First Class Mail
27
28 ~ 38 ~

1 NA
TIO
2
NA
3 L
UNI
4 ON
5
FIR
E
6 INS
UR
7 ANCE
8 C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
as Bonding-Trustee
9 175 Water Street
10
New York, NY, 10038
First Class Mail
11
12
Santa Clara County Risk Management
2310 North 1st Street
13 San Jose, California 95131
14
First Class Mail
15 Robert Handa
Investigative Reporter/Witness NBC News
16
2450 North 1st Street San Jose, California 95131
17 Direct: 408-316-1517 robert.handa@nbcuni.com
18 First Class Mail/Wire

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 39 ~

1
7 I
8 decl
9 are under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the California Republic
10 and these united States of the America (unincorporated), that the
11 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________________________
William J. Cutlip
20 Complainant/Victim
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 40 ~

1
7 *
8
*
*
9 *
10
*
*
11 *
*
12
*
13 *
*
14
*
15
Word Count /Comprehension Level 14.9
16
Body of complaint 8325
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ~ 41 ~

Theodore C. Zayner, Criminal Grand Jury Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 other way to describe it.

15 FRAUD ON THE COURT IN THE PRIOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 trustee by Deutsche was unauthorized and the foreclosure was unlawful.

25 . (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate the

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

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

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

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

17 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012)

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

21 IN THE DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW IT IS SHOWN THAT JUDGE

22 ZAYNER CONSPIRED WITH THE PLAINTIFF TO SUPPRESS THE

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 On or about May 03, 2010 A Senior ombudsman specialist for

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 trust and promissory note a complete nullity.

22 this case is directly on point.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 There is no requirement that the first action be decided on the

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

22 been pleaded by them in the Cutlip’s quiet titles' or it is barred, because it is

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

4 THE DEEDs RELIED ON BY DEUTSCHE AND CHIANG ARE VOID

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

15 on relief in a limited civil case.

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 to have been executed by an agent is inadmissible in evidence without proof being

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

2 THE PUPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

6 Attempted consummation, effectual to transfer the property therein

22 right title or interest to have purported to cause a foreclosure of Cutlip’s residence

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

7 IN THIS INSTANT CASE OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING FOR THAT

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER