Motion to Disqualify Judge (170.1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY- 1

KAREN M. ROZIER

DAVID E. ROZIER, SR.

7957 DAHLIA CIRCLE

BUENA PARK, CA 90620

(714) 512-5740

Propria Personas

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY

KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, an Individual

DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR., an individual

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor by merger to LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAMP 2007RP1, et. al;

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor in interest to BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor by merger to LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAAC 2007RP1, et. al

OCWEN LOAN SERVCING, LLC

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY

JOHN DOES 18-50

Defendants.

Case No. 30-2012-00601310-CU-OR-CJC

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

SHEILA FELL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 170.1

SECOND REQUEST

Date:

Time:

Dept: C22

Trial Date: February 2015

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


Plaintiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER respectfully requests Judge Sheila E. Fell be disqualified

under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 170.1 (a)(6)(C): For any reason A

person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be

impartial. Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would

believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law.

The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc., 170.1(a)(6)(C), providing for

disqualification for bias or prejudice is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative

judgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the

importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an

actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's

impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be

impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of

the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal

view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not

provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge ought to consider how his or her

participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street. Plaintiff will show that the

average person off the street believes that Judge Fell has show bias directed towards Plaintiff.

Plaintiff concurs.

INTRODUCTION

Judge Sheila Fell has been active in the case since March 18, 2013 [Docket Item # 185] and

her participation is ongoing. This is Plaintiffs second request. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


first request is attached hereto as Exhibit (1). Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation made

in that motion as though it were restated here in this motion.

Plaintiffs earlier request to disqualify Judge Fell was denied in October 2013. A true and

correct copy of that order is attached as Exhibit (2). It should be noted that with this order, Judge

Fell decided to punish the Plaintiff someone who is approved for a fee waiver by overturning

Judges Derek Hunt earlier ruling. U.S. Bank previously requested the Court to force Plaintiff to pay

the bond in February 2013 but Judge Hunt denied their request and stated on the record that the

bond did not have to placed until the day before trial, which at the time was set for Sept 23, 20131.

Judge Fell ordered Plaintiff to pay the $5,000 bond immediately or lose the courts protection. That

smacks of retaliation and extortion. Plaintiff was able to acquire the funds to pay the bond only by

reaching out to the populace.

Plaintiff is not the only person who believes the judge is biased. Plaintiff reviewed The

Robing Room, an online site that rates U.S. judges. Its website can be found here:

http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 Plaintiff read the comments

rating Judge Fell. Plaintiff noticed that Judge Fell is ranked quite high by lawyers (8.7) but low by

People (3) as of the date of this motion. A more careful analysis of the ratings reveal that Judge Fell

received ratings of either 1 or no rating, with negative comments by the People and one rating

of a 10 by a party who prevailed at settlement. A true and correct copy of the Robing Room

comments are attached hereto as Exhibit (3). Judge Fells bias against Plaintiff can be seen by the

following:

1 Trial is now set for February 2015.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


Example #1. Retaliation

U.S. Bank previously requested the Court to force Plaintiff to pay the bond in February 2013

but Judge Hunt denied their request and stated on the record that the bond did not have to placed

until the day before trial, which at the time was set for September 23, 2013. After Judge Fell allowed

all Defendants to default several times and continued to change due dates for the BAR-represented

Defendants benefit, she granted the Defendants a six-month delay over Plaintiffs objections. 2.

Plaintiff accused Judge Fell of bias and the Judge decided to force the Plaintiff to pay the $5,000

bond immediately or lose the courts protection.

Example #2. Ruling Against the Law

Judge Fell ruled that US Bank did not have to submit their Discovery answers under oath. US Bank

submitted its Discovery answers with no oaths attached. After Plaintiff complained, US Bank sent in

oaths unattached to any Discovery and not dated the same day as any of the Discovery items.

Plaintiff refused to accept this as legal Discovery. Judge Fell ruled that it was valid. Perhaps that

may be acceptable in family court where the parties know each other, but I am a Plaintiff fighting

two trillion-dollar strangers who I claim I have no relationship with. I deserve that they be required

to submit every statement under oath. Plaintiff is appealing her ruling. That appeal was filed on

May 10, 2014.

Additionally, although I have repeatedly informed her that the BAR attorneys are providing

testimony without being sworn in, she continues to allow that practice.

2 Trial is now set for February 2015.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


Example #3. Refusing to Cooperate With Other Judges

Judge refused to continue a December 11th hearing despite being asked to do so by a Los Angeles

Superior Court judge. After being made aware of the issue, Judge Fell continues to allow the

Defendant to profit from the results of that December 11, 2013 voidable hearing.

Example #4. Allowing and Encouraging Fraud Upon the Court

Judge is aware that material issues of fact and controversy remain. Judge is aware that Defendant

US Bank committed Fraud Upon the Court by repeatedly claiming that my 4,206 square foot home

is only 2,096 square foot3. Judge is aware that the present value of my home exceeds the alleged

debt claimed by US Bank. After being made aware of the clear fraud, Judge chose to allow the fraud

to stand rather than exercise her judicial duty once being made aware that a crime was being

committed. She granted US Bank Summary Judgment based on a series of wrongful acts, all which

are under appeal. I believe that makes the Judge accomplice to the criminal act which therefore

disqualifies her from presiding over the remaining case.

Judge is aware that US Banks only involvement in the case was because they agreed to pay any

award against Bank of America. Judge refused to allow Plaintiff to bring any specific charges against

3 Judge Hunt issued the injunction after the Orange County Tax Assessor verified that my home is twice US Banks

claim. An independent California appraiser verified that my house is worth twice US Banks value as well. Instead

of being interested in ruling on the merits of the case, Judge Fell gave every indication that she wanted to put the

highly educated African American pro se Plaintiff in her proper place, which she must feel is penniless and

homeless. I would call her a racist, but I suspect that race is only a part because I graduated from Harvard and the

very best she could do was her crappy school. Plaintiff unfortunately encounters that too frequently, usually from

people working above their innate abilities. I suspect she is abusing her position to deal with her on weakness, but

I can show that she is biased which is sufficient grounds for the court to remove her from my case.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


US Bank but instead allowed US Bank to litigate a case that was not being litigated. Judge did not

require US Bank to bring a counterclaim but instead allowed it to enter false and fraudulent

evidence with her series of illegal or incompetent rulings.

Example #5. Showing Favoritism to BAR Agents Over Pro Se litigants

Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are guilty of accepting bribes and

will be disqualified from the case, removed from office for conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute) and imprisoned for

bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services 18 U.S.C. Section 1346.

According to her financial forms, she takes money from the BAR. That in and of itself would not

disqualify her if her fees were reasonable and if she refrained from making statements and

committing acts that indicate she prefers hearing cases where the parties are represented by BAR

members. Judge Fell made very clear statements that if the Plaintiff wanted justice in her

courtroom, Plaintiff would not get it unless she hired. Plaintiff is willing to testify under oath about

the help Judge Fell gave others as Plaintiff was taking copious notes. Given the reality of todays

litigation landscape, the time and money the state of California has spent making our courts

accessible to the ordinary citizen, and the Pro Se guidelines, her statements bring the entire

judiciary into disrepute.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written, verified statement with the

clerks office objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting

the basis for the disqualification. CCP 170.3(c)(1). Copies of the statement must be served on all

parties or on any of their attorneys who have appeared. CCP 170.3(c)(1); see McCartney v

Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334, 1340, 273 CR 250 (statement in reply to opposition to

disqualification statement does not satisfy notice requirements of CCP 170.3). A copy must be

personally served on the judge who is alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her courtroom clerk,

provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(1).

At this time Plaintiff believes that Judge Fells rulings disqualify her. Plaintiff argues that

specific statements taken in context of Judge Fells off-bench activities, particular findings, and

particular rulings reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset, including a willingness to slant the law in

favor of the California BAR attorneys and or well-financed Defendants. Judge Fells statement telling

Plaintiff she should have hired a lawyer showed a biased and prejudiced mindset that may be

clearly discerned by any reasonable person who has knowledge of the facts and the law. As Plaintiff

refuses to hire an attorney, Judge Fell has made it perfectly clear that Plaintiff will not receive a fair

hearing or trial in her courtroom. By her actions, Judicial Office Fell has demonstrated she will

assist BAR attorneys while denying clarification to this Pro Se Litigant. In order to disqualify a

judge, his/her prejudice must be against a party [Karen Rozier] to the action; . . . Evans v Superior

Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P 662; Kreling v Superior Court (1944) 63 CA2d 353, 146 P2d 935.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


Judges who take money from persons appearing before them are guilty of accepting

bribes and will be disqualified from the case, removed from office for conduct prejudicial to

the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute) and imprisoned for

bribery and violation of the intangible right to honest services 18 U.S.C. Section 1346.

JUDICIAL CANON OF ETHICS:

I. CANON 2 A. Promoting Public Confidence, A judge shall respect and comply with the law

and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and

impartiality of the judiciary. The comments shown the Exhibit (3) evaluation indicate

that her behavior is not promoting public confidence. Additionally, the timing of her

deciding to require Plaintiff to place the bond early smacks of retaliation.

II. Canon 3 B. A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests,

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

the law.*: The law is clear that all Discovery must be given under oath. In this instant

case, Judge Fell allowed very liberal Discovery over the Plaintiffs objection. Specifically,

she waived the very important requirement that the answers be provided UNDER

OATH! Given that she waived the requirement for the BAR represented BANK, her

action cannot be considered in the best interest of the public.

III. C. Administrative Responsibilities section (1) (1) A judge shall diligently discharge the

judges administrative responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or

prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in

the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of administrative

duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


(i) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex,

gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital

status, or socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (ii) sexual harassment.: The

crafters of this document including the phrase including but not limited to when

describing the types of discriminatory behavior judges should avoid precisely because

they wanted them to avoid all types of discriminatory behavior. When Judge Fell leaned

forward and took pleasure in informing Plaintiff that she would treat Plaintiff more

harshly than she would treat the BAR attorneys, she violated the Canon with both her

speech and gesture. As evidence by Exhibit (3), her act concerned members of the public

enough for them to express their concerns.

IV. (2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and shall

cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.:

Judge Fell was informed multiple times that Los Angeles Superior Court Renee Fenton

Korn requested to have the December 11, 2013 hearing postponed. Rather than

cooperate with the Los Angeles court, Judge Korn elected to conduct the hearing and to

allow the Defendant to profit from my excusable absence. She continues to allow them

to profit from her refusal to cooperate with a superior case.

V. G. Practice of Law. A judge shall not practice law. On May 1, 2014 Judical Officer Korn

gave legal advice to the lawyers presenting the cases before mine. She told them what to

file. She helped the lawyers through the case. When I asked her to explain her ruling to

me, she would not. I did not ask for legal advice. Once the transcript is ready, the court

will see that Judge Korn only in my case worked hard to confuse me as to which of

the two motions she was hearing. She appears to be helping the opposing side because

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


she must not want to see a lawyer lose a case to a Pro se litigant for fear that other Pro

se litigants will try to have their cases heard in her courtroom.

It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably

entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in

the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous corresponding statute--Sec. 170,

subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been construed to require bias in fact, with the

enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify a California judge for cause was no

longer required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in evaluating

recusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States

(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a bent of

mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S.) In the case United Farm

Workers of America v Superior Court (1985, 4th Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.

Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C) (Judge disqualified if person aware of facts might

reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes the disqualification standard

fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of

the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the

judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man

or woman would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated.

To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their

confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. The reason for

the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased unless the judge so

admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are not furthered when a judge who is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


reasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case. (emphasis added) Catchpole v

Brannon (1995, 1st Dist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal Rptr 2d 440.

Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are

Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers.

Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes

63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."

It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer

(Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in

which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the

purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP

and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

CONCLUSION

A reasonable person looking at the current bench in the Plaintiffs case can see bias and

prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of the law by Judge Fell. She is not aiming for

substantial justice. As evidence by the comments in the Robing Room, at least two other parties

looked at her behavior and concluded that she was acting irrationally and against the publics

interest. As discussed above, the Court has ample cause to disqualify Sheila Fell from the case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judge Fell and anyone under her

supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C) et seq and that every one of her orders be

EXHIBIT 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

KAREN M. ROZIERDAVID E. ROZIER, SR.7957 DAHLIA CIRCLEBUENA PARK, CA 90620(714)512-5740Propria Personas

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY

KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, an Individual

DAVID EUGENE ROZ1ER,SR., an individual

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION assuccessor by merger to LASALLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION as Trustee RAMP 2007RP1, et. al;

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as successor ininterest to BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONALASSOCIATION as successor by merger to LASALLEBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee RAAC2007RP1, et. al

OCWEN LOAN SERVCING, LLC

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY

JOHN DOES 18-50

Defendants.

Case No. 30-2012-00601310-CU-OR-CJC

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDICIALOFFICER SHEILA FELL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 170.1

Date:

Time:

Dept: C22

Trial Date: April 28,2013

20 lof 12

Plaintiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER respectfully requests Judicial Officer Sheila E. Fell be

disqualified under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 170.1 (a)[6)(C): "For any

reason ... A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be ableto be impartial." Plaintiff believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances

would believe that Judge Fell is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law.

The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc, 170.1(a)(6)(C), providing fordisqualification for bias or prejudice is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislativejudgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as theimportance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of anactual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge'simpartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be

impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of

the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal11

view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not

12 provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge ought to consider how his or herparticipation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.

14 INTRODUCTION

15 Judicial Officer Sheila Fell has been active in the case since March 18, 2013 [Docket Item #

16 185] and her participation is ongoing. Former Plaintiff DAVID EUGENE ROZIER, SR. filed a 170.6

motion requesting that she be disqualified but his motion was denied; subsequently Judicial Officer17

Fell dismissed Mr. Rozier as a Plaintiff against his and Plaintiff KAREN's objections. It has become18

apparent that she is biased, even ignoring the law and changing decisions to benefit the Defendants

19

2 of 1220

which are represented by BAR attorneys. She can not be objective in her decisions. Plaintiffrequests that a new Judicial Officer be assigned from outside of this Judicial Officer s' influence.

Plaintiffs objections were sent to Judicial Officer Fell via letter and Plaintiff requested thatshe voluntarily disqualify herself from the case. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached

hereto as EXHIBIT 1. Upon hearing of Defendant U.S. Bank's plan to schedule an Ex Parte motion in

front of Judicial Officer Fell before I could submit my 170.1 motion, on the morning of October 1,

2013 I contacted Judicial Officer Fell's office about my letter. Judicial Officer Fell's Clerk [Heidi]

informed me that Ms. Fell never acts on letters as they are usually done outside of normal

procedure. Plaintiff did provide all parties with copies of the letters. Plaintiff again is following the

letter and intent of the law while the California BAR attorneys are being allowed to violate the

wording and intent of the same law. Judicial Officer Fell reports income from the Orange County

BAR Association, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Celtic BAR Association. Her bias10against Plaintiff can be seen in the following:

11

Example #1. Most Recent Incident: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute Order/ Nunc Pro Tune to12

correct Minute Order

Time: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11 AM

14 Place: Department 22

15Attendees: Judicial Officer Sheila Fell; Rick Burns; Alicia Dubois; Plaintiff, David E. Rozier, Sr.; Yaron

16Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.

17Circumstances: Judicial Officer Fell instructed Plaintiff to hire and pay a California licensed BAR

18attorney and have that attorney sign all of Plaintiffs original work, a violation of her right to benefit

19

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE- 3 of 12

from and be recognized for her efforts. Judicial Officer Fell admitted that she had made a major

error with the Minute Order Plaintiff was protesting. Her mistake caused Plaintiff to file four (4)

Request for Entry of Defaults and supporting Declarations after each of the Defendants defaulted on

its requirement to answer by August 30, 2013. Judicial Officer Fell then insulted and attempted to

intimidate the Plaintiff into hiring a California BAR attorney. After denying Plaintiffs request for an

Ex Parte Request for Nunc Pro Tune Order on a technicality, the Court issued a Nunc Pro Tune order

nevertheless. Due to Judicial Officer Fell's mistakes, all Defendants received thirty additional days to

respond to a complaint despite all parties prior agreement when all answers would be due. U.S.

Bank's counsel of record, a California BAR attorney, agreed to file his answer by the agreed to

August deadline. At the demurrer hearing. Judicial Officer Fell was also quite clear that if she ruled

against Bank of America's request for reconsideration she would not grant them any extension to

file their answer and their counsel of record - a California BAR attorney, agreed to the terms.

Plaintiff stands by her assertion that the August 27th Minute Order was no mistake. It accurately

reflected the events as Plaintiff and all of her witnesses recalled them. Judicial Officer Fell only

changed her ruling after Defendants each of them defaulted and the Pro Se Plaintiff immediately12

requested a default judgment. Judicial Officer Fell and those under her influence have gone out of13 their way to harm the Pro Se Plaintiff. For instance, at the same September Ex Parte hearing,

14 Judicial Officer's Clerk Rick Burns loudly referred to the Pro Se Plaintiff as "one of those fee waiver

cases" in the crowded courtroom. To Plaintiffs knowledge, he has not been disciplined for his15

breach of professional duty but remains in a position to exert tremendous influence on the outcome

of Plaintiffs case. That is clearly unacceptable, and to a reasonable observer, smacks of bias,

17 disrespect and prejudice. For the record, Plaintiff is an African-American.

18

19

-4 of 1220

Plaintiff immediately requested financial information on Judicial Officer Fell after her irrational

behavior at the September 2013 Ex Parte. That is how Plaintiff discovered that Judicial Officer Fell

derives income from the California BAR Association and Trial Lawyers Association. A true and

correct copy of her filings are attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2.

Additional Event and Probable Cause:

Time: May 10, 2013

Place: Department 22

Persons: Various

Occasion: Ex Parte Hearing

Circumstances: Plaintiff did not sue Defendant U.S. Bank or make any allegations against U.S. Bank.

Plaintiff repeatedly objected to Defendant U.S. Bank's sideways request to be added to the litigation10 and Judicial Officer Derek Hunt repeatedly denied U.S. Bank's entry into the case. The Defendants

skillfully used California 170.6 and the nation's 69th largest law firm Locke Lord LLP against me to11

remove the case from Judicial Officer Hunt to Judicial Officer James J. DiCesare, one of the few

Orange County Superior Court Judges that admits to owning stock in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH

13 BARNEY in his California Form 700 filing. I objected to the move to Judicial Officer DiCesare without

knowing his financial holdings but solely based on his written work and the case was eventually14

moved to Judicial Officer Fell in March 2013.15

At the May 10th hearing, we debated the inclusion of U.S. Bank as a Defendant and then-16

Plaintiff DAVID EUGENE ROZIER, SR., my husband - the uncompensated builder of the property

with a recorded lien that precedes U.S. Bank's alleged interest as well as the Trustee of the Trust

18 that owns the property subject to the dispute, extensively. When Judicial Officer Fell ruled that

19

5 of 12-~ J Ul .2U

Plaintiff KAREN would be required to add U.S. Bank as a Defendant, she also stated that Plaintiff

KARENcould sue U.S. Bank for all of U.S. Bank's wrongdoing. After Plaintiff filed her third amended

complaint and added substantial evidence of wrongdoing against U.S. Bank, Judicial Officer Fell

changed her ruling and limited Plaintiffs actions against U.S. Bank for the wrongdoing of Bank of

America including barring any claims of conspiracy. Plaintiff never alleged that U.S. Bank was

involved in the wrongful sale without alleging conspiracy. Judicial Officer Fell forced Plaintiff to add

U.S. Bank but prohibited Plaintiff to also introduce all evidence of their wrong-doing and make any

allegation supported by evidence. This is a clear violation of Due Process, Plaintiffs Civil and basic

Human Rights.

The average person looking at this situation would see a bias by Judicial Officer Fell toward

the Plaintiff. Additionally, Judicial Officer Fell has repeatedly shown bias in her willingness to grant

the California BAR attorneys Ex Parte motions without requiring them to show any emergency, a

violation of California law. Examples of abuse of the Ex Parte Motion and clear preferential11

treatment to the California BAR attorneys include:

121. June 3, 2013 - Despite a clear written Minute Order, Defendant was allowed to force this

non-emergency Ex Parte motion on an emergency basis with no repercussion. At the

14 hearing, Judicial Officer Fell clearly ruled one way. She would later change her ruling for no

explainable reason other than incompetence, corruption, or bias.

2. August 20, 2013 - Ex Parte to vacate trial scheduled for September 23, 2013. The trial date16

was set back in February 2013. U.S. Bank and Residential Funding Company failed to seek

17 Discovery before the Discovery cut-off despite being represented by California BAR

attorneys versed in the Discovery process. No Defendant was required to show cause for18

19

-60112

their failure. Ex Parte held on date Defendants' California BAR attorneys knew Plaintiff

would be unavailable to oppose. Judicial Officer Fell delayed the trial from September 23,

2013 until April 28. 2013 on an Ex Parte basis without a compelling reason.

3. September 14, 2013 - Plaintiff filed her timely Request for Default against Defendant Bank

of America. Despite them being in default, Judicial Officer Fell agreed to hear their Ex Parte

Motion to understand the court's clear written Minute Order. At the same time, Judicial

Officer Fell refused to hear Plaintiffs request for a Nunc Pro Tune Order based on a

procedural technicality. Worse, Judicial Officer Fell and her clerk Rick Burns attempted to

humiliate the Pro Se Plaintiff for filing a defective request for a Nunc Pro Tune Order when it

was they who should have rightfully been embarrassed for their sloppy and incomplete

work. Instead of ameliorating the situation, they issued yet another incomplete minute

order with the Nunc Pro Tune order, again failing to specify the understood and agreed

upon deadline of 5 P.M. September 26, 2013. That was a fatal error that granted Defendant

Bank of America much leniency on when to file their answer and one which has caused

Plaintiff economic and emotional harm. Judicial Officer Fell was clearly lecturing Plaintiff on12

her "inadequacies" with respect to courtroom rules and behavior. Plaintiff is left wondering13 if perhaps the problem is her adherence to deadlines, decorum, protocol, and procedure.

14 Plaintiff does not believe she will receive a fair hearing or trial with Judicial Officer Sheila

Fell or anyone under her influence.15

4. October 2, 2013: Despite not being able to show harm, Defendant U.S. Bank is being allowed

to bring forth an Ex Parte Motion to change a previous court's ruling. Specifically, Judicial

17 Officer Derek Hunt ruled that the trial bond was due payable before the trial. Defendant US

Bank requested and received a trial delay of six months. Now they are being allowed to ask18

19

in - 7 of 1220

the court ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS to require Plaintiff to pay a bond more than six months

prior to the scheduled trial. There is no basis in law for them to be allowed to ask for this

relief on an emergency basis, but Judicial Officer Sheila Fell entertains their every ridiculous

request. There is also no basis in law for Judicial Officer Fell to be allowed to show leniency

to the California BAR attorneys for missed deadlines and shoddy work, forgive herself and

her Clerk for their incomplete and defective Minute Orders and then ridicule and attempt to

harass and intimidate the Pro Se Plaintiff into hiring a California BAR attorney when

Plaintiff highlights the absurdities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE IS THE GROUNDS OF DUE PROCESS

10

At this time Plaintiff does not argue that Judicial Officer Fell's rulings disqualify her,11

although Plaintiff does argue that her rulings are wrong and will be reversed on appeal. Plaintiff12

argues that specific statements taken in context of Judicial Officer Fell's off-bench activities,

13 particular findings, and particular rulings reveal a biased and prejudiced mindset, including awillingness to slant the law in favor of the California BAR attorneys and or well-financed

14Defendants. Judicial Officer Fell's statement directing Plaintiff to hire a California BAR attorney

showed a biased and prejudiced mindset that may be clearly discerned by any reasonable person

16 who has knowledge of the facts and the law. Any objective person can see the prejudice will bedirected towards the Plaintiff thus: "In order to disqualify a judge, his/her prejudice must be

17against a party [Karen Rozier] to the action;..." Evans v Superior Court (1930) 107 CA 372, 290 P

1 Q662; Kreling v Superior Court (1944) 63 CA2d 353,146 P2d 935.

19

8 of 12

It is well stated in CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably

entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in

the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. The previous corresponding statute-Sec. 170,

subdivision (a)(5)--which was repealed in 1984, had been construed to require bias in fact, with the

enactment of Sec. 170.1, however, a party seeking to disqualify a California judge for cause was nolonger required to prove that the judge was actually biased. The test to be applied in evaluatingrecusal and disqualification of judges was clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States(1921) 255 U.S. 22: Does the [Declaration] of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a bent ofmind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S.) In the case United FarmWorkers of America v Superior Court (1985,4th Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 97, 216 Cal Rptr 4.

Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C) (Judge disqualified if person aware of facts might

reasonably entertain doubt that judge would be impartial) makes the disqualification standardfundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of

11the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the

judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable manor woman would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated.To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their

14confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. The reason for

15 the objective standard of proof is the difficulty in showing that a judge is biased unless the judge so

admits. In addition, public perceptions of justice are not furthered when a judge who isreasonably thought to be biased in a matter hears the case, (emphasis added)" Catchpole v

17Brannon (1995,1st Dist) 36 Cal App 4th 237, 42 Cal Rptr 2d 440.

18

19

:-9of 12

10

HER BIAS AGAINST THIS PRO PER PLEADINGS IN UNWARRANTED

If Plaintiffs pleadings were facially defective or of such poor quality that they were

disrupting the court's usual business, Judicial Officer Fell's angst still would not be warranted. In

the case at hand. Plaintiffs pleadings have been quite adequate. Plaintiff admits that she was not

familiar with the court's internal process to request a Nunc Pro Tune order to correct - for the third

time - Judicial Fell and her Clerk's mistake. If anything, it is the Plaintiff who should be complaining

as she has been forced to generate extra motions and requests (including four requests for defaults)due to Judicial Officer Fell's errors. Her errors also gave both Defendants an additional thirty-days

to respond to Plaintiffs request, time not owing. Her decisions to publically shame the Pro Se

Plaintiff for refusing to hire and pay a California BAR attorney to "sign his name" on Plaintiffs work

is completely unacceptable in light of her clear association with the California BAR Association and

California Trial Lawyers Association.

11 Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are

Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers.12

Haines v. Kerner 92 Set 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (llth Cirl990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes13

63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)." It it14 entirely wrong that the Pro Se Plaintiff should be held to the highest standard while Judicial Officer

Fell at the same time doesn't even require low-side compliance from the California BAR attorneys.

It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer

(Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 35517

U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in1 fi

which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the

19

20 " . :"-_ 10 of 12

91

purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP

and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

CONCLUSION

Any reasonable person looking at the current bench in the Plaintiffs case would see bias

and prejudice against the Pro Se Plaintiff, and, the ignoring of the law by Judicial Officer Fell.

Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Judicial Officer Fell and anyone under her

supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1 (a) (6) (C) etseq. Plaintiff requests that the Presiding

Judge of the Superior Court of California, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana, California assign the

Plaintiffs case to another department within the court, or in the alternative ask the Judicial Counsel

to assign an independent Judicial Officer to this case.

10In the best interest and for respect of the court this request for disqualification must be

11 granted. The California legislature made reasonable decisions in these rules for disqualification and

the rules must be followed.12

13 DATED: October 1, 2013

14 By,

15Karen Michele Rozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per

16

17

18

19

2Q 11 of 12

71

10

DECLARATION OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND IGNORING OF THE LAW

I, KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, declare I am a resident in California over the age of 18 years of age. I

am the Plaintiff in this matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of

perjury under the laws of the state of California, and can and will testify to such in any court orhearing.

Executed in the state of California, in the County of Orange, California.

DATED: October 1, 2013

By,

11Karen Michele Rozier, Plaintiff in Pro Per

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

12 of 1220

September 28, 2013

The Honorable Sheila Fell, Department C22Superior Court of California County of OrangeCentral Justice Center700 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, A 92701

Re: 30-2012 00601310-CU-OR-CJC, Rozier vs. Bank of America, N.A.

Dear Judge Fell,

I am in receipt of the 09/17/2013 Minute Order. I called Mr. Burns on Friday September 20,

2013 but he was not in the office. I was going to submit another Nunc Pro Tune request to correct

this Order, but since both Defendants made it clear that they understood the due date of

September 26, 2013,1 didn't see the pressing need.

First, please accept my apology for my insistence that I did not have to file a motion along

with my earlier Declaration in Support of Request for Nunc Pro Tune Order and Proposed Order.

You were absolutely right. I was supposed to submit moving papers of some sort.

Now that the hard part is out of the way, I respectfully request that you voluntarily

disqualify yourself from my case for bias. I was planning to deliver this letter to you earlier in the

week, but I was told that your courtroom was dark all week. I was surprised since it was over a

month ago you postponed my trial in my absence, a trial which was scheduled for this week. Given

the court's load and constraints, I would have thought the free time would have been used on

other cases. I'm glad I waited the extra time because Defendant Bank of America has again failed to

answer by the agreed deadline and I have filed another Request for Default.

That is not the main reason I am glad I waited before writing. Yesterday, I received your

financial disclosure forms, and they further compel me to request your voluntary and immediate

disqualification. After your behavior the other day, I became so suspicious that I decided to dare to

follow my own advice and "follow the money", or in this case, "the sphere of influence." I believe

your bias extends to your Clerk Rick Burns, though I am unsure of the motivation of his bias.

of 3

I endured your personal bias against me for as long as I could, but I was not expecting you

to instruct me to hire a California BAR attorney at the last Ex Porte, the one I requested as a Nunc

Pro Tune prior to Defendant Bank of America submitting its request despite being in default status,

(in my opinion, of course). I did not expect you to be so vocal about me "paying a lawyer to signhis name", just as I was not expecting your Clerk Rick Burns to declare to the open Courtroom thatI was "one of those fee waiver cases."

In my view you both have shown clear bias against me personally.

I could not figure out why I was being shown such utter disregard and disrespect

previously, but given your affiliation with the ORANCE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION and

ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS since at least 2007,1 have my suspicions and legitimate

concerns. At the last Ex Porte, it was quite clear that you were relaxed with every case in front of

you but quite tense when my case was called. I do not believe that I have done anything to cause

you concern and feel that I am more than reasonable, professional, calm, prepared, and

competently presenting my case, but for some reason you harbor clear animosity towards me.

I simply do not trust your Clerk. He has made too many mistakes that have caused me harm

and none that have caused the Defendants harm, in my opinion.

I do not make this request lightly or impulsively. As you recall, my husband and co-Plaintiff

DAVID EUGUENE ROZIER, SR. ("David") initially filed a 170.6 motion against you before you sat forthe case but we were refused another judicial officer; You later ruled that David was not allowed tobe a party to the case even though he is the uncompensated builder of the property with a

recorded lien, was also illegally harassed and threatened with the sole purpose of persuading him

to leave his home by Defendants Bank of America and Residential Funding Company, and is the

Trustee of the Trust that owns the property. Interestingly enough, you ordered that the Trust's case

a case where the Trust was in fact paying the court's fees to be dismissed, again with clear bias

against my entire family. Given that we had just removed our cases from Judicial Officer Di Cesare[hand-picked by the Defendants; heavily invested in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY] and werestill new to you, I did not have cause to ask for your removal and so I accepted you as a Judicial

Officer. Now that I have been in your courtroom and watched you interact with several litigants in

of 3

various stages of litigation, I doubt that I am receiving fair treatment in your courtroom by either

you or your Clerk. Since realizing your relationship with professional lawyer associations, I am even

more concerned, and with clear cause.

My bias is reasonable under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).

I will highlight a few specific examples for you in the following pages. I am writing you

directly because I am hoping that you will voluntarily disqualify yourself from the case and not

require me to publicize these and other instances in the form of a motion. Thank you.

Grounds for Removal

Any party may challenge a judge for cause by filing a written, verified statement with the clerk's office objectingto the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the basis for the disqualification.CCP 170.3(c)(l). Copies of the statement must be served on all parties or on any of their attorneys who haveappeared. CCP 170.3(c)(l); see McCartney v Superior Court (1990) 223 CA3d 1334,1340,273 CR 250(statement in reply to opposition to disqualification statement does not satisfy notice requirements of CCP170.3). A copy must be personally served on the judge who is alleged to be disqualified, or on his or hercourtroom clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. See CCP 170.3(c)(l).

With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,

Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant

Copy to:Frank Kim, BRYAN CAVE, LLP for (DEFAULTED) Bank of America, N.A.Yaron Shaham, Severson & Werson, APC for U.S. Bank, N.A. and Residential Funding Company

Events In Support of Request for Voluntary Disqualification

Event#1:Time: May 10, 2013Place: Department 22Persons: VariousOccasion: Ex Parte Hearing

Circumstances: I did not sue Defendant U.S. Bank or make any allegations against U.S. Bank. Irepeatedly objected to Defendant U.S. Bank's sideways request to be added to the litigation, making noformal request but insinuating their way into the litigation. Judicial Officer Derek Hunt repeatedly deniedU.S. Bank's entry into the case but the Defendants skillfully used California 170.6 and the nation's 69th

largest law firm Locke Lord LLP against me to remove the case from Judicial Officer Hunt to JudicialOfficer James J. DiCesare, one of the few Orange County Superior Court Judges that admits to owningstock in MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY in his California Form 700 filing. I objected and the casewas eventually moved to you. We debated this extensively, and when you initially ruled that I wasrequired to add U.S. Bank as a Defendant, you stated that I could sue U.S. Bank for all of U.S. Bank'swrongdoing. I repeated the words several times to be sure. After I filed my amended complaint and addedsubstantial evidence of wrongdoing against U.S. Bank, you changed your ruling and limited my actionsagainst U.S. Bank for the wrongdoing of Bank of America even though I have never alleged that U.S. Bankwas involved in the wrongful sale without alleging conspiracy. I recognize that you feel that I need tomove the court for leave to amend my complaint to add the additional charges and parties even though Imaintain that you were quite clear on May 10th that since you were forcing me to add U.S. Bank as aDefendant that you would also grant me the opportunity to also introduce all evidence of theirwrong-doing and make any allegation supported by evidence. My take-away from this unfortunateencounter is that from now on, I will ask to have the Court Reporter recite any order so to prevent futuremisunderstanding. Since I obviously cannot trust my memory or notes, my husband's memory or notes,or any of the witnesses' memories or notes, I will ask the Court Reporter to repeat all orders to ensure weall understand them. I have filed a complaint against her (which I'm sure landed on deaf ears) but thereality is that her transcript is garbage - more part of the fraud on the American people. I already knowwho is paying her to be in the courtroom - Bank of America, the same entity I suspect paid FederalJudicial Officer Catherine Bauer, former Senior Counsel for their Bankruptcy litigation/ now routinelyruling in their favor against homeowners from the bench. David said you two looked very similar the veryfirst time he saw you. He has great instincts.

Event # 2Place: Department 22Persons: Shelia E. Fell; Rick Burns; Alicia Dubois; KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR.; Yaron Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.Event: Changed Ruling to Benefit Defendant

Circumstances: At the August 14th Demurrer, you clearly ruled against U.S. Bank, ruled against BANA,and granted US Bank's motion to strike. I intended to challenge your ruling but later understood that Imerely needed to move the court for leave to amend the complaint and add new Defendants. You howeverseem to have forgotten what you ruled though I had three non-related witnesses in the court. Mr. Kim

Page 1 of 3


[Bank of America] asked you to take their demurrer under consideration while Mr. Shaham [U.S. Bank]agreed to have his answer to the court by August 30, 2013. There is a reason why Harvard Universitypaid me to attend there fine university, and it's not because I can't remember what happened from onemoment to the next! I have already accused your Court Reporter Alicia Dubois of having strong biastowards the entity paying her regularfy - Bank of America, so it troubles me that two days after Icontacted her about getting a copy of the transcript you claim you reviewed, she still hasn't returned mycall.

I do not feel any fairness, equity, or adherence to law and procedure in Department 22 and do notwish for you to hear my case. I do hope you disqualify yourself as I would prefer to fight my present battleand not get distracted fighting you and your Clerk.

Event #3: Ex parte Application to Vacate Trial DateTime: August 20, 2013 at 8:30 A.M. (est.)Place: Department 22Persons: Yaron Shaham, Counsel for U.S. Bank/ Residential Funding; Frank Kim, Counsel for Bank ofAmerica.

Circumstances: Despite knowing that Plaintiff was unavailable and fully aware of Plaintiffs objections,U.S. Bank brought an Ex Parte Motion to continue the trial. You allowed the Defendants to apply Ex Parteto vacate the trial date, without requiring Defendants to state the nature of the emergency which wouldhave permitted them to bring an Ex Parte application under California law. I find that particularlytroubling since you stated in English on August 14th that you would not entertain an Ex Parte motion tovacate the trial date. Then, in my absence and in violation of California law, you granted the Defendantsapplication on an Ex Parte basis and gave them an additional six months when all they asked for duringmy presence at the August 14th hearing was one month. That is unconscionable, in my opinion.

BIAS: Allowing the Defendant's counsels, your California BAR peers, to play by rules known only tomembers of the BAR.

Rule 379 Ex parte applications and orders

e) [Affirmative factual showing required] An applicant shall make an affirmative factual showing in adeclaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediatedanger, or any other statutory basis for granting ex parte relief rather than setting the matter for hearingon noticed motion.

No actual bias required. Actual bias need not be present. Roitz v Coldwell Banker Residential BrokerageCo., supra, 62 CA4that 723. If an average person could entertain doubt about the judge's impartiality,disqualification is mandated.

I wrote this section prior to knowing your relationship to the BARs, so I stand firm that I have clear causefor bias.

Page 2 of 3


Event #4: Ex Parte to Clarify Minute Order/ Nunc Pro Tune to correct Minute OrdersTime: Tuesday September 17, 2013 at 11 AMPlace: Department 22Persons: Shelia E. Fell; Rick Burns; Alicia Dubois; KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, DAVID EUGENE ROZIER,SR.; Yaron Shaham; Frank Kim; John and Jane Does.

Circumstances: You instructed me to hire and pay a California licensed Bar attorney and have thatattorney sign all of my original work, a violation of my right to benefit from and be recognized for myefforts. After you admitted that you made a mistake, a mistake which resulted in my filing four (4)Request for Entry of Defaults and supporting Declarations after each of the Defendants defaulted on itsrequirement to answer by August 30, 2013, you had the impudence to insult me. Due to your mistakes,you gave all Defendants thirty additional days to respond to a complaint despite all parties being aware ofthe true facts, which is that Yaron Shaham directly said that U.S. Bank's answer would be filed byAugust 28, 2013 and also that you were clear that if you ruled against Bank of America's demurrer, youwould not grant them any extension to file their answer. I stand by my assertion that the August 27*Minute Order was no mistake. It accurately reflected the events as I and all of my witnesses recalledthem before Frank Kim, Bank of America's Counsel - spoke to your Clerk Rick Burns.

I ^mediately requested financial information on you your Clerk. I discovered that since at least 2007 and

every year since, you reported income from the follow.ng two entities: ORANGE COUNTY BARASSOCIATION and ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS. As I am a Pro Se Utigant and notcontributing to your honoranum, I, Plamtiff KAREN MICHELE ROZIER, do not beHeve I have recede I

;i

Deration from you to t*. point or that you are capable of bemg unfa, and uncased when faced w>th

a Pro Se Litigant, specifically, me.

Time: Saturday September 28, 2013 at 4:20 P.M

conflict of interest.

With no regrets, vexation, or ill will,

Karen Michele Rozier, Pro-Se Litigant

Page 3 of 3

flBPHSslP ^fflft*

SCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts

CALIFORNIA FORM 700FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION

Nar

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS



> NAME OF SOURCE

fE/At-X NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)

> NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S) DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)

Comments:.

FPPC Form 700 (2006/2007) Sch. DFPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC


CALIFORNIA FORM

Name

700

> NAME OF SOURCE

0PM fie c.ootfry &A. fc^tiADDRESS

OB,^^ MUffiyBUSINESS ACTMTY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE

DATE (mn, a/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF DREK:-

BUSINES5 ACDV5TY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE

DATE [nv ivyi VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT{S)

1 / ' * ., -- :

1 '

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS



> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE

DATE (mmMtfyy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)

.

;

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTMTY, IF ANY. OF SOURCE

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GtFTfS)

/ /

Cornmer"-:

FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. 0FPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC

SCHEDULE EIncome - Gifts

Travel Payments, Advances,and Reimbursements

700CALIFORNIA FORMFAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION

Name

Ski (A; Bill

Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not required to report "income" from government agencies.

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

CITY AND STATE

BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE

h ; A- 2-#n 6 /viff applicable)

TYPE OF t-.YMENT: (must cheek one) ] Gift JP] Income

DESCRIPTION:

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

CITY AND : ;ATE_J_L!i>_LsusiN?: E; AC ; ivfTY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE

S):.J_J I.

TYPE Of PAYMENT: (must check one);.

DLiiCKi' "ON:

(if -'J ' NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

CITY AND STATE


DATE(S):. .AMT: $_

TYPE OF fWYMENT: (must check one) D Glft D Income

DESCRIPTION:

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

CITY AND STATE


DATE(S):. .AMT: _(It applicable)

TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) n Gift D Income

DESCRIPTION:.

C- mn ents:

FPPC Form 700 (2007/2008) Sch. EFPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC

SCHEDULE DCALIFORNIA FORMFAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION

700NameIncome - Gifts /, -

f^-^vlZC-lA r&il

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)t 1 v /( JA /A f/ \ I/ / f LA I f flv>-' f t^^y Cw'rt- ^ ~''v>- Ls\*Sr L.i^ .'Of



. I / I \0( *i *\1D \\i)Sh

1 1> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS fSus/ness Address Acceptable) 7



i / f / O^i 5 i 4-aLc) llu f^'^ .'N k^M

$

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)



/ /

> NAME OF SOURCE




* NAME OF SOURCE




> NAME OF SOURCE




; /

Comments:

FPPC Form 700 (2009/2010) Sch. DFPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov

FILEDSUPERIOR COURT-OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGECENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

SEP 19 ztiOfil CALIFORNIA FORMSCHEDULE DIncome - Gifts

700A M E N D M E N T

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS


-TO

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE'Z

FILEDSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGECENTRAL JUSTICE CENTERSEP 18 SCHEDULED

Income - Gifts

CALIFORNIA FORM^ACTICES CQMMIo

A M E N D M E N T

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE ,

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUEleo? '

DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S)

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF.SOURCE

DATE- (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S),

> NAME OF SOURCE:

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, .IF ANY, OF SOURCE

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE2.0$ 7

DESCRIPTION OF GIFt(S).

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS


DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF 6IFT(S) -

> NAME 01= SOURCE

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY/ OF SOURCE


VerificationPrint

Statement Type . [~].2007/200g. Annual .["]. Assuming O leaving. Candidate , " . ; " .

1 have, used all reasonable diligence in .preparing 'this statemeTvt Ihave reviewed this statement and to, the best of my knowledge the,informatidn contained herein and in any attached schedules; is trueand complete.I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date Signed

Comments:FPPG Form 700 Amendment (2007/3008) Sen, D

FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC


CALIFORNIA FORM 700

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS


DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRITION OF GIFT(S)

* NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS



> NAME OF SOURC

ADDRESS

BUSINESS ACTIVIT-V, IF ANY, OF SOUR

DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESRIPTION OFlFTfS)

> NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS



> NAME OF SOURCE * NAME OF SOURCE

ADDRESS


ADDRESS




FPPC Form 700 (2008/2009) Sch. DFPPC Toil-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov




Name

Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not required to report "income" from government agencies.

NAME OF SOURCE > NAME OF SOURCE

/f^ ii uLL&jlM&Zs!. (Md[ Ir^MJlA^'^ADDRESS '

CITY AND STATE*





Name

You must mark either the gift or income box.Mark the "501(c)(3)" box for a travel payment received from a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizationor the "Speech" box if you made a speech or participated in a panel. These payments are notsubject to the $440 gift limit, but may result in a disqualifying conflict of interest.

NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)Association of Business Trial LawyersADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)Orange County

CITY AND STATE

Orange County, CABUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF SOURCE |~~] 501 (c)(3)Education - Legal

nm. 09, 17, 12 .09, 23, 12 Aifr.t 3,000.00(if gt)

TYPE OF PAYMENT: (must check one) 0 Gift fj Income0 Made a Speech/Participated in a Panelfj Other - Provide Description

* NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)Celtic Bar Association

ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)Orange County

CITY AND STATE

Orange County, CABUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE fj 501 (c)(3)Legal Group

naTC(c).01,01,12 12,31,12 4UT.t 100.00(if git)

> NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym)


CITY AND STATE

BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE f_J 501 (c)(3)

nATF(




Name

Reminder - you must mark the gift or income box. You are not required to report income from government agencies. You may mark the box 501(c)(3) for a travel payment received from a nonprofit 501(c)(3)

organization. When the payment is a gift it is reportable but is not subject to the $420 gift limit.

NAME OF SOURCE

Ct^M u4//i^6"7"n&(. Uk&&&ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable)

QfAMM QOdM\S\CITY AND STATr

(tTMLMJltlJMty, OABUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE1 fj 501 (c)(3)

JL&clU3i - 1~&]LLHATRSV \bl\

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

12/8/13 "The Robing Room: CA State Judges

www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3018 1/3

Home

FAQs

Contact

Privacy Notice

Legal Notice

Hon. Sheila B. Fell See Rating DetailsJudgeSuperior CourtOrange County See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 8.7 - 4 rating(s)Non-Attorney Average Rating: 6.0 - 2 rating(s)

Please send me alerts on this judgeE-mail Address:

Register

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (w ill not be displayed)

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation Criminal Defense Lawyer

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament No Opinion (1=Aw ful,10=Excellent)

* Scholarship No Opinion (1=Aw ful,10=Excellent)

* Industriousness No Opinion (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highlyindustrious)

* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation No Opinion (1=Aw ful,10=Excellent)

* Punctuality No Opinion (1=Chronically Late,10=Alw ays onTime)

* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters No Opinion (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)

* General Ability as a Trial Judge No Opinion (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)

Flexibility In Scheduling No Opinion (1=Completely Inflexible,10=VeryFlexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation No Opinion (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=EntirelyEvenhanded)

General Inclination Regarding Bail No Opinion (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)

Involvement in Plea Discussions No Opinion (1=Not at all Involved, 10=VeryInvolved)

General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage No Opinion (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation No Opinion (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=EntirelyEvenhanded)

Involvement in Settlement Discussions No Opinion (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)

General Inclination No Opinion (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintif f)

Comments



View Detail

View Detail

View Detail

Submit

What other s have said about Hon. Sheila B. Fell

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA4506Rating:Not Rated Comments:She is very dependent on her law clerk, and very inconsistent with her rulings. She makes manymistakes.

Send e-mail to this poster 11/8/2013 1:47:29 PM

Other

Comment #: CA4411

Rating:2.0 Comments:After sitting and watching proceedings in Judge Fell's courtroom, I had to ask someone who knowsher: "Does she have possible dementia?" Her continued forgetfulness regarding her previousstatements and the changing of her minutes from previous court dates was perplexing, to say theleast. Then, there is her clerk, Rick. He actually opines and rules with her. This is all very suspectand concerning. Her bias permeated the room: she allows the banks to default over and over again,and continues to rule against the homeowner who brings motions to dismiss on a continual basis,but the banks continue to be given more time. I am seriously not attacking her -- my intent here isto question her health, as when a judge continues to err on the side of the bank, and they clearlyare in default of not filing on time and fraud has been noted, it is curious how the case continues? Iworry about her health and the safety of homeowners in her courtroom. Especially because of Rick,her clerk, as he is acting as a judge throughout the entire proceeding. When a judge asks her clerk"what did I mean by that statement I made," one has to question if she forgets or whether she evenmade the statement in her findings? Thank you for the time taken here to comment, as it really is aconcern. She is seemingly a very sweet woman, but the way I've seen her react to this plaintiff isremarkably unprofessional in nature. Something is just not right -- her appearance on the bench andher smile just do not match the results, and her appearing to be disoriented with regard to the caseis of grave consequence to the truth.

Send e-mail to this poster 10/20/2013 9:21:54 AM

Other

Comment #: CA3275

Rating:10.0 Comments:Very positive experience. Supported settlement, and we did. Has a head and a heart. Gooddisposition, calm, patient and listens well. Restored my faith in the justice system.

Send e-mail to this poster 1/23/2013 11:38:58 AM

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1342

Rating:9.3

Privacy & Terms

Type the text



View Detail

View Detail

Rating:9.3 Comments:Great civil judge, both in trying to get people to settle--as echoed in another review--and anexcellent trial judge who is not afraid to pull the trigger in bench trials. Friendly demeanor, too.


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA130

Rating:9.6 Comments:Had trials before her when she sat as a judge in family law and now as a civil judge I have hadmany more cases before her and I find her very fair - in fact, she forces civil attorneys to be civil toeach other, something most civil attorneys can't do. So, yes, she is a very good, fair judge and shewants the cases to settle if they can and will give you the time you need to reach a settlement.


Binder11_request_fell_disqualify_pages1-112_page 123_page 13

Binder214_E_15_Ex1_170_1MotiontoDisqualifyFell6_E_27_Ex2_Order8_E_3_39_Ex_3The Robing Room_ Fell

POS

Documents

Motion to Disqualify Judge (170.1)