AFFIDAVIT OF Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© aka Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©

AFFIDAVIT OF Matt P. Jacobsen

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

)

) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA)

Comes now your Affiant: Matt P. Jacobsen the natural living man, making these statements under oath and after first being duly sworn according to law, states that he is your Affiant, over the age of 18 and he believes these facts to be true to the best of his belief and knowledge, states as follows:

1. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the City of San Jose, county of Santa Clara, on July ___, 2015.

2. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not misleading.

3. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts stated herein.

4. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have occurred within the COUNTY OF Santa Clara.

5. Your Affiant states that Matt P. Jacobsen a non-corporate, real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood, natural born living man, is a living, breathing, being, on the soil, a private citizen and non-combatant, with clean hands, rectus curia.

6. Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without reservation.

7. Your Affiant states that if compelled to testify regarding the facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.

8. Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individual’s name on a tombstone, or; a corporation or other legal fiction.

STATEMENTS OF FACT

9. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Affidavit, as if fully set forth herein.

10. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is not a party to the instant case involving Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, or Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©.

11. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©.

12. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has know Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman 1.5 years.

13. Your Affiant states that the undersigned can speak to Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman’s good and honest character.

14. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has review judicially noticed evidence filed into case in Re: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, which is prima facie evidence of the standing of Aubreé Dei Gratia© as a Secured Party whose standing is above that of all state courts for the purposes of civil litigation.

15. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman is a Secured Party Creditor, recognized by the STATE OF NEW YORK, since 2009.

16. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman and Secured Party, is an assign to a portion of the land patent issued for the Pueblo Lands of the City of San Jose, originally issued by the UNITED STATES LAND COURT, San Francisco, California, at the direction and under the authority of the President of the UNITED STATES.

17. Your Affiant states that Dei Gratia holds the land patent for the surveyed land designated by the parcel whose street address is 1461 Forrestal Avenue, San Jose, California.

18. Your Affiant states that land patents are exempt from lien or levy, including property tax and mortgage liens.

19. Your Affiant states that the land patents granted by the UNITED STATES LAND COURT, pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, including the one covering the land designated as 1461 Forrestal Ave., San Jose, California, were granted in perpetuity to all heirs and assigns.

20. Your Affiant states that Dei Gratia is the Plaintiff in Case 1-10-CV-178733 and the Appellant in 1-14-AP-001825.

21. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello violated, Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights to due process under the law by failing to recognized Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman’s standing as a Secured Party Creditor.

22. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello violated Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman’s civil rights by failing to recognize that WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB lacks corporate standing and cannot appear in court or be represented in court pursuant to the CALIFORNIA Tax Code and Corporations Code.

23. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman as, must be recognized in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA as Secured Party Creditor also under the ‘Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, Article IV Section 1, which states that any another state must recognize the decisions, filings and codes of any other state.

24. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman as a Secured Party Creditor has standing above the corporate incorporated court.

25. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello gave tacit agreement that she has a lifetime bar to presiding over cases involving Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, as supported by Affidavits filed into Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and as Judicially Noticed Evidence in UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione, Case 11-57656 ASW (previously served on Judge Vincent J Chiarello).

26. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello had a duty pursuant to 28 USC 455(a) to self recuse in the case sub judice pursuant to her admission of lifetime bar to presiding in any case in which Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, as a party.

27. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA is not the employer of record for Judge Vincent J Chiarello.

28. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has accepted regular payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA which constitute bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings as a ‘quid-pro-quo’.

(Ruling enclosed).

29. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has failed to disclose the payments received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, to litigants in cases that he presides over, to the public and filing of his annual Form 700.

30. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello had a duty to disclose the payments received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, to litigants in cases that she presides over in court, and to the public on his annual Form 700.

31. Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law states that the mere receipt of payments establishes a quid-pro-quo relationship and that there is no requirement to establish any agreement.

32. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from and receives money from change of real property ownership and property transfer ordered in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CAIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, thru property transfer taxes.

33. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from and receives money from change of real property ownership and property transfer ordered in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CAIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, thru increased property reassessments at the time of property transfer and increased property taxes which are otherwise prevented under Proposition 13.

34. Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo is that the judges will in favor of the Plaintiff ordinarily in unlawful detainer, wherein the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA will benefit from both the transfer tax and the increased assessment after sale of real property in foreclosure against the homeowner.

35. Your Affiant states that the exception to this is when the case involves a financial institution, as every judges pension fund is 100 percent invested in the mortgage backed securities of every major and minor lending institution that does business in the UNITED STATES, such that the Superior Court judges have a conflict of financial interest in every case involving a financial institution as a party.

36. Your Affiant states that Superior Court judges never disclose this conflict of financial interest, thus denying non-financial institution litigants the right to an unbiased trier of facts.

37. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a duty to track all of his conflicts, and to self recuse and/or to disclose those conflicts to all litigants.

38. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has knowingly, willfully and wantonly disregarded a duty to self recuse in the case sub judice.

39. Your Affiant states that the perception of the undersigned when a judge fails to self recuse in a situation where the self recusal is mandatory, and not discretionary or waiverable, is that the judge is acting in bad faith to act without jurisdiction against one or more of the litigants.

40. Your Affiant states that litigants cannot waiver, by estoppel or otherwise, that which is not disclosed as a disqualification by a judge.

41. Your Affiant states that situations of public perception of prejudice or bias by a judge, either for or against one or more of the parties to a case, as described in Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a), are a mandatory disqualification of the judge, and are not discretionary, and are not waiverable.

42. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that any reasonable person with knowledge of the afore stated facts would have a perception that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a prejudice against Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©.

43. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a prejudice against Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©.

44. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that the mandatory recusal requirements for Judge Vincent J Chiarello in the case sub judice are satisfied.

45. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has knowingly, willfully

46. and wantonly disregarded a fiduciary duty to self recuse in the case sub judice due to the bias established thru bribery, by the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See auditors email in Objection to Judge Chiarello for Disqualification for Cause.

47. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARTA profits from the rulings resulting in transfer of real property, thru property transfer tax, and thru property value reassessment that increases property tax revenue.

48. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello knows that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA benefits from a ruling to take Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©’s real property and to transfer ownership to Wachovia Mortgage FSB, a corporation dissolved for money laundering to the Mexican Drug Cartels.

FEDERAL CASE LAW ON BRIBERY

(MEMORANDUM INSERTED IN MIDDLE OF AFFIDAVIT)

 

Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346 Scheme To Defraud The Public Of

18 U.S.C 201 provides: (Addendum 1)

 

In the U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,

 

The US Supreme Court has explained, in interpreting the federal bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, that bribery requires a quid pro quo, which includes an ‘intent ‘to influence’ an official act or ‘to be influenced’ in an official act.’ United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)). This may be contrasted to both a gratuity, which ‘may constitute merely a reward for some future act that the public official will take (and may already have determined to take), or for a past act that he has already taken,’ and to a noncriminal gift extended to a public official merely “to build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the future.’ Id. at 405, 119 S.Ct. 1402. This discussion is equally applicable to bribery in the honest services fraud context, and we thus conclude that bribery requires ‘a specific intent to give or re-ceive something of value in exchange for an official act.’ Id. at 404-05, 119 S.Ct. 1402.

 

In the U.S. v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 78 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1185, (9th Cir.(Nev.) Feb 20, 2009), the court stated, “[W]e agree that at

least an implicit quid pro quo is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 281–82.”

 

In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated in, 

“United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). [… ]the instructions proffered by the District Court repeatedly emphasized the critical quid pro quo, explaining that ‘[t]o establish such bribery the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo, ... that the benefit was offered in ex-change for the official act.’ (App. at 9642.) The Court continued, ‘where there is a stream of benefits given by a person to favor a public official, ... it need not be shown that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a person gave an official a stream of benefits in implicit exchange for one or more official acts, you may conclude that a bribery has occurred.’ (App. at 9643.) Finally, the Court explained,*282 ‘[t]o find the giver of a benefit guilty, you must find that the giver had a specific intent to give ... something of value in exchange for an official act, that is, that the accused had the specific intent to engage in such a quid pro quo exchange.’ (App. at 9643-44.) This instruction correctly described the law of bribery”

 

And the court stated at p. 282,

 

“whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action; the government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act. See United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir.1998). Rather, ‘[t]he quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a ‘course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor.’ ‘ Id. Thus, ‘payments may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an ‘as needed’ basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf.’ Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 730 (1st Cir.1996) (stating that ‘a person with continuing and long-term interests before an official might engage in a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to coax ongoing favorable official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial official services’). While the form and number of gifts may vary, the gifts still constitute a bribe as long as the essential intent-a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act-exists.”

 

In the 2008 impeachment of Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteus, Judicial Conference of the United States, Secretary James C. Duff, wrote in Certificate and report to the House of Representatives, dated June 18, 2008, I refer to and incorp a true and correct copy. 

“Judge Porteus willfully and systematically concealed from litigants and the public financial transactions, including but not limited to those designated in (d:, by filing false financial disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or to challenge his failure to recuse himself in cases in which lawyers who appeared before him had given him cash and other things of value for the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference”

 

In applying this case to cases involving the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, or its employees, contractors, or agents, under authority of the laws that are in force and effect Judge Vincent J Chiarello willfully concealed from litigants the public financial transactions including but not limited to those designated in (d, by filing false financial disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or to challenge his failure to recuse himself in cases in which party’s who appeared before him had given him things of value.

49. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello has a bias and a prejudice against Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©.

50. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, along with 104 other judges, self recused in case SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, case 1-07-CV-089409, in 2008, in which Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© was a party,

which was expressly documented and admitted by tacit agreement to Affidavit in 2013.

51. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J. Chiarello, along with 104 other judges, admitted to a lifetime bar to hearing cases involving Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© as a party, in case SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, case 1-07-CV-089409,which was expressly documented and admitted by tacit agreement to Affidavit in 2013.

52. Your Affiant states that a previous recusal gives a presumption of bias

53. Your Affiant states that the perception of the undersigned, when a judge fails to self recuse, in a situation where the self recusal is mandatory and not discretionary or waiverable, is that the judge is acting in bad faith to act without jurisdiction against one or more of the litigants.

54. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello falsely claimed that Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman, was late in filing a Notice of Appeal.

55. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello had a bias to find some error by Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, in order to maintain Guancione©’s guilt on appeal.

56. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello, in conspiracy with Mary E. Arand and Judge Helen E. Williams, issued an order to show cause that was intended to deny Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman’s, right to due process and right to free speech to prosecute the appeal Dei Gratia v. WACHOVIA, Case 1-14-AP-001825 on procedural grounds.

57. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello had a duty to disclose this bias and to self recuse at any and all points in the instant appeal.

58. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a duty to track all of his conflicts, and to self recuse, and/or, to disclose those conflicts to all litigants.

59. Your Affiant states that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has knowingly, willfully and wantonly disregarded a duty to self recuse in the case sub judice, after a previous self recusal in an unrelated case.

60. Your Affiant states that the perception of the undersigned when a judge fails to self recuse in a situation where the self recusal is mandatory, and not discretionary or waiverable, is that the judge is acting in bad faith to act without jurisdiction against one or more of the litigants.

61. Your Affiant states that litigants cannot waiver, by estoppel or otherwise, that which is not disclosed as a disqualification by a judge, including previous recusals in cases involving litigants or bribery which creates conflicts of interest.

62. Your Affiant states that situations of public perception of prejudice or bias by a judge, either for or against one or more of the parties to a case, as described in

Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a), are a mandatory disqualification of the judge, and are not discretionary, and are not waiverable.

63. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that any reasonable person with knowledge of the afore stated facts would have a perception that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a prejudice against, Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©.

64. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that Judge Vincent J Chiarello has a prejudice against the undersigned, Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman.

65. Your Affiant states that the undersigned believes that the mandatory recusal requirements for Judge Vincent J Chiarello in the case sub judice are satisfied.

VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned make this filing under penalty of perjury, that the pleading is true. Each of the signer(s) of this filing is a person having first hand knowledge of the facts stated herein.

The undersigned has made a reasonable inquiry into fact and law and affirms to the court that this claim:

1. is not frivolous or intended solely to harass.

2. is not made in Bad Faith - Nor for any improper purpose, i.e. harass or delay.

3. may advocate changes in the law - arguments justified by existing law or non-frivolous argument to change law.

4. has Foundations for factual allegations - alleged facts have evidentiary support.

5. and has Foundation for denials - denials of factual allegations must be warranted by evidence.

Date: July ___, 2015 By: _____________________________

Matt P. Jacobsen,

the natural living man

POB 112609, Campbell, CA 95011

Common Law Notarization below…

The undersigned witnesses the signature of the real man/woman above.

1) Witness: _______________________________ Date: ____/____/2015

[print name] ____HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart________

[address] _________POB 694 San Jose, California near [95106]_________

The undersigned witnesses the signature of the real man/woman above.

2) Witness: _______________________________ Date: ____/____/2015

[print name] ____Wayne Springfield_______________________

[address] _109 West Santa Clara St. #149, San Jose, California near [95113] _

PAGE

Page 1 of 12

Affidavit of Bias of Judge Vincent J Chiarello Against

Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, by Matt P. Jacobsen