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 1-9
23 )
)
24 ) MAIL SERVICE
)
25

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 [BAR #37503], CLAIMS
6

7 FOR; 1. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, 2. JUDICIAL OPPRESSION, 3.

8
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, 4. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, SUBMITTED
9
TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFREY FRANCIS ROSEN FOR HIS
10

11 PRESENTMENT TO THE CRIMINAL GRAND JURY BY HIS DUTY AND

12 OATH OF OFFICE, AFFIDAVIT OF William J. Cutlip, COURT TRANSCRIPTS,
13
JUDGE’S ORDER , OPINIONS JUDGMENTS TENTATIVE RULINGS,
14

15 PLEADINGS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, EXHIBITS 1-8, MAIL

16 SERVICE;
17

18

19 This Claimant/Victim bringing forth this information-inquiry who is not trained in law,

20 but who has the reasonable expectation of rights being protected by Public paid Officials
21
relies on but not limited to the following laws codes rules and regulations etc applied to
22

23
this information-inquiry;

24

25
1. The Supremacy Clause of the United States state constitutions subordinate
26
2. The Constitution for the united States of America joinder
27

28 ~2~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 3. California Penal Code – PEN § 939.5 - § 930 - § 925 grand jury duties
2
4. Code of Conduct for United States Judges see JCUS-APR 73, PP. 9-11
3

4
5. Title 18 USC 241, 242, deprivation of rights

5 6. FRCP 2071 concealment of the record

6
7. California Code Penal Code § 422.6, oppression etc.
7

8
8. Screws v. United States 325 US 91 (1945) officials being held to high standard

9 9. Penal Code Section 141(c) prosecutorial misconduct

10
10. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) disclosure of exculpatory evidence
11
11. California Code CIV § 3294 oppression and malice
12

13 12. California Constitution Articles VI § 18 and 18.5 judicial misconduct

14
13. California Penal Code § 1424.5 and 6068.7 zero tolerance for suppressed
15
evidence
16

17 14. White Washing (1) Ignore the Law, (2) Cite Invalid Law, (3)Ignore the Facts,
18
(4) Ignore Issues, (5) Conceal Evidence, (6) Say Nothing in Orders (7)
19
Block/Deny Motions and Evidence, (8) Violate and Ignore the Rules of
20

21 Procedure, (9) Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People (self-

22
represented/Pro Pers)
23
(10) Order Monetary Sanctions against Parties they want to Damage (excessive or
24

25 unfounded bail) (11) Refuse to Disqualify themselves, (12) Violate their Oath of
26 Office (if any) and Code of Judicial Conduct, (13) Conspire with fellow Judges
27

28 ~3~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 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~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 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.
17 Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence of the fact there is no assignment of the
18 Deed of trust or transfer of the promissory note violating the Cutlips civil right.
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~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 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 plaintiff cannot prove a perfection of title barring the
20 Unlawful detainer courts subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over
21 the defendants.

22 Without an assignment in the record of the Cutlips deed of trust judge Zayner

23
could not determine that the Deutsche purported trustee deed represented a valid
title and had full knowledge the unlawful detainer court was without jurisdiction.
24
Judge Zayner had no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over
25
the defendants Cutlip’s. Judge Zayner Lacked the jurisdiction to substitute the
26
Party plaintiff with an assignee of a Deutsche when Deutsche failed to prove it had
27

28 ~6~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 title this was not a substitution of the party plaintiff this was a sanctioning of a
2 fraudulent conveyance, there is no other way to describe it.
3 Judge Zayner suppressed the fact the foreclosure was void and the fact the
4 court was in the total absence of jurisdiction. And the fact that Deutsche had no
5 title, this alone was enough to show Judge Zayner’s criminal intent.

6 Judge Zayner based his final Judgment on his claim the trustee deed

7
represented a perfected title. Judge Zayner also claimed the prior unlawful
detainer Judgment was res Judicata to the Cutlips claims.
8
The Cutlip’s compulsory cross complaint claim came after final judgment in
9
the prior unlawful detainer and the fact that Chiang’s deed is void came after the
10
final judgment in the prior case and has no effect on their application to defeat this
11
action for the court lack of jurisdiction based on the deed relied on by Chiang is
12
void on its face preventing the court from acquiring any jurisdiction , the same is
13
true for the compulsory cross complain t defense , The unlawful detainer court
14
hearing case 1-15-cv-285290 has never acquired jurisdiction because there has
15 never been a perfected title. The same with the cross complaint both are viable
16 defenses leaving the court in the total absence of jurisdiction
17 The compulsory cross complaint statute is a complete bar to Deutsche and its
18 assignee from stating a claim to the Campbell property. Chiang’s opposition does
19 not even superficially address the Cutlips claims.
20 Judge Zayner Sanctioned a fraudulent conveyance of the Cutlips property.
21 It has already been shown that without an assignment of the Cutlips Deed of

22 trust there can be no perfection of title barring the unlawful detainer court’s

23
jurisdiction and there is no assignment in the record of the prior unlawful detainer
case 1-12-cv-230319 establishing that court was without jurisdiction and its
24
judgment cannot be on the merits. For a judgment to be res- judicata it must be on
25
the merits .Therefore that courts judgment has no res judicata consequences.
26
The absence of an allegation or evidence of an assignment of the Cutlips
27

28 ~7~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 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. The prior unlawful
11
detainer could not be res judicata without an assignment because the judgment
12
was not on the merits of it would have been on the Merits the Cutlips would have
13
prevailed or if it even followed the law.. The trustee deed could not be proof of a
14
perfection of title without an assignment to validate the substitution of trustee.
15 Judge Zayner suppressed the fact that Deutsche failed to prove an assignment of
16 the Cutlip deed of trust or a Transfer of the Cutlip promissory note.
17 Judge Zayner Knew that absent an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust and
18 absent a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche the substitution of
19 trustee by Deutsche was unauthorized and the foreclosure was unlawful.
20 An unauthorized agent of Deutsche cannot conduct a valid sale or issue a valid
21 deed and the foreclosure was absolutely void

22
. (“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate the
23
substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
24 unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
25 at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012)
26

27

28 ~8~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 (Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing a valid assignment fatal to their
2 UD action,; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Brown, 2012 WL 6213737, at *5-6 (Cal.
3 App. Div. Super. Ct. July 31,
4
(“Failure of the plaintiff to prove perfection of title at the onset of litigation
5
bars the unlawful detainer court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and the
6
unlawful detainer five day summons does not vest the court with personal
7
jurisdiction over a defendant. Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 446,
8
451-452 [124 Cal. Rptr. 139].)
9

10
(Deutsche ordered the sale and acquired property and was neither the holder
11
of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the trustee substituted by
12
Deutsche was not the proper trustee therefore the recording of that document was
13
unauthorized,
14

15 An unauthorized trustee cannot issue a valid trustee deed Dimock v. Emerald

16 Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, In Dimock v . Emerald Properties (2000)

17 the court held that a sale conducted by an unauthorized trustee was void rather

18
than voidable because the conveying party was not the true trustee. (Id. at p. 877.)
Concluding the trustee had no power to convey the property, the court declared the
19
trustee's deed upon sale "was a complete nullity with no force or effect (Dimock,
20
supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.) (Id. at p. 876)
21

22 This case squares with the fact the substitution of trustee was unauthorized
23 and that party has no power to convey a valid deed. Therefore Deutsche had no
24 standing because it could not prove a valid title.
25 Deutsche could not prove an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust.

26 Therefore the foreclosure caused by Deutsche was unlawful in violation of Penal

27
Code 532 Theft by false pretence.

28 ~9~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 In California, when a party authorizes a foreclosure without the power to do
2 so, the foreclosure is void, not voidable. See, e.g., Pro Value Properties, Inc. v.
3 Quality Loan service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 581,583 (2009), and Glaski v.
4 Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094 (2013).void when it is conducted by
5 an entity that lacks authority to do so.

6
(The party that ordered the sale and acquired property was
7
neither the holder of the note nor beneficiary of the Deed of trust therefore the
8
trustee substituted by that party was not the proper trustee. Sciarratta v U.S. bank
9 (2016) 247 CA 4th 552
10
(“Finding plaintiff’s lack of evidence showing valid assignment to validate
11
the substitution of trustee, therefore the recording of that document was
12
unauthorized.”)( ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Detelder-Collins, 2012 WL. 4482587,
13
at *7 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012)
14
DEUTSCHE KNEW IT WAS CREATING A FALSE TRUSTEE DEED
15
FOR ITS OWN GAIN BECAUSE DEUTSCHE HAS NEVER ALLEGED AN
16
ASSIGNMENT OF THE CUTLIPS DEED OF TRUST.
17
Deutsche recorded the false trustee deed in the county records against the
18 Cutlips Title. Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any false
19 document with a public office.
20 Deutsche filed the false trustee deed into the Court records. Presenting
21 False Written Evidence is a felony crime under California Penal Code Section 132
22 PC and the broader offense of Preparing False Evidence is a felony crime pursuant
23 to California Penal Code Section 134 PC.

24 Deutsche presented the false trustee deed as valid .passing off a false deed as

25
valid, for your own benefit and gain is a felony. Penal Code.PC-470 (d)
Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche knew it lacked
26
the requisite authority to create, record and file into evidence and present as valid
27

28 ~ 10 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 false trustee deed and has used it obtain judgment against the rightful owner. This
2 could never have been possible without Judge Zayner’s suppression of the evidence
3 and whitewashing of the jurisdictional defects.
4 JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF A 'MISPRISION OF FELONY'
5 “(1) Deutsche committed and completed the felonies Alleged above; (2)

6 Judge Zayner had knowledge of the fact; (3) Judge Zayner failed to notify the

7
authorities; and (4) Judge Zayner took affirmative steps to conceal the crimes by
Deutsche.
8
JUDGE ZAYNER IS GUILTY OF PENAL CODE 31 PC
9
(CALIFORNIA'S AIDING AND ABETTING LAW) reads: "All persons
10
concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and
11
whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its
12
commission, are principals in any crime so committed."
13
Judge Zayner committed moral turpitude when Judge Zayner decided to
14
suppress the Cutlips critical defense evidence and allegedly took bribes, what else
15 could explain Judge Zayner’s actions.
16

17 IN THE DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW IT IS SHOWN THAT JUDGE

18 ZAYNER CONSPIRED WITH THE PLAINTIFF TO SUPPRESS THE
19 CUTLIPS EVIDENCE
20 The copies of the Cutlips Deed of trust and promissory note certified and
21 attested to be true and exact copies of the original sent in compliance to California

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

23
code 602 that the Cutlips DOT is a nullity. This prevented any entity from making
a valid claim to the Campbell property.
24

25
The California Compulsory cross complaint statute is a complete bar to
26
Deutsche and its assignee alleging a claim to the Cutlips Campbell property.
27

28 ~ 11 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1

2 Judge Zayner further conspired to suppress the Cutlips evidence and

3 factual; allegation proving the deeds relied upon by plaintiffs are void under the
4 statute of frauds California Civil code section §§ 1091-1096
5

6 Judge Zayner suppressed the fact that The Complaint filed by Deutsche on

7
September 04, 2015 has never been amended and proves that Deutsche relied on
an after acquired interest to enforce the Cutlips written deed of trust contract
8
establishing that Deutsche is not the real party in interest.
9
Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence showing the Complaint filed by
10
Deutsche on September 04, 2015 failed to state a cause of action under Unlawful
11
detainer statute California civil code of procedure 1161a
12

13
The factual allegation and supporting evidence described below in detail was
14
suppressed by Judge Zayner
15

16 RELEVANT FACTUAL HISTORY establishing that Deutsche cannot have a legal

17 interest in the Cutlips property and Judge Zayner has acted unlawfully in its effort
18 to gain favor from Deutsche. Judge Zayner suppressed this evidence falsely
19 claiming the certified documents were not signed
20 In 2001 the Cutlips purchased land in Campbell CA. in 2007 the Cutlips
21 entered into a financial contract with Downey savings and loan using the Campbell

22 property as collateral. The contract consists of a written deed of trust and a written

23
promissory note.
The contract identifies Downey as the lender, beneficiary and trustee and the
24
Cutlips as trustor’s DSL subsidiary of Downey savings and loan is the named trustee.
25
In 2008 Downey failed and was sold by the federal deposit insurance
26
corporation acting as receive to U.S. Bank.
27

28 ~ 12 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 On or about August 5, 2009 U.S Bank acquired possession of the Cutlips original
2 deed and note, in its acquisition of Downey. U.S. Bank sent the Cutlips a notice of
3 new creditor and noticed the Cutlips it was transferring servicing from PNY to
4 Ocwen.
5 U. S. BANK CLAIMED OWNERSHIP, THE CUTLIPS SENT A

6 QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. CODE PROC. §2943

7
The Cutlips sent a written request for proof of debt pursuant to
Cal Civ. Code Proc. § 2943. Within 21 Day of the receipt of the request U.S. Bank
8
was required to send complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips original
9
deed and not showing any sign of movement and a beneficiary statement.
10
On January 21 2010 the Vice President of compliance for U.S.
11
Bank sent complete copies of the front and back of the Cutlips deed and note
12
certified to be true and exact copies of the original. The certified copies show no
13
sign of movement from Downey. The V.P. for U.S. Bank sent a letter of attestation
14
confirming the document authenticity and U.S. Banks possession.
15 REQUEST TO THE FDIC UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
16 The Cutlips sent a request to The Federal Deposit Insurance
17 Corporation under the freedom of information act and requested among other
18 things information on the disposition or the Cutlips Deed and Note at the time of
19 Downey’s failure.
20 On or about May 03, 2010 A Senior ombudsman specialist for
21 the FDIC replied to the Cutlips request stating: we have researched your loan as

22 requested and found that DSL sold your loan prior to its failure to a group of

23
investors, parenthetically not Deutsche or U.S. Bank. Further U.S. Bank is not
servicing your loan and U.S Bank has no ownership interest in your loan. Your
24
loan was not part of the sale and assumption agreement between U.S. Bank and the
25
FDIC to purchase Downey Savings & loan as a whole bank.
26

27

28 ~ 13 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation notified U.S. Bank
2 that the Cutlips deed of trust and promissory note was not part of the sales and
3 assumption agreement.
4 Consequently U.S. Bank had no authority to transfer the servicing of the
5 Cutlips loan and the servicer had no right to collect payments or to have placed

6 forced insurance on the Campbell property. The certified and attested copies of the

7
Cutlips DOT and Note are self authenticating domestic business record sent in the
normal course of business under California evidence code § §1450-1453 , §1530 and
8
Federal evidence rule § 902 (11) .
9
California Evidence Code section§ 602 provides
10
that "[a] statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of
11
another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption." This presumption extends to
12
deeds of trust. See Hernandez v. Madrigal, No. 2:09-cv-00413-MCE-GGH, 2010
13
WL 1493506, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2010)). Therefore, the certified Deed of Trust
14
and Promissory Note are presumed genuine, and the documents are "as strong as if
15 the facts certified had been duly sworn to in open court by a witness apparently
16 disinterested and worthy of belief." Ware v. Julien, 122 Cal. App. 354, 355 (1932)
17 "The burden of overcoming [the presumption] is on the one who disputes
18

19 U.S. Bank is a holder without the rights of a holder; consequently U.S. Bank
20 cannot transfer, assign or enforce the Cutlips contract rendering the Cutlips deed of
21 trust and promissory note a complete nullity.

22 Deutsche has never addressed this issue; Judge Zayner omitted the factual

23
allegation and evidence from his tentative ruling. Judge Zayner did not file a
judgment and relied on opposing councils one paragraph proposed judgment. The
24
tentative ruling attempts to rationalize the courts finding but considering there is no
25
assignment it proven to be wholly fabricated on illegitimate inferences and
26
unfounded presumptions. This is not incompetency this is knowingly criminal
27

28 ~ 14 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1

4 THE CUTLIPS COMPULSORY CROSS COMPLAINT DEFENSE

5 ARTICLE 2 - Compulsory Cross-Complaints Section § 426.30.

6 if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a

7
cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his
answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter
8
in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not
9
pleaded.
10

11
See Al Holding Co. v O’Brian & Hicks, Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999)
12
this case is directly on point
13

14
On January 25, 2012 William J. Cutlip’s and Chikako K. Cutlip collectively
15 (Plaintiffs’ ( The Cutlip’s)) filed a complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior
16 Courts Unlimited Civil Division case No. 1-12-cv-217452.
17 The Cutlip’s filed their second amended complaint on September 05, 2012.
18 In the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed the Cutlip’s alleged several
19 causes of action including Quiet title to the property commonly known as 619 Union
20 Avenue Campbell California, (Campbell property).
21 The Cutlip’s named several defendants including Deutsche Bank National

22 Trust Company as trustee for the Harborview mortgage backed loan trust 2007-7.

23
The Cutlip’s alleged that they are the legal owner of the Campbell property in
fee by way of a deed of trust recorded in their name and have superior title.;
24
The Cutlip’s second amended complaint The Cutlip’s sought damages. The
25
Cutlip’s also alleged a tortuous interference with contract with unjust enrichment
26
and breach of contract cancellation of an instrument.
27

28 ~ 15 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 Deutsche filed its demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint on
2 October 5, 2012 and its reply in support of demurer was filed November 03, 2012 In
3 each Deutsche did not alleged that the Campbell property was an asset of the
4 Harborview Mortgage backed Loan Trust Pass-Through Certificate 2007-7 or that
5 Deutsche had an assignment of the beneficiary right title or interest to the Cutlip’s

6 Campbell property.

7
Deutsche failed to state a claim to the Campbell property and Deutsche did
not file a cross complaint. Consequently Deutsche and its assignee Chiang are
8
estopped from asserting a claim to the Campbell property see Al Holding Co. v
9
O’Brian & Hicks , Inc 75 CA4th 1310, 89 CR2d918 (1999) assignor and assignee
10
barred for assignors failure to file a related cause of action cross complaint in the
11
prior action,
12
There is no requirement that the first action be decided on the
13
merits; the bar applies even if the prior action is dismissed (see Currie
14
Medical specialties, Inc V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186 CR 543 (1982
15 .
16 There are No applicable exceptions to the mandatory requirement for
17 Deutsche to have filed a cross complaint in the prior action. Deutsche failed to state
18 a claim to the property, failed to file a cross complaint to the Campbell property,
19 failed to pray for possession of the Campbell property. See Exhibit (4) certified
20 copy of the Deutsche demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed
21 October 05, 2012 See Exhibit (5) certified copy of the Deutsche reply in support of

22 demurrer to the Cutlip’s second amended complaint filed November 03, 2012.

23
The Deutsche claim for possession of the Campbell property against the Cutlip’s,
24
must have been asserted as a Cross-Complaint arising out of the transaction on
25
which the complaint in prior actions in the quiet title was founded, the present suit
26 on that claim is barred. Medical Specialties, Inc. V. Bowen , 136 CA3d 774, 186
27

28 ~ 16 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 CR543(1982) Align Technology Inc. v Tran 179 CA4th 949, 962-65, 102 CR3d 343,
2 353-56 (2009)
3
The purpose of the California cross-complaint statute is to provide for the settlement
4
in a single action of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same
5
transaction. The defendant is required to assert all related causes of action in a cross
6
complaint CCP § 426.30
7

8 It is clear this is the case. The same "transaction" was involved in the prior quiet title
9 Cutlip v Deutsche (2012) case No. 1-12-cv-217452 filed by the Cutlip’s January 25,
10 2012 litigated in the Superior Court Santa Clara County and the present action in

11 unlawful detainer was filed by Deutsche on September 04, 2015, case 115cv285290

12
the parties are the same in that the plaintiff in the prior quiet title is the defendant
and Deutsche was the defendant in the prior action is now plaintiff.
13

14
Deutsche filed the present action knowing it was barred by the California
15 compulsory cross complaint statute from asserting a claim in the Campbell property.
16 Deutsche knows it does not have proof of an assignment of the beneficiary right title
17 or interest to have foreclosed on the Campbell property. IE: no proof of perfection of
18 title! Prevent this court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction and personal
19 jurisdiction over the Cutlip’s.
20 Deutsche attempts to confuse the issues by purporting to assign the Campbell

21 property and substitute its assignee as the party plaintiff. However the elementary

22
test of a cross complaint, that it can be set up only between a prior plaintiff now
defendant and against a prior defendant now plaintiff or his assignee in an action
23
involving the same transaction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10-426.70), is met.
24
Deutsche was aware of its cause of action for possession of the subject property at
25
the time of the prior quiet title; Deutsche must have attempted to set it up his right
26
by a cross-complaint. This would have involved Deutsche alleging its source of
27

28 ~ 17 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 authority to have foreclosed on the Cutlip’s Campbell property and thus its right to
2 possession and did not. The choice was in hands of Deutsche. There is a
3 compulsory cross-complaint statute; the bar of section §§ 426.10-426.70 of the
4 Code of Civil Procedure applies where the cause of action may properly be pleaded
5 as a cross -Complaint arising out of the transaction forming the foundation of the

6 complaint. (See Schrader v. Neville, 34 Cal.2d 112 [207 P.2d 1057].) [46 Cal.2d

7
883]
"If the defendant omits to set up a cross complaint upon a cause arising out of the
8
transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim,
9
neither he nor his assignee can afterwards maintain an action against the plaintiff
10
therefore." Under that provision, the claim by Deutsche must have [34 Cal.2d 115]
11
been pleaded by them in the Cutlip’s quiet titles' or it is barred, because it is
12
established that all causes of action arising out of a quiet title to real property are
13
part of one transaction" within the meaning of the code sections relating to cross-
14
complaint. (Todhunter v. Smith, 219 Cal. 690 [28 P.2d 916]; Englemen v. Superior
15 Court, 105 Cal.App. 754 [288 P. 723].)-426.70
16

17 Deutsche and Chiang were barred from asserting an unlawful detainer claim to
18 the Cutlips Campbell property
19

20 THE DEEDs RELIED ON BY DEUTSCHE AND CHIANG ARE VOID

21

22 If the deed is void, it does not pass title and cannot be enforced even if

23
recorded and even if title is later acquired by a bona fide purchaser. (Gibson v.
Westoby (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 273.)
24

25

26

27

28 ~ 18 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

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

6 JUDGE ZAYNER SANCTIONS A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF

7
THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY AND IS ACTING WORSE THAN A DOMESTIC
TERRORIST ASSISTING THE FOREIGN OWNED DEUTSCHE IN
8
STEALING THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY BREAKING EVERY CANNON AND
9
OATH OF OFFICE AND RULE OF LAW TO DO SO.
10

11
The day before the Cutlips unopposed motion to dismiss was to be heard
12
based on the courts total absence of jurisdiction from the absence of a perfected title
13
or assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory
14
note
15 Deutsche held a UN noticed ex-parte hearing to substituent its straw man
16 assignee as the party plaintiff from a fraudulent conveyance of the Cutlips property.
17
(“If a party in an action on a note sue on their own interest declare on their
18
own right and acknowledge no participation with another person in the interest or
19
the action until the time to answer the notion to dismiss or summary judgment it is
20
too late to permit them to assume a new character or interpose a new party however
21
liberally the court might be disposed to sacrifice the forms and rules of law Gaither v
22
Farmers’, etc Bank 1 Pet. 37, 43, 7. Ed,. 43
23

24 The fraudulent conveyance was done to avoid the fact Deutsche has no

25
assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or promissory note and foreclosed
unlawfully. This was done to avoid the fact that Deutsche is barred by the
26
compulsory cross complaint statuette from asserting a claim to the Cutlips property.
27

28 ~ 19 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 To hide the fact Deutsche has no predecessor in interest of record and has never
2 maintained a recorded or unrecorded interest in the Cutlips deed of trust. There is
3 no allegation or evidence of an assignment in the recorded there is no proof of
4 perfection of title in the record the entire case is colored in fraud. Title has never
5 been decided in Deutsche by any court other that Judge Zayner whose judgment is

6 void from fraud the unlawful detainer court lacks jurisdiction by statute to

7
determine title to real property California civil code of procedure 580 (b) (3) limits
on relief in a limited civil case
8
JUDGE ZAYNER KNOWINGLY SANCTIONED A FRAUDULENT
9
CONVEYANCE OF THE CUTLIPS PROPERTY
10

11 Judge Zayner whitewashed the jurisdictional defect proving the court has
12 been acting in the total absence of jurisdiction outside the normal practices of a
13 judge by conspiring with the plaintiffs to conceal the fact the Cutlips evidence
14 establishes the fact the Cutlips Deed and note have been render a complete nullity

15 that barred Deutsche from acquiring a legal interest.

16
It is already established that without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of
trust the purported trustee deed is void. Here it is conclusively proven the grant deed
17
is equally as void
18
Judge Zayner suppressed the evidence showing the purported Grant deed to
19
the straw man assignee is void under the California statute of frauds.
20
IN ADDITION TO BEING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE
21
THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED IS VOID UNDER CALIF. C.C. P. §
22
§ 1091, 1095 CHIANG’S DEED IS VOID ON IT’S FACE (.
23
The Supreme Court of California; The authority of an attorney to execute for
24 his principal a conveyance of real estate must be in writing and a deed purporting
25 to have been executed by an agent is inadmissible in evidence without proof being
26 first made of the signers written authority . Videau v. Griffin et al. 21 Cal. 389(1863
27 ) id @ 114
28 ~ 20 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN WRITING FOR THE
2 SIGNER OF THE PURPORTED GRANT DEED.
3 the statute of frauds declares that no estate or interest in
4 lands other than for lease for a term not exceeding one year nor any trust or power
5 over or concerning land or any, matter relating thereto shall hereafter be created

6 granted , assigned , surrendered or declared unless by operation of law or by deed or

7
conveyance or an assignment in writing subscribed by the party creating granting
assigning surrendering or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.
8
Guirlene Dolcine signed the purported grant deed there is no evidence
9
Guirlene Dolcine ever had any authority in writing to execute the purported grant
10
deed to Charlie Chiang for the Harborview mortgage loan trust 2007-7 or for any
11
other entity. The certificate of the notary does not show the existence of any such
12
authority in writing, or the acknowledgment of the existence of any.
13
If any authority in fact existed it should have been produced. In the absence of
14
its production the presumption is that it did not exist and acknowledgement by
15 parole does not remove its insufficiency. ( Hanford v Mcnair, 9 wend. 54) ((Kline v.
16 Brooks, 9 Iredell, 219; M ackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285.) ,( Tannahill v.
17 Greening •85 Cal.App. 714, 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) the grantor was not
18 present when the deed was signed nor its consent in writing the deed is
19 unquestionably void.. Harris v. Barlow•180 Cal. 142, 143 (Cal. 1919 Upton v.
20 Aecher , 41 Cal. 85 [20 Sm. Rep. 266]., Wunderlin v. Cadogan et al., 50 Cal. 613
21 Harris v. Batlow et al,. 180 Cal 142 [179 P. 682]. And Jone v. Coulter, 75 Cal,

22 App.540[243 P. 487].

23 Attached hereto exhibit (7) Chiang’s purported grant deed

24 Smith v lickerson . 96Humph. 261) fraudulent conveyances and contracts

25
section six April 19, 1850
“In a conveyance for which an agent thereunto authority must be authorized
26
by writing by the statute of frauds could sign the other party's name to the
27

28 ~ 21 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 implementing document, without attaching its written authority "the Statute of
2 Frauds would be deprived of its meaning and reduced to an absurdity." (Tate v.
3 Shober (E.D. Pa. 1941) 41 F. Supp. 478, 481.)
4 An objection or motion to strike on grounds that evidence
5 violates the statute of frauds may be made at any time during the trial. (Carrier &

6 Braddock v. S. W. Straus & Co., 213 Cal. 508, 513 [2 P.2d 811]; fn. 2 see Pao Ch'en

7
Lee v. Gregoriou, 50 Cal. 2d 502, 506 [326 P.2d 135].)
This provision is part of California’s statute of frauds, (See
8
3 Miller & Starr, supra, Deeds, §8.27, p52 [“l, if some other person executes a deed
9
on behalf of the grantor, the grantor’s authorization must be in writing and attached
10
to the deed . If this were not the law the statute would be rendered mute.
11
Under the California statute of frauds the agent cannot
12
sign for the principal; in the absence of the latter, unless the agent's authority in
13
writing is attached if the authority of the agent in writing be not attached his
14
property does not pass the title. ( Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85 [ 10 Am. Rep. 266];
15 Vaca Valley etc. R.R. v. Mansfield, supra [ 84 Cal. 560 ( 24 P. 145)]; Harris v.
16 Barlow, 180 Cal. 142 [ 179 P. 682]. See, also, Lund v. Thackery, 18 S.D. 113 [99 N.W.
17 856].) In Upton v. Archer, supra, the court says: ". . . as it could not become the
18 plaintiff's deed until it was executed by his agent in the absence of the plaintiff,
19 unless his authority in writing. Is attached to the deed.
20

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

22 1095

23
The deed required by California law to convey title to Deutsche purported
assignee is void and title to the Property did not pass.
24
The grant deed is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was
25
executed solely by Ocwen loan servicer as attorney-in-fact for Deutsche without
26
subscribing Deutsche followed by the name of the attorney and attorney in fact. See
27

28 ~ 22 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin
2 Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.
3 CALIF. C.C. P. § , 1095, When an attorney in fact executes an instrument
4 transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his Principal
5 to it and his own name as attorney in fact. Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31

6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967 the court also cites code section § 1095 of the Civil Code and

7
states that a failure to follow the mandate of the section renders a deed void.
The purported grant deed from Deutsche to Chiang has not been subscribed
8
pursuant to California C.C.P. § 1095 and is void as a matter of law.
9
The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
10
transaction.
11
In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d 447,
12
448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed in the name of an agent and
13
to which failed to add "atty in fact for" [principals] was ineffective to convey title,
14
does not pass the title of the property described in the deed, under section§ 1095
15 of the Civil Code.
16 In Azevedo v. Pimentel, 127 Cal. App. 299, 304 [15 P.2d 795], the court stated:
17 the deed not being 'An instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of
18 the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing' (Civ. Code, § 1091), is not
19 a valid conveyance. The court also determined that even though the deed might be
20 valid outside California its void.
21 IN THE CASE OF HODGE V. HODGE, 257 CAL. APP. 2D 31

22 (CAL. CT. APP. 1967

23
Mrs. Hodge wrote the name "Colman Hodge," on the deed but did not sign
her own name. The written name of her husband was followed by the following
24
words and figures in typewriting prepared in a law office: "Colman Hodge, By
25
Dorothy E. Hodge, Attorney in Fact as Per Power of Attorney Recorded in Book 5018
26
[5019] at Page 803 Official Records of Sacramento County. The court found this
27

28 ~ 23 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 execution of the deed insufficient to comply with section § 1095 of the Civil Code.
2 Requires for the attorney to subscribe the name for possible future hand writing
3 analysis the statute of frauds it does not require the principle name to be typed in a
4 letter box or stamped legislation specifically requires the principles name to be
5 subscribed by the agent signing as attorney in fact.

6 PRINCIPLES NAME, AGENTS NAME ATTORNEY IN FACT

7
The failure to execute the deed in the manner required by law invalidated the
transaction. In Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp., 13 Cal. App. 2d
8
447, 448 [57 P.2d 185], the sole question was whether a deed with the principles
9
name typed in a letterbox and the name of an agent to which was added "contract
10
management coordinator for some unknown company ] was ineffective to convey
11
the principal's title to the property described in the instrument. The court held that
12
the law is well settled that a deed in the name of an attorney in fact, even if to the
13
signature is added the words "atty in fact”. For (a named principal), does not pass
14
the principals' property described in the deed, under section 1095 of the Civil Code.
15 The rule is thus enunciated in 15 California Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
16 Deeds, section 71, and page 470: "The manner of execution of a deed by an attorney
17 in fact for the grantor is prescribed by statute. He must subscribe the name of his
18 principal to the instrument, and then his own as attorney in fact. If the instrument is
19 not executed in this manner, it does not operate as a conveyance.
20 Especially as the attorney-in-fact did not 'subscribe the name of his principal
21 to it and his own name as attorney-in-fact.' (Civ. Code, § 1095.)" [257 Cal. App. 2d

22 35] even if the transaction was honest and fair in its inception, and statute

23
Attempted consummation, effectual to transfer the property therein
described.
24
In Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967 Puccetti v. Girola,
25
20 Cal. 2d 574, 577 [128 P.2d 13], the court also cites code section 1095 of the Civil
26

27

28 ~ 24 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 Code and states that a failure to follow the mandate of the section renders a deed
2 void. Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967
3 (See also the following early cases which laid down the same rule from the
4 beginning of the Supreme Court reports: Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413 [54 Am.Dec.
5 297]; Echols v. Cheney, 28 the sole consideration before the court is whether or not

6 the legislative mandates have been complied with." And so here, the sole

7
consideration must be whether the "legislative mandate" has been complied with.
It is obvious that the specific requirements of section, § 1095 of the Civil
8
Code were not followed; and the deed being void, Plaintiff has no semblance of a
9
right to the property. Cal. 157; Morrison v. Bowman, supra, 29 Cal. 337, 352.) .
10
Issues and void under Calif C.C.P. § 1095
11
Even if the grant deed is replaced there is no avenue to prove a perfected
12
title when Chiang’s purported grantor has never been an assignee of the beneficiary
13
right title or interest to have purported to cause a foreclosure of Cutlip’s residence
14
and the sale is void.
15 Charlie Chiang‘s Attorney Kevin Harris is well aware of the fact the deed is void and
16 continue to represent the deed as valid and is guilty of the fact that the grant deed is
17 void under the law and continues to present it as valid is guilty of presenting a void
18 deed as valid .passing off a void deed as valid, is a felony. Penal Code.PC-470 (d)
19

20 Where a deed of conveyance is void upon its face as being in violation of the
21 law, the party claiming under it is charged with knowledge of the law and the

22 invalidity of the deed; this is the rule in American law. In such case the party does

23
not even derive a color of title which will give him constructive possession of a tract
of land not in his possession Sufiol v Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 U.S. Supreme Court.
24

25

26

27

28 ~ 25 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 IN THIS INSTANT CASE OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING FOR THAT
2 MATTER THERE IS NO ASSIGNMENT TO DEUTSCHE OF THE CUTLIPS
3 DEED OF TRUST OR A TRANSFER OF THE CUTLIPS PROMISSORY
4 NOTE.
5 Deutsche purported to substitute the trustee and cause the sale of the Cutlips

6 residence those actions were unauthorized and a unlawful assumption of authority

7
and void preventing any semblance of a perfected title thus barring the unlawful
detainer court in case 1-15-cv-285290 or 1-12 cv 230319 from acquiring jurisdiction
8
the only order Judge Zayner could make was one dismissing the case for lack of
9
jurisdiction.
10
It is not in dispute that there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to
11
Deutsche or a transfer of the Cutlips promissory note o to Deutsche
12
Deutsche has never alleged or produced evidence of an assignment of the
13
Cutlips deed of trust or a transfer of the Cutlips note.
14
The face of the record in the unlawful detainer case 1-15 cv-285290 and 1-12
15 cv-230319 shows there is no assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust or evidence of a
16 transfer of the Cutlips promissory note to Deutsche or any other entity.
17 Without an assignment of the Cutlips deed of trust to Deutsche, the
18 substitution of trustee by Deutsche is unauthorized only the beneficiary under the
19 deed of trust can substitute the trustee. An n unauthorized party cannot hold a valid
20 foreclosure sale and or issue a valid deed.
21 In itself, the principle that only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt

22 may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt is not, or at least

23
should not be, controversial it is a ―straightforward application of well-established
commercial and real-property law: Deutsche cannot foreclose on the Cutlips written
24
deed of trust unless it is the beneficiary under the Deed of trust (or its agent) in
25
order to foreclose the Cutlips deed of trust Deutsche had to have the right to enforce
26
the debt that the deed of trust secured. It is hard to imagine how this well settled
27

28 ~ 26 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 commercial and real-property law could be controversial or misconstrued by the
2 state court.‖
3 The Supreme Court of California states having a valid transfer under
4 California law is essential to instituting a valid no judicial foreclosure. Judge Zayner
5 know there is no assignment to Deutsche and that the substitution of trustee is
6 unauthorized and the trustee deed is void

7 The Cutlips also alleged that the Compulsory cross complaint statute

8
prevented Deutsche from stating a claim to the property and the purported trusted
deed was recorded as an accommodation only and has the express language stamped
9
on the face of the recorded document stating (“no representations to its effect upon
10
title.”) pursuant to the court of appeal in Rooz v Kimmel (1997) an accommodation
11
recording is not proof of title just as the documents s title disclaimer states.
12
The statute of frauds primarily serves an evidentiary purpose. (Sterling v.
13
Taylor (2007) 40 cal.4th 757, 766, 55 cal.rptr.3d 116, 152 P.3d 420.) It requires
14
reliable evidence of the existence and terms of the contract so as to prevent
15
enforcement through fraud or perjury of a contract that was never in fact made.
16 California Civil Code of procedure 1091 is part of the California Statute of
17 frauds and dictates that a conveyance in real property must be evidence in writing.
18 Deutsche would have had to have evidence in writing of a conveyance of the Cutlips
19 property to have lawfully foreclosed. Deutsche has had over six years to make the
20 necessary inquiries and obtain proof of a conveyance ample time if it existed and
21 Deutsche has not, absent the proof of an assignment the presumption is that it does

22 not exist and the foreclosure is void

23
It was not the Cutlips burden of proof to vet out the true beneficiary it was
Deutsche and Deutsche failed. The actions of Deutsche over the last six year against
24
the Cutlips have been unlawful.
25

26

27

28 ~ 27 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 On April 20, 2017 in unlawful detainer case 1-15-cv-285290Judge Zayner
2 granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff t. On April 22, 2017 The
3 Judgment was filed and a writ of possession issued.
4 The Cutlips filed a timely notice of appeal.
5 On April 13, 2018 Judge Zayner, vacated the April 20, 2017 judgment in an
6 UN notice ex-parte hearing and set rehearing for May 10, 2018
7 The tentative ruling for May 10, 2018 removed the hearing from calendar
8 for failure of plaintiff to file a proof of service on the Cutlips and f0r failure to file
9 its moving papers.
10 A motion removed from the law and motion calendar means it won’t be
11 heard. Law and motion hearings removed from calendar must be re noticed.
12 The Cutlip’s discovered June 12, 2018 that Judge Zayner issued an order
13 on May 10, 2018 in the hearing that he had been removed from calendar for
14 plaintiff’s failure to file moving papers and failure to notice the Cutlips. The

15 Cutlips did not receive notice of opposition or notice that the hearing had been

16 restored to calendar. A copy of the order was not sent to the Cutlips

17
The Cutlips had checked the case file May 22, 2018 and there was not an

18
order in the file, the order was not filed until after the time for the Cutlips to

19
appeal had passed after June 10, 2018
The Cutlips contend that the unlawful detainer did not have jurisdiction to
20
vacate is judgment after a year because the time had run under California Civil
21
code of procedure 473 dictating the court’s jurisdiction to vacate judgment to six
22
months.
23
Judge Zayner knew That Plaintiff failed to notice the Cutlip of the hearing
24
and failed to file its moving papers and held a hearing in a case removed from
25
calendar. Moving paper were required by statute to be attached to the motion the
26

27

28 ~ 28 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 Cutlips reviews the case file and they are not in the file nor is their proof of
2 service.
3 in Blonlairz · V. Roloson (1969) The Supreme Court Of California determined)
4 that a limited civil proceeding has no jurisdiction by statute or by virtue of
5 inherent power to consider a motion to dismiss a judgment that was not by
6 default after the six month have run under California Civil code of Procedure §
7 473 or under § 89, § 128, subd. 8. In any event, lack of diligence in
8 pursuing this equitable relief precludes any relief
9 (a) . EXCLUSIVE PRIORITY JURISDICTION OF THE ADVERSARIAL
10 PROCEEDING AND THE CUTLIPS APPEAL AMONG OTHER
11 REASON BARRED THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER JURISDICTION
12
Cutlip’s bankruptcy case No. 5:17 a. p. 05053 that court had exclusive
13
priority in rem jurisdiction. George Chapman, Jr. V. Deutsche Bank National
14
Trust, no. 14-15927 (9th cir. 2016)
15 1The Cutlip’s contend after the federal court acquired jurisdiction on June
16
02, 2017 the doctrine of exclusive priority jurisdiction barred the unlawful
17 detainer from acquiring jurisdiction.
18 THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
19 OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT CUTLIPS
20 The Cutlip assert as they did in the trial court in their January 14, 2016
21 motion to dismiss and in their motion for summary judgment. Their motion to
22 dismiss in the trial court denied July 02, 2018 and in their writ of prohibition in
23 the appellate court summarily denied the day it was filed and the writ of
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 ~ 29 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 prohibition in the sixth district court of appeal summarily denied July 12, 2018
2 that the court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction.
3 The judgment was concealed from the Cutlips until the time for appeal had
4 run. The trial court denied the Cutlips motion to vacate the unnoticed hearing
5 and resulting judgment from May 10, 2018. The courts of review have summarily
6 denied the Cutlips writs of prohibition.
7 The Cutlips are left with no appeal to correct the taking of their property
8 this was orchestrated by Judge Zayner
9 The actions by Judge Zayner have been not only criminal but given his
10 position they have been vile that no civilized society should have to endure.

11 The Cutlips have been denied relief from the court of appeal; and the Supreme

12
Court of California presumably on technical deficiencies in the pleading.
This case represents a miscarriage of justice and judicial oppression that the
13
Cutlips pray that this criminal grand jury does not hesitate to rectify.
14

15
Respectfully submitted
16

17
William Cutlip Chikako Cutlip
18

19
NOW THEN William J. Cutlip, to propound an Affidavit of Truth
20

21
California Republic )
22
) ss AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
23 Santa Clara county ) FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
24

25 CLAIMS NOW your Affiant: William J. Cutlip;

26

27

28 ~ 30 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 1. Your Affiant makes these statements under oath;
2
2. Your Affiant states that an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth as follows;
3

4
3. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the California state, Santa Clara county, on
August 14 2018;
5

6
4. Your Affiant revokes any presumptions of power of attorney;
7

8
5. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
occurred in the Santa Clara county;
9
6. Your Affiant states that your Affiant makes these statements freely;
10

11
7. Your Affiant states that these statements are true, complete, and not
12
misleading by the best of his knowledge/beliefs and due diligence;
13

14
8. Your Affiant has personal first-hand knowledge of all the
15 facts/claims/reasonable reliance’s which are stated herein;
16

17 9. Your Affiant Accepts the Oath of Office of the Bonded-Public-Trustee Jeffrey

Francis Rosen, District-Attorney by his duties to follow the law without
18
“shielding” and to inform the Criminal Grand Jury of this formal verified
19 criminal complaint against Theodore C. Zayner #, Judge;
20

21 10. Your Affiant will provide 19 courtesy copies of this complaint as requested to
Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney to be handed over to the Criminal
22
Grand Jury;
23

24
11. Your Affiant Claims that he has been deprived of the reasonable expectation of
25 rights being protected (relying on) Title 18 USC 241-242 and other laws rules,
codes and regulations set for herein;
26

27

28 ~ 31 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 12. Your Affiant enters his mandatory judicially noticed evidence filing of court
2 transcripts regarding plea as to constructive-trust-case FELONY
COMPLAINT
3

4
13. (EXHIBIT 1) Department six of the Superior Court of California Santa
5 Clara County tentative Ruling for May 10,, 2018 ;showing the Hearing was
6
removed from Calendar

8
14. (EXHIBIT 2)Your Affiant enters true correct court order filed the same day
as the hearing was removed from calendar May 10, 2018
9

10
15. (EXHIBIT 7) Certified Copy of Charlie Chiang’s purported grant deed
11 no authorization in writing for party signing the document as mandated
under California Civil code 1091. California Civil code 1095 requires the
12
party signing for the principal to subscribe the principles name and their own
13 as attorney in fact. Failure to follow the mandates of the statute of frauds
renders the deed void and not just voidable.
14

15
16. (, California civil code 1091 is part of the statute of frauds and requires
16
an instrument in writing to transfer an interest in real property IE an
17 assignment. Deutsche does not allege or produce evidence of an assignment an
assignment and under the statute of frauds the trustee deed is unauthorized
18
because there is no instrument in writing to validate the authority of Deutsche
19 to have caused the creation of the trustee deed,
17. Deutsche is not an assignee of record or off record. Deutsche has no
20
predecessor in interest of record. Deutsche has never maintained a recorded
21 interest in the deed of trust or promissory note. It’s well settled that someone
not a party to a contract has no standing to enforce that contract.
22
When someone enforced a contract that they have no legal right to enforce its
23 an unlawful assumption of authority and void ab initio,
24

25 18. Judge Zayner believes the Cutlips don’t deserve to have equal protection
under the law that’s socioeconomic bias.
26

27

28 ~ 32 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 19. Your Affiant believes that Theodore C. Zayner Judge violated due process
2 right by concealing the hearing from the Cutlips rights) by and not limited to
the following =
3

4
a) Failed to Notice the Cutlips judgment so they could appeal ;
5 b) Omitting the Cutlips critical defense evidence ;
6
c) Holding unnoticed hearings
d) Hearing unnoticed motions
7 e) Mischaracterized allegations
8
f) Allowed plaintiff to claim an unlawful assumption of authority
g) Allowed Deutsche to fraudulently convey the Cutlips title and then allowed
9 the assignee with a void deed substitute as party plaintiff
h) Allowed plaintiff to enforce a contract it was not a party to
10
i) Failed to apply the compulsory cross complaint statute
11 j) Failed to apply the California statute of fraud
k) Failed to comply with the supreme Court of California case law
12
l) Vacated A judgment for plaintiff a year after its entry when it denied the
13 Cutlips same request the day of the judgment
m) Failed to honor oath of office
14
n) Failed to uphold The United States Constitutions due process
15 Failed to uphold The United States Constitution’s equal protection under
the law;
16
Failed to report a felony
17 Bias , prejudice ,Socioeconomic prejudice
o) conspired with the plaintiffs
18
p) Knowingly adjudicated the case in the total absence of jurisdiction;
19 q) Overtly assisted plaintiffs in the taking of the Cutlip[s real property,
Told plaintiff to not respond to summary judgment material allegations
20
r) Jurisdiction has been challenged multiple times with silence;
21 s) No verified claimant has come forward;
t) Allowed the deprivation of the Cutlips rights ;
22
u) The District-Attorney has failed to investigate the Cutlips complaint
23 v) The information in the tentative ruling was knowingly false s Simulated
Legal Process (unidentified venue, no oath, bond or subject matter)
24
w) ETC.
25

26 20. Your Affiant reasonably believes that criminal charges (bill) apply but not
27 limited to by the counts; 1. Official Misconduct, 2. Judicial Oppression, 3.
28 ~ 33 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 Deprivation of Rights 4.Violations of Due Process;5Misprison of a felony
2 Aiding and abetting

3
IN CONCLUSION
4

5
PLEA BEING MADE TO The “People” of the Grand Jury for their
6
consideration and investigation by their un-influenced decisions in the interest of justice
7
for the equal protections under the law; for violations of due process. Please read the
8
tentative ruling adopted at the UN noticed hearing the Cutlips motion for summary
9
judgment and plaintiff opposition to the Cutlips motion for summary judgment. The
10
collusion and conspiracy is transparent (EXHIBIT (1 )judge Zayner removed the hearing
11
from the May 10, 2018 law and motion calendar for failure to file proof of service on the
12
Cutlips and failure to file moving papers. A hearing removed from the law and motion
13
calendar means it won’t be heard, a hearing removed from the law and motion calendar
14
must be re noticed.
15
Exhibit (2) It was not discovered until the middle of June that Judge Zayner had
16
held the hearing after having removed the hearing from calendar when the order was
17
placed into the case file over a month later concealed the file and concealed the judgment
18
until after the time had run to appeal. Judge Zayner knows he has acted criminally and
19
does not want the Cutlips to publicize it in an appeal. Judge Zayner orchestrated the
20
entire scenario vacating on April 13, 2018 vacated the April 20 2017 judgment.
21
Canceling the Cutlips appeal from that judgments that the Cutlips had already waited d a
22
year on. So judge Zayner could pretend to move a hearing off calendar hold the hearing
23
conceal the judgment until after time for an appeal had run, this is monstrous. If it can
24
happen once if not stopped it will happen again if it hasn’t already.
25

26

27

28 ~ 34 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 After a review of the Cutlips evidence it will be clear that he Theodore C.
2 Zayner has violated my due process and deprived me of rights under a simulation of
3 process. NOTE: is the expired Oath of Office showing cause for want of authority; I also
4 ask that before the People of the Grand Jury make a decision (to bill or no bill) that the
5 court record from April 20, 2017 be ordered The Cutlips have not been able to obtain it
6 and reviewed by this Jury and that I be brought before them for my testimony regarding
7 this matter in its entirety by the FELONY COMPLAINT as I have further complaints and
8 information about several other Public Officials/Agents, QUO WARRANTO to follow;
9

10 //Respectfully Submitted//
11
William Joseph Cutlip
12
VERIFICATION
13

14

15 The signer certifies that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed
16 after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
17 (1)William J Cutlip it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
18 such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
19 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
20 existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
21 existing law or for establishing new law;
22 (3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
23 so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
24 further investigation or discovery; and
25 (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
26 if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
27 I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of a competent-
28 ~ 35 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 jurisdiction that the foregoing is true and correct.
2 Further your Affiant/Complainant/Victim sayeth naught but reserves all rights
3 waives none;
4

5 ______________________________________
6 William J. Cutlip, Claimant/Victim
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

17 FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
18
THEODORE C. ZAYNER
19
In the California Republic state, of the Santa Clara county. I, the undersigned, herein
20 declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and NOT a party to the within entitled
21 action. My business address is: P O Box 694 San Jose, CA 95106;
22 I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury of the California Republic state and these
23 united States of America, that I served the foregoing registered document as entitled: on
24 the opposing party(s) by registering or mailing with the post office maintained by the
25 United States, Postal Service with postage paid, addressed as follows:
26

27 Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury/Foreman

28 ~ 36 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 70 West Hedding St., West Wing
2 San Jose, California 95110

3 Jeffrey Francis Rosen, District-Attorney

4
70 W. Hedding St. 1st Flr -West Wing
San Jose, California 95110
5 FILE STAMP PROOF OF SERVICE
6

7 Rebecca Fleming, Chief Executive Officer

8
C/o Case No. C1503585
191 North First Street
9 San Jose, California 95113
10
First Class Mail

11 Kenneth D. Watnick, Agent-Trustee

12
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
13 First Class Mail
14
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General
15 1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, California 95814
16
First Class Mail
17
ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC
18
C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
19 as Producer-Agent-Trustee
1301 DOVE ST
20 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
21 First Class Mail

22 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

C/O SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOND
23
as Bonding-Trustee
24 175 Water Street
New York, NY, 10038
25
First Class Mail
26
Santa Clara County Risk Management
27

28 ~ 37 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1 2310
2 Nort
h 1st
3 Stree
4
t
San
5 Jose,
6
Calif
ornia
7 9513
8
1
First Class Mail
9

10
Robert Handa
Investigative Reporter/Witness NBC News
11 2450 North 1st Street San Jose, California 95131
Direct: 408-316-1517 robert.handa@nbcuni.com
12
First Class Mail/Wire
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ~ 38 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1

7 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the California

8 Republic and these united States of the America (unincorporated), that

9 the foregoing is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge,

10 information and belief, and that this declaration is executed by the

11 voluntary act of my own hand in San Jose Township and is dated below;

12

13

14

15

16

17 Date: X________________________
William J. Cutlip
18 Complainant/Victim
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ~ 39 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER

 1

5 *
6
*
*
7 *
8
*
*
9 *
10
*
*
11 *
*
12
*
13
Word Count /Comprehension Level 14.9
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ~ 40 ~

FORMAL VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THEODORE C. ZAYNER