We the Plaintiffs

Preserving our rights to home ownership

Notice of Grievance
'Televised Testimony September 15th, 2017
ON LINE JERICHO MARCH for beach of peace and violation of FAITH

You want to know how to find out if your Judge is invested in these MBS investments in CA click here, For other states go to the Financial Disclosure Report Request and do some research with the State Ethics Overside Agencies in your state. The Fair Political Practices Commission website for CA has a search engine where you can find out. This also has additional useful information that could prove conflict of interests in your case. You can also file a complaint with the CA Department of Business Oversight but only when you are ready, they are really good about postponing trustee sales and they get letters out FAST (not helpful if you are trying to get other agencies to take notice first…

So here is the thing, you have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT under 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law if you suspect that your judge has deprived you of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, I would highly recommend filing an immediate Review on Certiorari: (if property is involved add in a Writ of Mandate
, and complaint for declaratory relief and Voir Dire the Bench officer -the judge- for conflict of interest if it exist’s) and file it at the SUPREME COURT no later than 90 days after the ruling. If you can prove it, this means it constitutes grounds for recusal and reconsideration of your case, making nunc pro tunc [retroactively] and vacating the prior order on your case- PERIOD THE END! You cannot fight a judge or confront a judge directly so the only thing you can do is remove the judge from your case. This is a GREAT information site for CA pro se litigants if you find yourself in this dilemma. The problem being is that most attorneys won’t touch this type of abuse with a 10 foot pole. The ones who have tried, are dis barred. The easiest thing to do in CA is to file a MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE with an attached declaration.

In Faith’s case what you have is a past Volunteer Federal Witness who worked for Wells Fargo - Countrywide and Bank of America - who became a wholesale broker for Countrywide World and
may other lenders.

Faith came into court under one cause of action TILA recession- law of the land Ruling by the
Supreme Court of the United States Jesinoski vs Countrywide, where the council tried to BARR this COA based upon the past pleadings of a case that is now at SUPREME COURT from these same courts denying due process in discoveries. The Jesinoski Supreme Court Ruling states that as long as you sent a letter rescinding you loan to your bank that had TILA violations, they only course of action the had was to file an objection with the courts within 20 days of the recession itself.

The opposing council presented proof that they had the recession notification by both the past and the present defendants. No objections were filed at the court by any party.

At that moment strict construction of Regulation Z would dictate that the voiding be considered absolute and not subject to judicial modification. The judge had no other option at that moment of time but to acknowledge the security interest and obligation to pay charges are automatically voided. (Cf. Semar v. Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts do not have equitable discretion to alter substantive provisions of TILA, so cases on equitable modification are irrelevant).

What he did instead was remove an injunction based upon past arguments that were not in RES Jurisdiction as issues before the court and lifted a TRO so that the foreclosing entities could move to foreclosure.

To the extent the court of appeals has ruled res judicata may apply ONLY TO those identical causes of action pled in the former action against the identical defendants in that action under the doctrine. New theories against New Defendants don't fall into that rubric. The doctrine is found under the Law of Judgments" and bars re-litigating former claims against former defendants who prevailed previously to a final judgment as this case is in the SUPREME COURT for review.

FYI - A rescission action may not be barred by prior or subsequent TILA litigation which did not involve rescission (Smith v. Wells Fargo Credit Corp., 713 F. Supp. 354 (D. Ariz. 1989) (state court action involving, inter alia TILA disclosure violations did not bar a subsequent action based on rescission notice violations in conjunction with same transaction which were not alleged or litigated in prior action) (See also In re Laubach, 77 B.R. 483 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (doctrine of merger bars raising state and federal law claims arising from a transaction on which a previous successful federal TILA action was based; merger does not bar, however, rescission-based on the same transaction). These laws run concurrent therefor this is a violation of the
Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution means they will be held accountable for damages under the color of law. FDCP violations up the yang. Cannon 3B violation of the American Bar Association locked and loaded…
The Model of Judicial Conduct has been clearly violated Cannon 3 - Rule 3.11 (B)(2)(B)(4) - Rule 3.5 use of non public information for Rule 3.13 (A) A judge shall not accept any gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or other things of value, if acceptance is prohibited by law* or would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence,* integrity,* or impartiality.* This judge expressed bias in court took testimony off hearsay, did not act impartial to the parties involved, and ruled against a Law of the Land ruling to dissolve a TRO so that defendants could foreclose on plaintiffs property without due process of law. This is called Abuse of Judicial Discretion as this was not merely an mis interpretation of the law with the judge acting in good faith.


In Faiths case, her property is located in Corona CA, the same city as the Judges Wife company is located.
This would be called Opportunity. It would also appear that his wife’s Real Estate Company receives over 90% of there REO (bank foreclosed business) as all but one of his wife’s company REO (Bank owned) listings had a case attached to it from these very courts… Only the banks can assign REO listings… This is what we call Motive…

Daniel A. Ottolia. is the judge who is misusing his authority and blatantly violated her
5th and 14th Constitutional Rights. This is what we call Means. Officers of the court who many come in contact with the matter of Goodner versus Disaster Services are noticed under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoffv. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).

We believe having a wife in the Real Estate business constitute a good reason to file a complaint against this judge in which preliminary notification to the DOJ, the FBI and the Riverside DA’s office has been given and we are in the process of writing, - well several things… The elements are all there, you just have to be brave enough to look!



First Team Real Estate 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET STE 100
CORONA, California Zip:92882

This is a run of this companies REO business - Take notice that this does not include Homes in foreclosures or short sales or notices of default as there were many many more…. Oh did we mention Faith is also with the Corona Norco Board of Realtors and can redly access this information within the MLS system..

short list of FIRST TEAM Real Estate off main..
REO Listings
A detailed working excel that shows how deep this goes can be found here
EXHIBIT 911 There are many different judges attached to these cases, and they WILL be exposed… Bottom line, anyone in a foreclosure defense situation YOU WILL NOT get a fair trial here. This is a HUGE and very DEEP conflict of financial interest that is benefiting this Judge through his wife.

Failure to obtain substantial Justice in state courts lead to suits being filed in Federal Court under Title 42 United States Code standard 1983.This suit will ask for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law, that Due Process of Law be allowed, and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate. In Faith case she will raise this at the Supreme Court as the same law firm represents both past and present defendants stemming from the same court.

Freedom of information direct from the source WILL NOT be taken down.

Because We the Pro Se did not get the 2011 "Memo"

Please Provide Executive Order to Deprive Due Process


It was conveyed to declarant and witnessed as such that the courts were under orders to prevent homeowners from "breaking through "the judicial system.

Under who's orders from above to deprive homeowners their constitutionally protected due process rights, in turn enabling Civil Racketeering to be filtered through the Head Justice Judge Daniel A Ottolia vested ownership interest in First Team Real Estate in exchange for judicial favors in the form of REO transfers by members of the federalized banking industry where his wife Liz Ottolia hangs her real estate license.

IN RE: Photos of Faith Lynn Brashear battered and bruised head to toe - video of Faith Lynn Brashear's guide dog September 2017 still limping and must now be retired.

In RE: specific REO transaction conducted by the Superior Courts Head Justice and two Witness's outlining the fabrication/ spoilage of evidence and false testimony conducted at the Historical Riverside Court specifically transferred to that court from the Moreno Valley Unlawful Detainer courts by the Head Justice Daniel Otellia.

In RE: Excel list of over 3000 REO properties filtered through First Team Real Estate since 2012 - When the head justice Daniel Otellia filed his California 700 form showing 10% ownership interest in First Team Real Estate listing his wife Liz Otellia as the commission source of his vested interest in said company.


Please provide the executive order which was issued to use whatever means necessary to deprive homeowners their constitutional rights to due process of law in over 30 cities up and down the California Coast including but not limited to 29 DBA’s and 36 franchise offices located in various cities: Anaheim, Arroyo Grande, Bakersfield, Beverly Hills, Big Bear, Cathedral City, Corona, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Ladera Ranch, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Long Beach, Palm Desert, Oceanside, Marina Del Ray, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Pasadena, Palm Springs, San Clemente, San Diego, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Temecula, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Valencia, and Westlake.


Letter to Chiang_Treasurer_Brashear