RENADA NADINE MARCH
7 Bluebird Lane
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
DEFENDANTS IN PRO PER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY – LAGUNA HILLS
\Harbor Justice Center, 23141 Moulton Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
|MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC,
RENADA NADINE MARCH,
FAY E. MARCH
(Intervener formerly named in
Complaint as Defendant John Doe or Jane Roe)
Case No. 30-2009-00312382-CL-UD-HLH
MOTION AND DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF HONORABLE JUDGE
CORY CRAMIN ON EITHER PEREMPTORY BIAS OR FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP
§170.6 OR OTHERWISE FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242
HON: Corey Cramin
DATE: JULY 26, 2010
TIME: 9:30 AM
COME NOW THE Defendants RENADA NADINE MARCH and Defendant in Intervention (formerly named only as a “Jane Doe” Defendant) FAY E. MARCH with this Motion and Demand for Removal of the Honorable Judge Corey Cramin on either peremptory bias grounds pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 or otherwise “for cause” pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5.
California Civil Code §170.6 states in part:
(a) (1) No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that thejudge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.
(2) Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement under oath that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending or to whom it is assigned is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of the party or attorney so that the party or attorney cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.
Defendant Renada Nadine March (and her mother Fay E. March) charge and would show that that on and after March 4, 2010, under color of law, Honorable Judge Cory Cramin sought to deprive the March Defendants of their liberty and property interests in 7 Bluebird Lane contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. In so doing the Honorable Judge Cory Cramin acted with malicious intent to favor Plaintiff Meglodon Financial, LLC, and/or its attorney Steven D. Silverstein by unlawful exercise of jurisdiction after properly noticed and served removal by the Defendant Renada Nadine March to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern (Santa Ana) Division. Eviction from her residence during March would have rendered Intervenor Fay E. March homeless, and because of her advanced age would have put her at risk of loss of life, and therefore Judge Cory Cramin’s conduct, together with that of Steven D. Silverstein, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these two parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an attempt to kill Defendant Fay E. March within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.
To wit, after having been properly served with Notice of Removal, Judge Cory Cramin entered an order of final judgment and issued a writ of possession in favor of Meglodon Financial, LLC, at the behest and request of Plaintiff’s attorney Steven D. Silverstein, utilizing documents prepared by Silverstein, who had also been served with the Notice of Removal and was fully are of its legal significance under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Defendants Renada Nadine March and her mother Fay E. March further charge and would show that this conduct on Judge Cory Cramin’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Here set forth in Laguna Hills Harbor Justice Court, State of California, in County of Orange, and cause of PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE PURSUANT TO CCP 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-5 for Judge Cramin’s violations of 18 U.S.C. §242 (and possible conspiracy with Meglodon Financial LLC and Silverstein in violation of
18 U.S.C. §241):
Renada Nadine March, being duly sworn, declares under penalty of perjury, deposes and says that she is a party to the the present action, Meglodon Financial LLC v. March, in which she is a Defendant, alongside her other of advanced years, Fay E. March. On March 4th, 2010 the Judge, Cory Cramin, purported to exercise his authority in which he violated jurisdiction acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. That Cory Cramin the judge, before whom the hearing aforesaid action is pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that she cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
26th day of July, 2010.
(officer of the Clerk administering oath)
Signature of Clerk/Notary:________________________________
My Business Address is:_______________________________
My Commission Expires:______________________________
Monday, July 26, 2010
RENADA NADINE MARCH, Pro se/in propia persona
7 Bluebird Lane
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned ______________________ do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing:
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CCP § 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-170.5
on and delivered the same to:
Steven D. Silverstein, Attorney-at-Law
Silverstein Eviction Law
14351 Redhill Ave., Suite #G
Tustin, CA 92780
Served by the Defendant and Respectfully Submitted to the Court,
Monday, July 26, 2010
By: RENADA NADINE MARCH
While she was successful in removing Judge Corey Cramin,Renada failed to recuse Judge Margaret Anderson who noticed that her request for recusal was not verified as required by CCP 170-3—so don’t forget to verify your CCP Rule 170 Motions, regardless of whether you’re going for peremptory disqualification or recusal. Of course, I’ll never forget how the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas once sanctioned me and my at that time quite heroic civil rights attorney Francis W. Williams-Montenegro in 2003 for failure to verify a Motion to Recuse under the Texas Rules, when in fact both he and I had separately verified the Motion to Recuse one of Texas’ and Williamson County’s worst, Judge Michael Jergins. (I say “at that time” quite heroic only because Frances could not withstand the pressure of ten-time more severe threatened sanctions in 2006, and succumbed to pressure from Texas A.G. Greg Abbott when the sanctions against him, as an attorney, were suspended as a “constructive bribe” provided Frances never represent me in any future litigation, which he did not). We had also attached evidence in support of the recusal as Exhibits to the Motion which the Third Court of Appeals said was missing. All the court’s sequential and compound “errors” were spectacularly documented and published at 114 S.W.3D 724 (Texas 3rd DCA 2003). Courts DO tend to see whatever they want to see.