On March 24, 2022 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Tzankov, Victor R,
and
for Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
'
x
.Tfs’
v33;
F E L E D
Victor R Tzankov sggfimgfi 89$; fggghmrgsgm
SA” BTRNARD'NO DfSTF‘IAT
16333 Green Tree Blvd. General Delivery
3U“ 2 0 2022
Victorville, CA 92395
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
RV.
Wm». AA
KS A9“
bw‘m‘év,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Victor R Tzankov, Case No.2 PROSB2200416
.
MOTION T0
PLAINTIFF’S
P lam“ iff ’
DISQUALIFY JUDGE
10
MICHELLE H GILLEECE
VS- PURSUANT T0 C.C.P. § 170.1
11
12
ESTATE OF Betty J Turner,
l3
Decedent,
14
15
Plaintiff Victor R Tzankov respectfully requests Judge Michelle H
16 Gilleece “Judge” be disqualified under the California Code of Civil
17
Procedures (CCP) Section § 170.1 (a)(6)(C): “For any reason A person
aware 0f the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge
18 ”
would be able t0 be impartial. Plaintiff believes that any reasonable
l9 person aware of the facts and circumstances would believe that Judge
20
Gilleece is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law. The
standard for disqualification provided in Code CiV. Proc., 170.1(a)(6)(C),
21
providing for disqualification for bias 0r prejudice is fundamentally an
22 objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that, due to the
sensitivity 0f the question and inherent difficulties 0f proof, as well as
23
the importance 0f public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is
24 not limited t0 the existence 0f an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable
25 person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality,
disqualification is mandated. T0 ensure that proceedings, appear t0 the
26
public t0 be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the
27 situation must be Viewed through the eyes 0f the objective person. This
28
standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE - 1
View 0f his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants'
necessarily partisan views d0 not provide the applicable frame of
reference. Rather, the Judge ought t0 consider how his or her
participation in a given case looks to the average person 0n the street.
Plaintiff Will show that the average person off the street believes that
Judge Gilleece has shown bias directed towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff
concurs.
INTRODUCTION
Judge Michelle Gilleece has been active in the case since March 24,
2022 and her participation is ongoing. Plaintiff incorporates each and
10 every allegation made in that motion as though it were restated here in
this motion. Plaintiffs 0n 08-30-2022 request under CCP 170.6 t0
11
disqualify Judge Gilleece was denied. It should be noted that with this
12
order, Judge decided not timely. Judge position is that she has retained
l3 Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. That is not true since the
case was assigned 0n 06-29-2022 to Judge Tara Reilly room SS7. The
l4
Judge vulnerably recuse herself from the case and lost all Jurisdiction.
15 Judge Gilleece bias against Plaintiff can be seen by the following:
16
Example #1. Retaliation
Objectors 0f Petition for Probate 0f Will & Letters Testamentary, filed
17
18 Ex Parte Petition for order for turnover Property of Decedent claiming
l9
that ODESSA CHIN LLC non party in case has properties belonging to
Estate. Objectors has not submitted and evidence 0r named What
20
properties exactly are in ODESSA CHIN LLC safe box t0 support their
21 claim. In contrarily only evidence is that ODESSA CHIN has save
22
deposit box at BOA branch Victorville CA. Furthermore, objectors in
Deflation filed With Ex Parte Petition ask The Court to exclude Victor
23 Tzankov from been notice for Hearing for reasons. At hearing 08-25-
24 2022 Judge granted petition. In Minute Order Plaintiff is not mention
as Present or Absent. James Thomas Lee #110838 “Bar Attorney”
25
representing Objectors appear telephonically in Which is apparent that
26 he has not presented additional evidences to support the claim.
27
Example #2. Ruling Against the Law
28
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE - 2
Document Filed Date
September 20, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 24, 2022
Category
Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
' x .Tfs’ v33; F E L E D Victor R Tzankov sggfimgfi 89$; fggghmrgsgm SA” BTRNARD'NO DfSTF‘IAT 16333 Green Tree Blvd. General Delivery 3U“ 2 0 2022 Victorville, CA 92395 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RV. Wm». AA KS A9“ bw‘m‘év, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Victor R Tzankov, Case No.2 PROSB2200416 . MOTION T0 PLAINTIFF’S P lam“ iff ’ DISQUALIFY JUDGE 10 MICHELLE H GILLEECE VS- PURSUANT T0 C.C.P. § 170.1 11 12 ESTATE OF Betty J Turner, l3 Decedent, 14 15 Plaintiff Victor R Tzankov respectfully requests Judge Michelle H 16 Gilleece “Judge” be disqualified under the California Code of Civil 17 Procedures (CCP) Section § 170.1 (a)(6)(C): “For any reason A person aware 0f the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge 18 ” would be able t0 be impartial. Plaintiff believes that any reasonable l9 person aware of the facts and circumstances would believe that Judge 20 Gilleece is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law. The standard for disqualification provided in Code CiV. Proc., 170.1(a)(6)(C), 21 providing for disqualification for bias 0r prejudice is fundamentally an 22 objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that, due to the sensitivity 0f the question and inherent difficulties 0f proof, as well as 23 the importance 0f public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is 24 not limited t0 the existence 0f an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable 25 person would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality, disqualification is mandated. T0 ensure that proceedings, appear t0 the 26 public t0 be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the 27 situation must be Viewed through the eyes 0f the objective person. This 28 standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge's personal MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE - 1 View 0f his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants' necessarily partisan views d0 not provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the Judge ought t0 consider how his or her participation in a given case looks to the average person 0n the street. Plaintiff Will show that the average person off the street believes that Judge Gilleece has shown bias directed towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff concurs. INTRODUCTION Judge Michelle Gilleece has been active in the case since March 24, 2022 and her participation is ongoing. Plaintiff incorporates each and 10 every allegation made in that motion as though it were restated here in this motion. Plaintiffs 0n 08-30-2022 request under CCP 170.6 t0 11 disqualify Judge Gilleece was denied. It should be noted that with this 12 order, Judge decided not timely. Judge position is that she has retained l3 Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. That is not true since the case was assigned 0n 06-29-2022 to Judge Tara Reilly room SS7. The l4 Judge vulnerably recuse herself from the case and lost all Jurisdiction. 15 Judge Gilleece bias against Plaintiff can be seen by the following: 16 Example #1. Retaliation Objectors 0f Petition for Probate 0f Will & Letters Testamentary, filed 17 18 Ex Parte Petition for order for turnover Property of Decedent claiming l9 that ODESSA CHIN LLC non party in case has properties belonging to Estate. Objectors has not submitted and evidence 0r named What 20 properties exactly are in ODESSA CHIN LLC safe box t0 support their 21 claim. In contrarily only evidence is that ODESSA CHIN has save 22 deposit box at BOA branch Victorville CA. Furthermore, objectors in Deflation filed With Ex Parte Petition ask The Court to exclude Victor 23 Tzankov from been notice for Hearing for reasons. At hearing 08-25- 24 2022 Judge granted petition. In Minute Order Plaintiff is not mention as Present or Absent. James Thomas Lee #110838 “Bar Attorney” 25 representing Objectors appear telephonically in Which is apparent that 26 he has not presented additional evidences to support the claim. 27 Example #2. Ruling Against the Law 28 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE - 2