That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any

proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,

888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated
that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that
he has received justice." My children, family, and I do not believe the word justice has any
relationship to any action in this case Stevie Wonder could see impartiality is nonexistent.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow
the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the
judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second
judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself.
No orders issued by a judge who has been disqualified by law are valid. It would appear that
they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Who is JUDGE Glenda Veasey ???

http://chefnikkishaw.com/s/feat_nikkishaw.pdf
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have the same passions
as others... for power and the privilege of the corps... In truth, man is not made to be
trusted for life if secured against all liability to account. Thomas Jefferson
Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and the provisions of this Code.
The basic function of an independent, impartial, and honorable judiciary is to maintain the utmost integrity in
decisionmaking Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge
to this responsibility. Conversely, violations of this code diminish public confidence in the judiciary and thereby
do injury to the system of government under law. *** I WILL NEVER STIP TO UNELECTED FAKE JUDGES AGAIN ***
Canon 2(B) Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office
(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any
oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.



















Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity
and independence of judges.... Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge
must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the
judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and should do so
freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety
applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge
"The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with INTEGRITY, impartiality, and competence."

Integrity integrity. noun: the quality of being honest and fair

9/6/11 Attorney Astiazarian explains the creation of a 40% unreported chamber order



12/12/12 Glenda Veasey proclaims SO I MADE AN ORDER






















1) In re: Fini: "We join the courts in County of Lake [v. Antoni (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1102
[22 Cal.Rptr.2d 804]] and Estevez[v. Superior Court (Salley) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 423 [27
Cal.Rptr.2d 470]] by holding in this case that the court in child support proceedings, to the
extent permitted by the child support statutes, must be permitted to exercise the broadest
possible discretion in order to achieve equity and fairness in those most sensitive and
emotional cases." (In re Marriage of Fini, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044.) However, when
orders are the products of unreported chambers conferences, there is no opportunity
for the court to exercise its discretion, (*1) because any discretion, under the current
statutory scheme, requires either a statement on the record or some kind of writing. In
essence, making an order in an unreported chambers conference deprives the parents
of their rights under section 4057, subdivision (b) to have the family court at least
consider whether the guideline result should be varied under the circumstances of
their particular case. (*2)
(*1) Abuse of Discretion NO DISCRETION
(*2) Deprivation of Due Process rights under the Color of Authority
2) Void judgment. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely
null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force
and effect whatever... A judgment is a "void judgment"(order) if the court that
rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, the parties, or acted in a
manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. One
which has no legal force or effect, invalidity and may be asserted by any person
whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.
Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
*** Judicial Notice *** 9/6/11 unreported chamber order is void as a matter of law

On 12/12/12 Glenda Veasey also states I MADE NO INCHAMBERS ORDERS

This isnt the
same story ..






















FRAUD ON THE COURT using Nunc Pro Tuncas statements to Appeal Proof the
obfuscated facts behind the unreported chamber order being entered as a
stipulation. This is abuse of power and intentional modification of the official court
record to prevent appeal. This act doesnt ensure justice or preserve the record for
appeal it obfuscates the record and is a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice
a) 18U.S.C. 1503 is defined by the "catchall provision: " Whoever . . . corruptly or by
threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
administration of justice, shall be guilty of an offense
b) 18 U.S. Code 1506 Theft or alteration of record or process. Whoever
feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record,
writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby
any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; Shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Jurisdiction is surrendered as a matter of law faltering position about making the
inchambers support order proves knowledge of this fraud on the court and bars
any use of harmless error This is the lack of Integrity not honest and not fair
ITS NOT A VALID STIPULATION Submission of a document & dissomaster
constructed as directed using unsupported and figures and denying the rebuttal of
vigorously disputed facts needed to satisfy due process also fails legislative
requirements to be a valid stipulation Entry of the record nunc pro tunc
does not correct the defect because what the court did not do then.. cannot be done
now simply by use of these words; (Hill v. Hill, 105 N.C. App.
"Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper
office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be
used to rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 32526 (7th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v.
Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer's Pension
and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

with the figures she chose

12/12/12 Glenda Veasey proclaims her power, authority, control and decision when
stating: I Decided... SOME Support. AS OPPOSED TO NO SUPPORT AT ALL.


























12/12/12 Transcripts pg 15 Veaseys Confession this is not a STIPULATION.










1) Websterdictionary.org states: SOME ; (adj) 1) Consisting of a greater or less portion
or a larger amount, A part or a portion of a larger amount, Not much; a little;
moderate; as, the censure was to some extent just .
(www.websterdictionary.org/definition/some).
2) in child custody cases the statutory "best interests" test for determinations is,
it furthers the paramount goal: preserving the need for continuity and stability in
custody arrangements (Ca Fam 3011, 3040(b)). The guideline statute sets the
principles that courts must to follow applying the rules.
a. Both parents are mutually responsible to support their children. (Sept. 6
th
2011
=84%/16% custody + $0 for 3mo and $215 for Sept) = FAILED
b. Child support orders must ensure that children actually receive fair, timely, and
sufficient support, which reflects the states high standard of living and high
costs of raising children compared to other states. Must is a legislative directive &
removes discretion Glenda Veaseys statements are legal nonsense
3) By definition: SOME SUPPORT is a portion or part of the actual support. Public
Policy requires: that children actually receive fair, timely, and sufficient support.
some support meant as of January 2012 equaled $1147 total support over 7mo. and
over last 34mo the net support available to support my children is $65 per child, and
has caused the loss of our home and damaged family relationships. Glenda Veasey
by action and words had no intention of providing fair support but to give any number
that gave the children something. They didnt need something they needed and were
required to receive an amount to secure their stability in their existing environment.
Therefore this entire argument is a confession to legal ignorance, dereliction of duty,
abuse of discretion, failure to ensure rights and public policy.