Bryan Eastin confesses to Judge John Blanchard in open court to an attorney client conflict of interest.
Bryan Eastin further states he violated law by serving a forged subpoena duced tecum on a Bank at branch level instead of serving the forged document on the Bank's legal department, yet Bryan Eastin submits forged documents stating he had the Bank's statutory agent served.

This is the July 28^th., 2023 hearing where attorney Bryan Eastin admitted to Judge John Blanchard to basically committing crimes... watch.

  The judge to be changed is Judge John L. Blanchard.
  This motion is made on the grounds alleged in the attached affidavit(s). This motion is made pursuant to A.R.S. §12-409 which states:
  A. If either party to a civil action in a superior court files an affidavit alleging any of the grounds specified in subsection B, the judge shall at once transfer the action to another division of the court if there is more than one division, or shall request a judge of the superior court of another county to preside at the trial of the action.
  B. Grounds which may be alleged as provided in subsection A for change of judge are:
1. That the judge has been engaged as counsel in the action prior to appointment or election as judge.
2. That the judge is otherwise interested in the action.
3. That the judge is of kin or related to either party to the action.
4. That the judge is a material witness in the action.
5. That the party filing the affidavit has cause to believe and does believe that on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.
  This motion is also made pursuant to Rule 42.2, Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Courts of Arizona. 1
  This motion is made pursuant to A.R.S. §12-409 (B)(5).

  Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42.2
 
  The counterpart to A.R.S. § 12-409 is, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42.2 which states in A.R.C.P. 42.2 (d); (d) Timeliness and Waiver. A party must file an affidavit seeking a change of judge for cause within 20 days after discovering that grounds exist for a change of judge. Case events or actions taken before that discovery do not waive a party's right to a change of judge for cause.
  Additionally, in A.R.C.P. 42.2 (e)(3); (3) On filing of the affidavit for cause, the named judge should proceed no further in the action except to make such temporary orders as are absolutely necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from occurring before the request is decided and the action transferred.
  However, if the named judge is the only judge in the county, that judge may also perform the functions of the presiding judge.
  Judge John Blanchard is not the only judge in the county and Maricopa County is not the only division in the state of Arizona.
  There are two divisions in the state of Arizona; Division I, Phoenix - Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges - Counties: Apache, Coconino, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai, Yuma. Division II, Tucson - Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges - Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz.
  Arizona has an official website of Azcourts.gov, on the website describes how Arizona courts are organized as copied from the website supra.
  A.R.S. § 12-409 states in subsection A in part; the judge shall at once transfer the action to another division of the court if there is more than one division.
  There are two divisions in the state of Arizona, Division I, located in Phoenix and encompasses Maricopa County and surrounding counties. Division II located in Tucson and encompasses the surrounding counties.
  By the state of Arizona’s own admission there are two divisions in Arizona. Judge Danielle J. Viola is the civil presiding judge in division one.
  Judge Danielle J. Viola was copied the change of judge for cause as required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 42.2 (c), The affidavit must be filed and copies served on the parties, the 2presiding judge, the noticed judge, and the court administrator, if any, by any method provided in Rule 5(c).
  Judge Joseph Welty is the presiding judge in Maricopa County, A.R.S. § 12-409 (A) states; The judge (presiding judge) shall at once transfer the action to another division of the court if there is more than one division, or shall request a judge of the superior court of another county to preside at the trial of the action. Judge Danielle J. Viola is the presiding judge in the civil department in division one.
  Judge Danielle J. Viola is not authorized by Arizona statutes to determine the affidavit for change of judge for cause.
  The presiding judge in Maricopa County, Joseph Welty, is the responsible party for transferring a change of judge for cause to division two, to be heard by any of the seven presiding judges of Division II, (Judge Timothy Dickerson, Judge Timothy Wright, Judge Michael Peterson, Judge Jeremy Ford, Judge Jeffery Bergin, Judge Joseph Georgini, Judge Thomas Fink).
  The Maricopa County Superior Court transferred the change of judge for cause to the presiding judge of the civil department in Maricopa County, this is not in accord with the Arizona revised statute A.R.S. § 12-409 (A).
  Transferring to a department in the same division is not in compliance with Arizona law by transferring to another division.
 
  ESTABLISHING CAUSE
 
  It is standard practice for a judge in the same division to protect the coworker and judge and in this instance Judge Danielle Viola has defaulted to the standard protocol of stating “disagree with and object to various rulings by Judge Blanchard.”
  This statement by Judge Danielle Viola is subjective and not objective due to being a coworker in the same division.
  Therefore, the change of judge for cause has not been reviewed “objectively” as is required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 42.2 (e)(4); The presiding judge must decide the issues by the preponderance of the evidence.
  Under A.R.S. § 12-409(B)(5), the sufficiency of any "cause to believe" must be determined by an objective standard, not by reference to the affiant's subjective belief.
  If grounds for disqualification are 3found, the presiding judge (in the other Division or other County) must promptly reassign the action.
  Any new assignment must comply with A.R.S. § 12-411.
 
  STANDARD OF CAUSE TO BELIEVE
  The standard of cause to believe is to have knowledge of facts which, although not amounting to direct knowledge, would cause a reasonable person, knowing the same facts, to reasonably conclude the same thing.
  Anyone who is not associated with this case or court division would conclude the same out come of the issues presented in the change of judge for cause, no fair trial can be obtained by this judge.
  The Casavellis have presented evidence which is more credible and convincing than that presented by plaintiff’s counsel, Bryan Eastin which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not.
  There is court video evidence of the issues presented confirming “more probable than not.” Judge Danielle Viola has misinterpreted A.R.S. § 12-409 (A), which states;
  A. If either party to a civil action in a superior court files an affidavit alleging (claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case.) any of the grounds specified in subsection B, on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.
  This is not just the simple disagreement with judge Blanchard’s decisions, this goes well beyond disagreeing with judge Blanchard’s decisions.
 
 PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
  Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.
  In Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania noted that “preponderance of the evidence is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence”. 4
  Similarly, in another case from Pennsylvania, the court held that “preponderance of the evidence is such evidence as leads a fact-finder to find a contested fact to be more probable than its nonexistence.”
  When applying these standards in this litigation, Judge Blanchard grants all plaintiffs requests and denies ever request by the Casavellis.
  By the preponderance of the evidence, the implication of prejudice would be evident for e.g., Judge Blanchard; (a) Allowing plaintiffs to have unlimited discovery and denying the Casavellis or severely limiting discovery for the Casavellis.
 
(b) allowing plaintiffs to have eight hours of deposition and only allowing the Casavellis four hours of deposition.
(c) allowing plaintiffs to file lawsuit against the Casavellis via “assignment of interest”
(d) allowing plaintiffs to violate A.R.S. § 29-3502 (A)(3)(a).
(e) allowing plaintiffs’ claims to be tried to the bench without a waiver from either party.
(f) allowing plaintiffs to take two claims to a bench trial in which plaintiffs lost those two claims in summary judgment.
(g) allowing this litigation to continue knowing plaintiff’s counsel admitted to a conflict of interest with the Casavellis.
  Judge Danielle Viola states the Casavellis “speculate about Judge Blanchard’s involvement in the way documents were filed in the court docket.”
  This is not speculation, especially when a supervisor at the clerk of the court clearly states on a recorded phone line “the court must have filed it at the counter,” not speculation this is factual especially when it’s on audio recording, just as it is on audio recording of Bryan Eastin admitting to bribing a Superior Court judge.
  Of course, Brian Eastin wasn’t specific as to which Judge or how many judges he admitted to bribing, nonetheless, Brian Eastin made that admission to the Casavellis.
 
  PUBLIC SURVEY
  Before filing this brief, the Casavellis took a public survey and had 20 different people read this notice of appeal and the affidavit for change of judge for cause previously filed.
  It is not an easy task getting people to read a legal brief, nonetheless, the Casavellis had the 205 different read the legal brief, by the time they reached the end of page 6, all 20 people was convinced the Casavellis would not get a fair trial in front of this judge.
  These people were not and are not involved with this litigation, or have any information about this litigation.
  The only information they obtained was from this document and apparently was enough to convince them a fair trial cannot be obtained.
  Judge Danielle Viola did not view the change of judge for cause objectively, Judge Danielle Viola viewed the change of judge for cause in a way that is based on guessing or on opinions that have been formed without knowing all the facts.
  This fact is supported by the laws and rules quoted in this motion, where the change of judge for cause was to be sent to another division or another county to be determined and not within the same division as the noticed judge, in accord with A.R.S. § 12-409.
 
  6
  AFFIDAVIT FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE
  Procedural History from February 7, 2023
  February 7, 2023, Judge John Blanchard held the pretrial conference for the determination of trial readiness.
 Opposing party’s counsel Brian Eastin states ready for trial knowing he has prevented his client[s] (Donna J. Johanson) from giving deposition, mainly, for the Casavellis wanting to record the deposition by audio/video as additional method as allowed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 30 (b)(3)(C), the noticed Method Stated in all the Notice[s] are to be recorded by a certified reporter, as authorized by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 30 (b)(3)(B), and knowing there are 12 of plaintiffs’ claims, where plaintiffs properly demanded a jury trial in their original complaint filed on September 6th, 2017 and in their amended complaint filed on December 11th, 2018, which appears now are not going to be tried before a jury trial.
 
  SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 This is after plaintiffs lost summary judgment as was described to Judge John Blanchard, see https://youtu.be/ENdPu6NEdG0?t=47m35s, the summary judgment hearing was on April 8, 2019, here is the court video of the summary judgment hearing where the Johansons lost summary judgment, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHtVK34nPo. Judge Cohen stated that he ruled on a significant issue in our favor on June 14, 2019, see https://youtu.be/mVKRifKyZsU?t=16m08s, Judge Cohen stated “two of my April 8th, 2019 minute entries where I denied their motion for summary judgment on a very important issue and I ruled in your favor.” See Minute Entries as Exhibit 1 & 2.
 Judge Blanchard is allowing plaintiffs to bring quiet title, equitable mortgage (after losing those claims in summary judgment) and 12 other claims in equity to a bench trial (see Exhibit 3), without a waiver for a bench trial being signed, filed or even implied, as required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 38 (b), this after plaintiffs lost summary judgment on quiet title and equitable mortgage on April 8th, 2019. 7
 Bryan Eastin and the Johansons responded (as judge Blanchard ordered in exhibit 2) with 12 claims in equity, injunctive, declaratory relief, see Exhibit 13.
 A motion to deem the Casavellis vexatious defendants was filed on November 5, 2020 after plaintiffs lost summary judgment on the two claims.
 The Casavellis appealed the vexatious designation with the appellate court in case CA-CV 21-0207, the appellate court removed two unlawful monetary judgments and ordered the lower court to modify the designation to comply with the appellate court’s ruling.
 Judge John Blanchard did not adhere to the appellate court’s mandate, see Minute Entry Order July 19, 2023, Exhibit 5.
 Judge John Blanchard’s minute entry order is not in compliance with the appellate courts mandate, see Exhibit 6 & Exhibit 7.
 The Casavellis appealed two different issues to the appellate court, the appellate court made the same statements in both order[s] sent to the lower court, and in judge John Blanchard’s minute entry has defied the mandate and placed prefiling restrictions on a live litigation as Exhibit 5 affirms.
 The order[s] from the appellate court, see Exhibit 6 & Exhibit 7, keep in mind the vexatious litigant motion only arose because plaintiffs and their counsel lost the motion for summary judgment at the hearing on April 8th, 2019, Bryan Eastin did not and has not wanted to admit the loss in this litigation for his improper, unethical conduct.
 The appellate court sent its Div1CivilTerminationTransmittalLetter 4976256 0 (Exhibit 6) electronically to all parties connected with the appeal, on December 4, 2023.
 The appellate court sent the first order (Exhibit 6) to the lower court and to the clerk of the court on December 5, 2023, which the lower court then took it upon itself to dissect the order and at first remove the attached order and docketed the order’s first page as “12/04/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order.”
 The Casavellis noticed it did not contain the court of appeals order, only the first page of the letter of transmittal (ALT), and called (Dec.12th, 2023) judge John Blanchard’s court’s JA, Carla Waymire, Carla Waymire first stated, what is on the docket is how the court of appeals sent it to Judge Blanchard’s court.
 The Casavellis inquired with Carla Waymire as to 8why the order was not posted on the docket in full (4 pages), Carla stated the order was received in paper format and the clerk of the court separated the document.
 The Casavellis then spoke with the clerk of the court as to why the order was separated and not docketed with all pages, the clerk of the court stated it had to be at court level, due to the entry was scanned in and not submitted in electronic form as the appellate court had transmitted. Nick Casavelli talked to the Court of Appeals and actually spoke to Amy Wood the clerk of the appellate court; Amy Wood stated the way they sent the order to the Casavellis is the way it was sent it to everyone else.
 The Casavellis asked to speak to a supervisor with a Maricopa County superior court clerk, to determine why the order was separated into three pieces on the ECR docket.
 The clerk of the court supervisor stated they would order the box and find out and inform the Casavellis what had happened.
 The Casavelli spoke again with John Blanchard’s JA, Carla Waymire (Dec.12th, 2023), inquired about why the mandate was not on the docket in full as transmitted by the appellate court with the actual order included and informed her the appellate court stated no one was sent paper copies, after some resistance, Carla Waymire stated she would look into the issue an attempt to resolve.
 It was almost instantaneous after talking to Carla Waymire, the second “12/05/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order” entry appeared (Dec.12th, 2023), this time containing two pages that was scanned, still only containing the appeals letter of transmittal.
 The next day (Dec.13th, 2023) “12/05/2023 - MEM – Memorandum,” appeared on the docket, containing the court of appeal’s order.
2 ScreenShot of the ECR Docket (Dec.5th, 2023) 3 ScreenShot of the ECR Docket (Dec.5th, 2023) 4 ScreenShot of the ECR Docket (Dec.15th, 2023)
 Before talking to Carla Waymire, there was only one entry on the Docket (2); 12/04/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order, docketed on 12/7/2023. 9
 After speaking to Carla Waymire, the second time, the docket displayed almost instantly (3);12/05/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order, docketed on 12/12/2023, still the Appellate court order was not docketed.
 After speaking again with, Carla Waymire stated she would look into the issue.
 The next day, an entry appeared on the docket; 12/05/2023 - MEM – Memorandum, docketed on 12/12/2023, containing the appellate court order.
ScreenShot of the Civil Docket
 After the Casavellis spoke with the supervisor of the clerk of the court, the clerk of the court noticed the wrong “code” on the appeals letter of transmittal and stated she would correct it so it would reflect it is the actual certified copy of the order, now docketed as “12/05/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order.” formally displayed as; “12/05/2023-MEM – Memorandum,” now is properly labeled as “12/05/2023 - ALT - Appeals Letter Of Transmittal.”
 Now, containing all pages (scanned).
 Originally, the one page document filed on “12/04/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order” and docketed on 12/07/2023, is the first page of the Appeals Letter Of Transmittal (ALT), not the actual Court Of Appeals Order (CAO), the 12/05/2023 - MEM – Memorandum, docketed on 12/12/2023, was actually the 12/05/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order, and the second 12/05/2023 - CAO - Court Of Appeals Order, docketed on 12/12/2023, was in fact the 12/05/2023 - ALT - Appeals Letter Of Transmittal, docketed on 12/12/2023, containing two pages.
 What are the odds of two documents filed into the court case at two different times, from two different sources would have such “coincidental” errors when the two documents are related in the same subject matter contained in the documents?
 This could normally be attributed to error, but objectively, due to what the actual Court of Appeals Order states within the order is good cause, for someone to keep it off the docket, if10 they were not following the appellate court mandate, as judge John Blanchard has chosen to ignore the appellate court mandate, orders and impose prefiling and filing restrictions in the current live litigation against the Casavellis and if the Casavellis were to file anything, Judge Blanchard has directed the opposing party not to respond.
 
  PREFILING RESTRICTIONS
 
 Next, the question is asked why would this happen to an appellate court order?
 The Casavellis filed a motion to vacate the July 19, 2023 minute entry on October 12th, 2023 (Judge Blanchard restricted from filing, then refiled on 10-18-2023) containing the restrictive and errant ruling and copied the motion to Judge Blanchard’s court.
 This document was filed at the document depository on October 12 at 4:05 p.m. see Exhibit 8, this document was filed with three other documents simultaneously “pretrial statement,” “notice of trial setting conference,” and “notice of inequities and inequalities (volume 1).”
 Apparently, Judge Blanchard’s office contacted the clerk responsible for the depository drop box (Joshua Thill) and had them single out the one “motion to vacate minute entry order July 19, 2023” due to the contents within the motion.
 Exhibit 8 is the documents the clerk of the court returned the motion with and the cover page of the motion crossing out the file date.
 The Casavellis received a letter from the clerk of the court on October 18, 2023 and inquired with the clerk of the court as to why the motion was returned and the other three were not.
 The clerk stated, the Casavellis had to have prior leave to file any documents as Exhibit 8 depicts; Other: Prior leave of court required for the filing of any new pleading, motion, or other document in CV2017-055490..
 The ironic part of this prefiling authorization is the same clerk “J THILL” allowed the other three documents to be filed on the ECR docket and singled-out the one filing enclosed in Exhibit 8.
 This clearly depicts that someone contacted “J THILL” and directed him to pull the one filing stating Judge John Blanchard is not following the appellate court’s directive and has entered an erroneous ruling.11
 The two orders from the appellate court contained in Exhibits 6 and 7 was sent from the appellate court to educate Judge John Blanchard in his error in the minute entry of July 19, 2023, where Judge John Blanchard’s minute entry is stating the Casavellis could not file into the live litigation in the Superior Court after giving authorization to file in the same minute entry.
 Apparently, the appellate court felt the need to send the same directive twice to the lower court and to judge Blanchard, as the statements in both transmittal letters order[s] are identical in content, although the appeals were of two different subjects.
 The motion to vacate the July 19, 2023 minute entry was refiled on August 18, 2023 and after speaking to a supervisor at the clerk of the court, now where it has remained on the docket without selective prefiling permissions. Judge John Blanchard dismiss the motion on December 12, 2023, without a response from plaintiff’s, the Casavellis motions was dismissed.
 Every motion filed by the Casavellis since September 27, 2023 has had no response by plaintiffs and dismissed by Judge Blanchard. Trial is set for January 22, 2024 to February 1, 2024. All proper pretrial protocols have been violated or vacated and not available to the Casavellis due to judge Blanchard’s errant ruling on July 19, 2023.
 Judge John Blanchard has not corrected the erroneous ruling and has not ordered plaintiffs to respond to any of the Casavellis filings.
 Judge John Blanchard dismisses any filings the Casavellis file in the current live litigation, the same occurs with any oral motions or requests in telephonic or open court hearings.
 
  UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
 
 Plaintiff’s Failure to disclose disclosure statements timely was addressed on April 7, 2023, see https://youtu.be/e3v5Xj-7bYs?t=16m55s, plaintiff’s counsel, Brian Eastin finally did disclose 10 disclosure statements on June 7, 2023, see:
https://providentlawyers.app.box.com/s/i5iwbu8i382i4zcwclnla8zgk732vn2h, name of the disclosure statements include the date alleged disclose to the Casavellis.
 The court has stated that discovery allegedly ended on October 29, 2018 and then extended to March 27, 2019. Per Judge John Blanchard’s courtroom protocols, five of these disclosure12 statements were not timely disclosed according to discovery deadlines and would allow the Casavellis to contest any exhibits or evidence disclose untimely, Judge Blanchard has not let the Casavellis object or opposed to any evidence and continue states it will be done at trial. Brian Eastin contends all disclosure statement exhibits were mailed to the Casavellis, if one clicks on the link provided by Provident law and opens the file named “14_8-14-19 (signed) Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Suppmental Disclosure Statement with Exhibits.pdf”, the first issue one should notice is the amount of pages, which is 483 pages, next would be the file size of 29.7 MB.
 Private servers may allow files over 20 MB, the Casavellis use a Gmail account and is limited to sending or receiving to 20 MB.
 Plaintiffs could not have sent this disclosure statement via email and claim it be identical with what’s in this dropbox, furthermore, if plaintiffs sent it in the mail it would be the size of a ream of paper and weighing 5 pounds.
 Next would be the created date in the dropbox panel; Created Jun 7, 2023, 4:17 PM.
 This depicts the time the dropbox created the documents at upload, which clearly does not coincide with the disclosure dates on the statements.
 The reality is these10 disclosure statements were not disclosed to the Casavellis with the exhibits until June 7, 2023, Judge John Blanchard will not let the Casavellis challenge the validity of the disclosures exhibits or evidence before trial.
 On August 11, 2023, after the Discover the untimely disclosure statements and the exhibits, the Casavellis filed an “objection to untimely disclosure of disclosure statements” and on the same date filed “objection to evidence.”
 No action has been taken by the court on the untimely objections or filings of the objections and has stated numerous occasions that the objections will be addressed at trial.
 The Court Printed 3500 pgs. of trial exhibits for plaintiffs and Bryan Eastin, then proceeded to rename and renumber every exhibit the Casavellis submitted for trial.
 This caused the Casavellis to have to go downtown to the court house and meet with the deputy clerk of the court, Yolonda Rodriguez, in Judge Blanchard’s courtroom and review the exhibits to see the changes the court made to the exhibits.
 After the court renamed and renumbered the exhibits, the Casavellis could not identify the exhibits i.e., a bank statement was renamed to “letter,” an indemnification form was renamed to “Star Bank Fax/with 13attachments.”
 What began as 52 exhibits, after the court renaming the exhibits, ending being 77 exhibits, all with new exhibit numbers and names.
 This action made it nearly impossible to identify what the exhibits were when originally submitted.
 Interestingly, not one of the plaintiffs’ exhibits was renamed or renumbered.
 According to Judge John Blanchard’s protocol practice page, addresses such an issue about untimely Discovery as quoted from Judge John Blanchard’s protocol and practice page.
 “Untimely Discovery Disputes: The Court will generally not consider discovery disputes or non-disclosure disputes that are raised for the first time after the Trial Setting Conference deadline, except for disclosures occurring for the first time after the Trial Setting Conference Deadline.” (Protocol and Practice of Persons Appearing in the Court of Judge John Blanchard).
 The last trial setting conference on the docket was April 7, 2023 and the untimely disclosures was disclosed on June 7, 2023. Judge Blanchard is not adhering to his protocol and practice page.
 Furthermore, in John Blanchard’s protocol practice page under; Discovery Disputes Generally:
 This Division requires strict compliance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26(d), the Expedited Procedure for Resolving Discovery and Disclosure Disputes.
 All disputes between parties that could be addressed in motions for protective order under Rule 26(c) or motions to compel discovery or disclosure under Rule 37(a) must first proceed pursuant to Rule 26(d).
 
  ADMISSION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
 On 7-28-2023, Bryan Eastin admits to Judge John Blanchard in open court, Nick Casavelli hired Bryan Eastin for prior legal work, see https://youtu.be/ENdPu6NEdG0?t=22m35s, Brian Eastin admits this at the timeline between 22 min. 35 sec. to 23 min. 01 sec.
 Judge Blanchard just disregarded Brian Eastin’s admission of conflict of interest.
 Brian Eastin has admitted to improper conduct to the court, in open court, just as Brian Eastin admitted to conflict of interest, lack of standing, interfering with the subpoena process, representing a third party without their knowledge or consent, etc.
 Judge John Blanchard Denied the Casavelli the right to a deposition after 9 attempts to obtain plaintiff’s deposition, the last attempt in March 2023, after Bryan Eastin attempts 14to incite violence at a deposition, see https://youtu.be/CV96PRyDc-M.
 This is confirmed by the Security Guard just outside the door to protect Bryan Eastin if Bryan Eastin was successful in provoking violence.
 On 2-7-2023, at time 27:21 - 27:43 - John Blanchard states if we are asking for a continuance of the March 8- day trial in order to get Donna’s deposition, see https://youtu.be/HcQITx4NsPc?t=27m21s, Nick said yes.
 John Blanchard then states he wants to go back to review the scheduling orders and various stays and appeals to make sure it’s in the “interest of justice” @ time10:13 – Nick asked Judge John Blanchard if he will be available that day on 3-15-2023?
 John Blanchard says he will be in and out with other matters but can reach out to his chambers. See https://youtu.be/HcQITx4NsPc?t=10m13s.
 As usual, Bryan Eastin arrived at the time the deposition was to begin (1:00 pm) and started objecting, the court staff was asked to contact a judicial officer to resolve the dispute. Carla Waymire said she would get the first available judge.
 This did not occur until approximately 2:00 pm.
 Carla Waymire said she has the “first available judge” for the hearing, ironically, Judge Rodrick Coffey was the Judge to hear the dispute.
 It is amazing judge Coffey was apprized of the “possible” issues being the first available judge, see https://youtu.be/guTHTxEXOIM?t=0m50s, Judge Rodrick Coffey states Judge Blanchard alerted him to the deposition & asked to assist in any issues that has come up.
 Judge Rodrick Coffey states he knew there might be issues today after reading Feb 2023 minute entries. See https://youtu.be/guTHTxEXOIM?t=3m05s (Appear at the deposition dispute hearing with prior knowledge of the ruling on the current dispute).
 Rodrick Coffey stating that Casavellis cannot record the deposition as additional method, see https://youtu.be/guTHTxEXOIM?t=5m11s. 15
 Quoted from Minute Entry “Defendants may not record the deposition by audio/video camera.”
 Yet the court continually fails to put on the minute entry the Casavellis wanted to record the deposition by audio video as “additional method” not primary as noticed in all notices of deposition.
 The minute entry judge Coffey is referencing is from February 10, 2020 where Judge Lisa Daniel Flores was educating Brian Eastin again, because Brian Eastin issued a notice of intent to record the deposition of Donna Johanson, see Exhibit 9, the February 10, 2020 minute entry is in regards to not allowing the Casavellis to record the deposition as primary method by audio video, this is understandable.
 Plaintiff’s counsel Brian Eastin continually misstates to the court, of the intent Judge Flores was attempting to educate Brian Eastin that he was not allowed to record any depositions and the Casavellis were not allowed to record any depositions using their own video equipment as primary recordation method, this is understandable and would not be in compliance with the rules as the Casavellis are not certified court reporters, yet, under Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 30 (b)(3), the Casavellis are allowed to record the deposition by audio video means as additional method.
 This has been explained to the court numerous times and plaintiff’s counsel Brian Eastin continues to twist the meaning of the order and rule 30, preventing plaintiff from giving testimony at a deposition, where the Casavellis will not have the right or ability to impeach the testimony.
 Judge Rodrick Coffey says the order from court today is you may not record the deposition by audio or video. https://youtu.be/guTHTxEXOIM?t=7m19s, and fails to state the noticed deposition was by Court reporter and the Audio/Video was as additional method.
 Rodrick Coffey tells Bryan Eastin the plaintiff doesn’t have to stay for deposition with audio/video going and can leave. See https://youtu.be/guTHTxEXOIM?t=9m02s
 The Casavellis have not been allowed to get plaintiff’s deposition since the last attempt, March 15th,2023, there has been time to take the deposition in the last nine months, Judge John Blanchard has refused for no apparent reason.
 
  CONFLICT of INTEREST
 16
 Nicholas Casavelli is a member and managing agent for Garpdon LLC, Bryan Eastin and the Johanson’s filed a motion for protective order on May 5, 2023, not in accord with Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 26 (d).
 This was after Brian Eastin attempted to incite violence at the March 15, 2023 deposition that failed due to
 Brian Eastin not willing to participate and allow Donna Johanson to be deposed, see https://youtu.be/CV96PRyDc-M.
 On May 5, 2023 plaintiff and their counsel Brian Eastin filed a motion for protective order after two notices of depositions were allegedly given to Donna Johanson, setting the date to be May 17, 2023 at 12:30 PM.
 This is just after Judge Blanchard said he would not set another deposition for Donna Johanson; this is exactly what Bryan Eastin wanted to hear after Bryan Eastin manufactured the two notices of deposition for Donna Johanson’s deposition, claiming the Casavellis noticed the deposition and is attempting to take deposition of Donna J. Johanson and Garpdon LLC.
 This is ridiculous if you think about it, the court would not direct Donna Johanson to give testimony at a deposition on March 15, 2023, why would the Casavellis attempt again, knowing the court will not force plaintiff to give deposition. The Casavellis has spent thousands of dollars in the attempt to obtain plaintiff’s deposition.
 On June 9, 2023, Judge John Blanchard granted the motion for protective order for Garpdon LLC, which Nicholas Casavelli is a member and managing agent as allowed by Arizona laws, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 29-3401 (C)(3) (“By agreeing to become a member, with the affirmative vote or consent of all the members.”) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 29-3407 (C)(5).
 Garpdon LLC is not a party to this litigation and the majority of the members did not request a protective order, nor did the managing agent, Nicholas Casavelli.
 Yet, Judge Blanchard granted the protective order knowing the conflict of interest and knowing plaintiff’s counsel, Bryan Eastin does not represent Garpdon LLC in the current, but has represented Garpdon LLC prior when retained by Nicholas Casavelli.
 Judge John Blanchard understands the conflict of Brian Eastin (plaintiff’s counsel) has represented Garpdon LLC prior as he has admitted to doing so in the July 28, 2023 hearing.
 Judge John Blanchard will not recognize the conflict and is allowing Brian Eastin full amenities in this litigation see https://youtu.be/ENdPu6NEdG0?t=22m35s.17
  CONTER CLAIMS
 
 Judge John Blanchard removed the Casavelli’s counterclaims on October 16, 2023, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims in this case that will be decided by the Jury are limited to Plaintiff’s claims for fraud (fraud and consumer fraud).
 The remaining claims, if presented, shall be decided by the Court.”
 The Casavellis have properly demanded a jury trial on all of their counterclaims.
 The Casavellis properly demanded a jury trial on all their counterclaims that remained after Bryan Eastin and judge Sally Duncan remove the majority of the counterclaims in a hearing, they held one day earlier (January 27, 2021) than the notice date to the Casavellis (January 28, 2021).
 July 28, 2023, Judge Blanchard asked the Casavellis if they wanted to take their counterclaims to a bench trial or to a jury trial, the Casavellis filed an answer with a demand for jury trial on all their claims on the ECR docket, as directed by Judge Blanchard as how to file the answer.
 On July 28, 2023, Judge Blanchard acknowledged the Casavellis remaining claims one of them being quiet title.
 Judge Blanchard stated this even after he was informed with the proof where Judge Cohen stated he ruled in the Casavelli’s favor, see https://youtu.be/mVKRifKyZsU?t=16m08s.
 The Casavellis are the rightful owners of the subject property in the litigation where Judge Blanchard is presiding over the case currently. Plaintiffs have given no evidence that plaintiffs have a superior interest in the Casavelli’s property.
 Plaintiffs are not claiming adverse possession and it is unclear exactly what legal claim plaintiffs are attempting to assert to gain ownership of the Casavellis property to the judicial system.
 Instead of the plaintiffs having any valid legal claim, Judge Blanchard removed the Casavellis claim of quiet title and declaratory judgment on October 16, 2023 without a hearing or motion or waiver and stated only plaintiff’s claims will be presented to a jury.
 The Casavellis are legal owner of the subject property in the litigation and are in possession of the property and have been for more than eight years.18
 The October 16, 2023 minute entry by Judge Blanchard where he ordered plaintiffs to inform the court which if any of the nonjury claims they intend to present to the court, this is after plaintiffs properly made a demand for jury trial in the original complaint and the amended complaint and plaintiffs have signed no waiver to a bench trial.
 
  PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
 
 On November 15, 2023 plaintiffs submitted their response to Judge Blanchard, as to what claims will be presented to the bench without a waiver, two of those claims is quiet title and equitable mortgage.
 On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs lost summary judgment after lengthy hearing and where plaintiff’s counsel presented no evidence, real evidence, tangible or otherwise of an equitable mortgage claiming quiet title, plaintiffs presented No evidence, not one scintilla, plaintiffs basically stood in front of Judge Cohen and claimed they are rightful owner of the Casavelli’s property by their statements solely, this is in violation of A.R.S. § 44-101(6), Arizona’s statute of frauds which prohibits any action to enforce an agreement for the sale of real property or an interest therein unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or there is a written and signed memorandum of the agreement.
 Plaintiffs had absolutely nothing in writing, no oral agreement, nothing and therefore, made them guilty of statute of frauds.
 The Casavellis have asked the court numerous times to allow amendments to include statute of frauds for plaintiffs being in violation of A.R.S. § 44-101, the Casavellis asked Judge Blanchard on July 28, 2023 to allow amendments to include statute of frauds, Judge Blanchard just dismiss the Casavellis and their rights that have been violated under Arizona law.
 Plaintiffs losing summary judgment by bringing quiet title and equitable mortgage to this court and having those claims adjudicated at summary judgment and losing due to not producing any type of agreement or affidavit in writing to support the vacuous statements, makes plaintiffs guilty of statute of frauds.

   SERVICE OF MOTION
  19
 On September 28th, 2023, Judge Blanchard held a Status Conference regarding plaintiff’s motion to continue trial setting filed September 27, 2023, due to alleged illness of trial counsel, claiming Covid.
 On Wed 9/27/2023 4:25 PM, the Casavellis received an email stating “The Court is setting a 15-minute virtual Status Conference for tomorrow 9/28/23 at 10a to discuss Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue. I have included Judge Blanchard’s Teams information.”
 The Casavellis did not receive any motion to continue from Bryan Eastin, not by email or paper (there is no electronic service agreement between the parties).
 The first time the Casavellis received a copy of the motion to continue is when it was docketed on 9-29-2023, see docket snapshot: Nicholas Casavelli called Judge Blanchard’s J.A., Carla Waymire, and asked why the Casavellis was receiving the email setting a status conference for 9/28/23 at 10am.
 Carla said it was in the motion plaintiff’s counsel filed.
 Nick Casavelli told Carla Waymire he did not receive any motion, Carla then said she would send the motion to the Casavellis via email, the Casavellis never received an email this continued under the pretense of several attempts from 4:25 PM till after 5 PM.
 Nick Casavelli asked Carla Waymire why they were serving a motion for plaintiff’s counsel? Nick did not receive an answer.
 The entire time Nick was on the phone with Carla Waymire for approximately 35 and 40 minutes, Carla said she attempted to send the plaintiffs’ counsel Brian Eastin’s motion three or four times.
 Last known, it is not the court’s place to serve a motion filed by plaintiff’s counsel to the defendants in any litigation, and from any objective standard gives rise to the appearance of impropriety to bias.20
 The Casavellis never did receive the motion until it entered on the docket on 29 September 2023, yet, Judge John Blanchard held the hearing for the plaintiffs’ counsel without the Casavellis ever seeing the motion to continue or the ability to respond to the motion to continue or its contents. The Casavellis were blindsided by this act of Judge John Blanchard. Objectively, this would appear preferential to anyone observing this act.
 On October 2, 2023 (see Exhibit 10) Judge Blanchard issued a minute entry vacating a trial date set to start on October 2, 2023, due to plaintiffs’ counsel claiming he contracted Covid and judge Blanchard immediately held a telephonic conference on September 28, 2023, vacated the trial dates to start on October 2, 2023 and ordered the parties to appear before Commissioner Christine Mulleneaux for trial on the issues.
 John Blanchard did not consult any party in connection to the dates he set for October 16th-19th and the 23rd-26th 2023 or if any party was willing to have the Commissioner hear the claims after both parties properly demanded a jury trial on all of their respective claims.
 
  SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
 
 On September 8, 2023, John Blanchard ordered the Casavellis into a settlement conference, see https://youtu.be/Qp1tM0AUaZY?t=21m40s where, the Johansons and their counsel was not willing to participate and neither party was given the option to participate, see Exhibit 11 (pg. 2 ¶2) “parties shall participate in a settlement conference with a judicial officer, this will be set by separate minute entry.” The court video (supra) was recorded on September 8, 2023 and Exhibit 11, is the corresponding minute entry ordering the parties into a settlement conference after
 Judge Blanchard had the understanding that it would not be productive.
 The Casavellis attempted to make contact with plaintiff’s counsel Brian Eastin, Brian Eastin would not return the phone call in regards to the settlement conference.
 The settlement conference was ordered under the threat of “Failure to comply with this Court Order may result in the imposition of court sanctions, pursuant to Rule 16(f) A.R.C.P.” see Exhibit 12.
 
  PLAINTIFF'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  21
 Plaintiffs have submitted an altered version of the jury instructions and other documents as shown on the ECR docket February 6, 2023 “PJI - Proposed Jury Instructions - PART 1 OF 1 - ID 15503735” to be used at trial, which is not in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Judge Blanchard has not ordered Brian Eastin to correct the submitted pretrial statement or jury instructions docketed as “ 02/06/2023 - PJI - Proposed Jury Instructions - PART 1 OF 1 - ID 15503735.”
 Judge John Blanchard has stated the record does not reflect the Casavellis won summary judgment of quiet title in equity mortgage on April 8, 2019, yet, every minute entry of a court proceeding states “A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.”
 This clearly states that the video record is the official court record.

 To highlight some of the events Judge Blanchard has presided over since rotating into this litigation;
o Made an errant ruling restricting the Casavellis from filing in the current live litigation.
o Intervened with the filing of a motion contesting the July 19, 2023 minute entry.
o Dissecting appellate court order and filing only one page at the counter or at a drop box.
o Has attempted to hide the Court of Appeals order by misplacing it or not filing on the docket.
o Attempted to tamper and has tampered with the official court record in connection with the Court of Appeals order.
o Temporarily Prevented the actual order from the appellate court from being posted on the ECR docket.
o Refused to correct the errant ruling on the July 19, 2023 minute entry as directed by the appellate court.
o Has not directed plaintiffs to respond to any filings by the Casavellis, especially trial exhibits that are in dispute.
o Has dismissed every motion, or request by the Casavellis without being fully briefed.
o Has removed all counterclaims by the Casavellis in a single minute entry without a hearing (Exhibit 3).22
o Allowed Brian Eastin to incite violence at a deposition https://youtu.be/CV96PRyDc-M.
o Will not sanction plaintiffs which are applicable under Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(h).
o Granted plaintiffs motions without a response or reply.
o Vacated a trial date one day before trial when plaintiffs’ counsel claimed to have Covid.
o Applied Covid protocols when there are no Covid protocols in place in the Superior Court.
o Has ignored in person admissions of conflict of interest between Bryan Eastin and Nicholas Casavelli.
o Has ignored Bryan Eastin admitting to unlawfully and procedurally serve a bank a subpoena before filing of this lawsuit.
o Printed the exhibits for trial for Brian Eastin and plaintiffs.
o Denied the Casavellis use of the electronic equipment at trial.
o Stated if any party wants the court to consider any documents, they must submit the “original.”
o Ignored the admission of Bryan Eastin and plaintiffs and their lack of standing via assignment of interest.
o Has denied all motions filed by the Casavellis.
o Has removed the Casavellis right to plaintiffs’ deposition.
o Has remove the Casavellis right to impeach plaintiffs’ testimony.
o Has not allowed the Casavellis to argue the late disclosure (4 years 5 months) of trial exhibits.
 
  PUBLIC SURVEY
  Before filing this brief, the Casavellis took a public survey and had 20 different people read this notice of appeal and the affidavit for change of judge for cause previously filed. It is not an easy task getting people to read a legal brief, nonetheless, the Casavellis had the 20 different read the legal brief, by the time they reached the end of page 6, all 20 people was convinced the Casavellis would not get a fair trial in front of this judge. These people were not and are not involved with this litigation, or have any information about this litigation. The only information they obtained was from this document and apparently was enough to convince them a fair trial cannot be obtained.23 Judge Danielle Viola did not view the change of judge for cause objectively, Judge Danielle Viola viewed the change of judge for cause in a way that is based on guessing or on opinions that have been formed without knowing all the facts. This fact is supported by the laws and rules quoted in this motion, where the change of judge for cause was to be sent to another division or another county to be determined and not within the same division as the noticed judge, in accord with A.R.S. § 12-409.
 
  CONFESSING WRONGDOINGS
  In September the Casavellis had a telephone conversation with Bryan Eastin, who is plaintiff’s attorney. Bryan Eastin stated to the Casavellis, when the Casavellis stated to Brian Eastin this favorable behavior of the court for the plaintiffs appears to be from a bribe. Brian Eastin responded with “it does, it does plenty.”
 One can only take the response in the context it was stated.
 Brian Eastin has been in the habit of confessing wrongdoings to the court as in the July 28, 2023 hearing (https://youtu.be/ENdPu6NEdG0).
 In this hearing on July 28, 2023, Brian Eastin stated and confessed to Judge John Blanchard and John Blanchard has allowed issues of;
1. Conflict of interest where Nick Casavelli retained Bryan Eastin for prior legal work.
2. Bryan Eastin Admitted to taking a judgment debtor exam on an interlocutory award.
3. Bryan Eastin Admits to getting Bank records via subpoena prior to filing this litigation.
4. Bryan Eastin Admitted to untimely disclosure of disclosure statements.
5. Allowed Bryan Eastin to incite violence at a deposition.
6. 36 motions of the Casavellis, Judge Blanchard has denied.
7. Has granted plaintiff’s motion before being fully briefed.
8. Granted plaintiffs a protective order for an LLC who is not a party to this case that Nick Casavelli is a member and managing agent of the LLC.
9. Assigning this litigation to a court commissioner.
10. Serving motions for the plaintiff.
11. Court Printed 3500 pgs. of trial exhibits for plaintiffs and Bryan Eastin.
12. Allowed plaintiff’s counsel Brian Eastin to interfere with the subpoena process.24
13. Judge Blanchard has acknowledged conflict of interest.
14. Judge Blanchard has acknowledged authentication issues with evidence.
15. Judge Blanchard Has not followed the appellate court’s mandate.
16. Judge Blanchard denied the Casavelli the right to the deposition.
17. Judge Blanchard is allowing plaintiffs to try claims to the bench without a waiver.
18. Judge Blanchard Ordered a settlement conference without the parties’ consent.
19. Judge Blanchard Allowed plaintiff’s counsel to write their own jury instructions.
20. Judge Blanchard has not stated accurately what the official court video depicts and what Judge Cohen clearly stated on June 14, 2019.
21. Judge Blanchard violated the Casavellis 14th amendment constitutional right.
22. Judge Blanchard has violated the Casavellis first amendment right to redress.
23. Judge Blanchard violated Casavellis rights in the Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 23.
24. John Blanchard violated the Casavellis rights of the Arizona Constitution Art. VI § 17.
25. Judge Blanchard has removed the Casavellis right to impeach plaintiffs’ testimony.
26. Judge Blanchard has not allowed the Casavellis to argue the late disclosure (4 years 5 months) of plaintiff’s trial exhibits.