#7003 Je. H. Er. H.

c/o 4360 Huntington Dr S Los Angeles California [NON-DOMESTIC] Petitioners, In Pro Per

In United States District Court In and For the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division
----------------------------------------X In re: A. H. et al., People Brought In Error Under the Juvenile Court Law. ----------------------------------------X Je. H. et al., Petitioners, On Habeas Corpus. ----------------------------------------X

Case No. CV 12-7534-CAS(JC) L.A.Co.Sup.Ct. No. CK57697 WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT

THE COURT COMES NOW to review the facts, record, and process resulting in the rulings dated 31AUG2012: 1. The record shows that this court of record held a hearing on 31AUG2012 for the purpose of considering

WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 1

#7003 Petitioners' writ of habeas corpus for the release of their seven children from custody. 2. Plaintiff was not present in personam, but it appears that Respondents, though absent, were represented by the Hon. CHRISTINA A. SNYDER. 3. The record shows (Civil Minutes, Pages 1-3) that the magistrate did not conduct the hearing in accordance with either the stated rules of court (the law decreed in Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed 31AUG2012, Pages 18-25) or the foundation rules of a court of record (Judicial Notice, filed 09/10/2012, Page 1, no. 1). 4. Further, without proper authority, the magistrate stepped out of her function as a magistrate and, by her actions and statements, figuratively assumed the cloak of a tribunal (Civil Minutes, Page 2, section II, (A.) paragraph 1). The magistrate proceeded to assume that the action was in equity and not at law (see Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, page one, paragraph one, filed 31AUG2012), and therefore moved herself to expunge the common law writ that had already issued (as ordered in the Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed 31AUG2012). The magistrate cites cases decided in equity to support her dismissal of a court of record. It appears to this court that the magistrate
WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 2

#7003 has confused two different courts, her court, a court of equity, and and this court, a court of record (see U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 2). 5. A proceeding, held in secret, behind closed doors, requiring petitioners to be represented by counsel, and if they are not assisted by counsel, they are considered in sin smacks of a Star Chamber and any decision made therein is inherently unconstitutional (see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975)). 6. The magistrate had no authority to act except to schedule a case management hearing as soon as possible, due to the exigency of the circumstances (newborn breastfed baby allegedly unlawfully kidnapped by government agents in order to deprive custody) and ensure that all parties had been duly served. Instead, whether by incompetency, misconduct, or neglect of duty, the magistrate held a star chamber hearing in order to serve a writ of praecipe so as to cause a free people in the aboveentitled case to lose their court. 7. In the introduction of her unlawful dismissal, the magistrate made it perfectly clear that she was proceeding under the assumption that Petitioners were Fourteenth Amendment Citizens, which,
WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 3

#7003 according to the petition (see Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, page one, paragraph one, filed 31AUG2012), is not the case. Petitioners were clear that they are neither California Citizens, nor US Citizens, but California Nationals and any order assuming the contrary is hereby null and void ab initio because it is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our government (see Public Law 15, Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27 1868). 8. The tribunal judgment to dismiss writ by a magistrate could be ruled as a contempt of this court, a trespass on Petitioners, and trespass on Petitioners' case. The magistrate conducted her own court, without notice or concurrence of the parties, and without due process. Not satisfied with the lawful rules of court, she arbitrarily imposed her own rules (Civil Minutes, Page 2, section II, (A.) paragraph 1), and at other points, rules of another jurisdiction foreign to this court (Civil Minutes, Page 2, section II, (A.) paragraphs 2 and 3). 9. The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of the American People and Californians to settle issues in a court of record, if they so choose.

WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 4

#7003 10. The record shows that the rules of the court were

not followed, that the magistrate attempted to function as a tribunal, and that the court was ineffective in furthering the goal of justice for all. These failures to follow the prescribed procedures are sufficiently disruptive to the goal of providing fair justice that the court finds it necessary to issue a writ of error quae coram nobis residant as follows: 11. THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE RULING WAS ISSUED, and finding that the magistrate rendered a ruling by applying rules from several jurisdictions foreign to this court without leave of court; and finding that the orderly decorum of the court was replaced by defective impromptu process and usurpation of legislative and court powers without leave of court, 12. And, finding that there is partial merit in the prosecutors Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, namely that the action, though barely sufficient, should contain a complete statement of facts upon which to grant relief, 13. 14. And, desiring that fair justice be served for all NOW THEREFORE, THE COURT issues this WRIT parties, Respondents as well as Petitioners, OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT, to wit:
WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 5

#7003 15. 16. The court rescinds all rulings entered Further, the court orders that in the interest of

31AUG2012. justice and fair play to all parties, petitioners and respondents, and with the concurrence of petitioner, that the case is dismissed with prejudice if the Petitioners do not file a new petition on or before 01SEPT2012. 1. Further, the court orders that if the defendant chooses to file an answer to the first amended action, then the filing fees paid for the answer filed under the rescinded court order are applied to that answer to the first amended action; for the court wills not the pains of its error on the defendants. 2. Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other interested parties a brief no later than June 7, 1999 to show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented. 3. Further, the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 7, 1999, will be reset to a date determined by the clerk, no later than September 6, 1999 unless for good cause.x
WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 6

#7003 THE COURT Dated: AUGUST 31, 2012. WITNESS THE SEAL ___________________ Je. H. Er. H.

WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT CV12- 7534 CAS (JC) - In re: A. H. et. al. 7