Nihildicit Recuse MaryArand 6-16-15 SeatbeltAppeal

1
2
3
4
5
HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, Executrix

Sui Juris, the natural living woman
c/o U.S.P.O. Postmaster, c/o temporary mailing location
PO Box Nine-Zero-Four-Five-Two, near San Jose,
at Santa Clara County, on California, [zip code exempt]
DMM Reg., Sec 122.32, Public Law 91-375, Sec. 403
Tel: 408-830-6266
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Appellate Division, Admiralty Law Form, Limited Civil Jurisdiction
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Appellant
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)
Appellee
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)
Plaintiff
vs.
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001829

Trial Court Case No.: 7-09-TR-562668
GUANCIONE vs PEOPLE
Appellant Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the
natural living woman takes a Nihil Dicit Default,
which is a no recourse default in Admiralty, also
called a with prejudice default in Admiralty,
against Judge Mary E. Arand for failure to
specifically and explicitly answer each numbered
paragraph, as a material fact, with either Admit,
Deny, or Deny for Want of Knowledge in
accordance with C.C.P. 431.30 and passing on
the sufficiency of her own recusal in violation of
C.C.P. 170.3(c)(5) in bad faith to bypass a
hearing review of the motion for disqualification
pursuant to C.C.P. 170.3(c)(4), 170.3(c)(5) in
the:
1) OBJECTION TO JUDGE MARY E. ARAND
FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE , to be
filed Instantor
26
Page 1 of 54
27
Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,
28
for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

Rosalie Aubre Guancione, aka HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia s
Notice of Nihil Dicit Default in Admiralty (with prejudice default, no recourse default)
taken on 6/16/15 in Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
) Count 1: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)
Count 2: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Count 3: Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
Count 4: Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)
Count 5: Denial of Civil Rights to Due Process,
4th, 5th and 14th Amendments fed. Const. of 1787
and Calif. Const. Art. 1 1, 7
Count 6: Unreported and Undisclosed
Acceptance of Bribes in Violation of PC 93, and
18 U.S.C. 1346
2) Unrebutted Memorandum
3) Incorporated by Reference as if fully
incorporated herein: Case #1-07-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint,
including Unrebutted Affidavits documenting
Disqualification of Judges and Immunity to all
State Court Jurisdiction;
4) Exhibit Email from Auditor on Unrebutted
County Bribes
5) Exhibit judicially noticed evidence:
Exhibit B: Unrebutted Affidavits of Truth
regarding Bias,
Exhibit C: Unrebutted Affidavits of Truth
regarding Bias,
Exhibit D: Unrebutted Affidavits of Truth
regarding Bias,
Exhibit E: Unrebutted Affidavits of Truth
regarding Bias, and
Exhibit F: Unrebutted Affidavits of Truth
regarding Bias
[C.C.P. 431.10 thru 431.70
22
Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code 2071

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
23
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or
24
destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,
25
proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any
26
Page 2 of 54
27
28

clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any
judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document,
paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not
include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
10
United States.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also
known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living woman, and Estate Executrix
for ROSALIE GUANCIONE, takes a Nihil Dicit Default, which is a no recourse
default in Admiralty, also known as a default with prejudice in Admiralty, of the
Affidavit of Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand, due to disqualification for cause, based
upon numerous reasons cited in the Affidavit and the 6 judicially noticed supporting
Affidavits (which are evidence under the evidence code, and which are established as
truth and fact when unrebutted under the evidence code) and the email from the County
Auditor (which is established as evidence under the evidence code and fact when
unrebutted under the evidence code) attached to the Affidavit of Objection to Judge. This
default is taken timely in that the judge is still in office and the clock does not start to
run until the public servant leaves office. Judge Mary E. Arand admitted to the
23
material facts in the Affidavit of Objection pursuant to C.C.P. 431.10, 431.30,
24
that civil rights federal law Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3;
25
26
Title 28 U.S.C. 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons

Page 3 of 54
27
28

1, 2, 3.B.6, and 6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA PC 92,
93, Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities cited in the memorandum
herein, and Affidavits filed into Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross
complaint (which are established as evidence under the evidence code, and as truth and
fact when unrebutted under the evidence code, and the time to object to those Affidavits
has past and been defaulted), and as Judicially Noticed Evidence in UNITED STATES
BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie
Aubre Guancione, Case 11-57656 ASW (previously served on Judge Mary E. Arand);
all apply to the recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand.
10
11
12
Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause

AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
)
)ss
)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
15
Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
16
living woman, over the age of 18, who makes these statements under oath and after first
17
being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these
18
facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge.
19
1.
20
SANTA CLARA, on June 16, 2015.
21
2.
22
misleading
23
24
3.
Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts
stated herein.
25
26
Page 4 of 54
27
28

4.
occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
5.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman, is the Estate Executrix for the
Defendant ROSALIE GUANCIONE.
6.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural
living woman.
7.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that HI&RH Empress
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is a non-corporate, a non-combatant, private citizen and a

real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood, natural born living woman, who is living,
breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean hands, rectus curia.
8.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without
reservation.
9.
Your Affiant states that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the
facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.

10.
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Empress Aubre
Regina Dei Gratia, has met with and been examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.
11.
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Dr. Marshall Williams
has an unrestricted licensed to practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF

CALIFORNIA.
12.
is recognized as a competent medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
23
13.
24
performed a physical examination on Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
25
living woman, on January 21, 2013.
26
Page 5 of 54
27
28

14.
determined that on January 21, 2013, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is living, and
NOT
15.
memorialized the results of his examination of the undersigned, as a living natural
woman in a separate Affidavit attached and fully incorporated by reference as if fully
incorporated herein.
16.
examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall Williams dated January 21, 2013, are
deceased.
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the physical
10
unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is a natural individual, and a sentient living
11
mortal human being.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17.
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that an all upper case
formatted name applies only to vessels at sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a
deceased individuals name on a tombstone, or; a corporation.
18.
Your Affiant states and Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the aforementioned
medical examination proved that an all upper case formatted name was misapplied to the
undersigned, by the court.
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted to the Truthfulness of the following Material Facts
regarding Pro Se/pro per Standards
19.
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

20.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Pursuant to the UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro
se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyers and/or
attorneys.
25
26
Page 6 of 54
27
28

21.
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro
se/pro per motions, pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and
never their form.
22.
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the
undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in proper persona.
23.
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se
10
litigants complaints, pleadings and other papers are exempt from dismissal for form not
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
function.
24.
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se
Petitions cannot be dismissed without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se
litigant to correct the Petition.
25.
court MUST inform the pro se litigant of the Petitions deficiency.
26.
court must instruct the pro se litigant on the necessary instructions.
27.
STATES SUPREME COURT, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro
se litigant may introduce any evidence in support of his Petition.
24
25
26
Page 7 of 54
27
28

28.
dismisses the pro se litigants complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are
deficient and how to repair the pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.
29.
(inalienable and guaranteed) rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart
from precedent, where parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States,
223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Court errs if the court
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Litigants' constitutional
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted the following are Governing Rules of this Case
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
30.

31.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted, In the name of God, with the
gaze of Our Lord, that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia is appearing specially and
not generally, vi et armis, in defense of her rights and that of the ROSALIE
GUANCIONE, trust estate
32.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that your Affiant is claiming,
exercising and invoking ALL RIGHTS, including but not limited to God granted Rights,
inalienable rights, human Rights, and all Rights guaranteed and protected by the united
States Constitution, the California Constitution, the Universal Postal Union Treaty and
other unspecified International Treaties.
33.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that your Affiant is the
Appellant in the case sub judice, and is a misconstrued Party in the trial court case against
ROSALIE GUANCIONE that this appeal derives from.
23
34.
24
incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR
25
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Traffic Court case file:

Page 8 of 54
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned adapts and
27
28

7-09-TR-562668.
35.
reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings,
Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
36.
incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Civil Unlimited
Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.
37.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the incorporation by
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned adapts and
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the incorporation by
10
reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings,
11
Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned submits the
following facts, law and authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.
39.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the instant case is
governed by, inter alia, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, inter alia, the
Federal Rules of Evidence and, inter alia, the United States Code and, inter alia, the
united States Constitution of 1787 and, inter alia, the amendments thereto including
the original 13th Amendment and, inter alia, the California Constitution and, inter alia,
the Treaty of Paris of 1781 and, inter alia, the Hague Convention and, inter alia, the
Universal Postal Union Treaty and, inter alia, ALL other human rights treaties and, inter
alia, the Affidavit Memorializing Conversations Regarding Self Disqualification of
Judges in COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and inter alia, the Affidavit of Nihil Dicit
and of Tacit Agreement filed on or about 35 days later. all estoppels on government
agencies and/or agents, and others and, inter alia. These Rules and Laws have not
been abrogated.
25
26
Page 9 of 54
27
28

1
2
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted the Truthfulness of each of the following Material
Facts as STATEMENTS OF FACT
40.
41.
paragraph, as a material fact, in the Affidavit of OBJECTION TO JUDGE MARY E.
ARAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE as required by statute with either an
Admit, Deny, or Deny for Want of Knowledge in accordance with C.C.P. 431.30.
42.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand failed answer each numbered
Your Affiant states that when a judge passes on their own recusal that is a violation
10
of C.C.P. 170.3(c)(5).
11
43.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that when a judge passes on their own recusal in violation of
C.C.P. 170.3(c)(5), that is bad faith.

44.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand passed on the sufficiency of the
Affidavit of Objection to Judge for Disqualification for Cause in the instant case in her
own recusal.
45.
Affidavit of Objection to Judge for Disqualification for Cause in her own recusal in the
instant case in violation of C.C.P. 170.3(c)(5).
46.
Affidavit of Objection to Judge for Disqualification for Cause in her own recusal in the
instant case in bad faith.
47.
Your Affiant states that striking an Affidavit is not an answer to an Affidavit.
48.
Your Affiant states that when a judge objects to a motion for Objection to Judge
for Disqualification for Cause, the proper response for the challenged Judge is to answer
24
the Affidavit with an Opposing Affidavit, and then to notify the presiding judge, so that
25
the presiding judge can appoint a neutral judge to hear the motion on Objection to Judge
Page 10 of 54
26
27
28

for Disqualification for Cause, in accordance with C.C.P. 170.3(c)(4), 170.3(c)(5).
49.
procedure to oppose the Objection to Judge for Disqualification for Cause.
50.
51.
examinations prove that an all upper case formatted name was misapplied and
misattributed to the undersigned, a natural living woman, and NOT a deceased person,
legal fiction, or a vessel at sea, by Judge Mary E. Arand.
52.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has not followed the correct
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the aforementioned medical
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the all upper case name was
10
applied to fraudulently capture jurisdiction over the undersigned, by a corporate court,
11
that deliberately misconstrued the undersigned as other than a natural living woman.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
53.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the all capitalized format of
the undersigneds name in all the court correspondence, in the instant case, indicates that
the undersigned is no longer among the living.
54.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is NOT
deceased.
55.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand used
the all capitalized format for the undersigneds names.

56.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the use of the all capitalized
format for the undersigneds name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court record.
57.
format for the undersigneds name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court.
58.
format for the undersigneds name was deliberate subterfuge upon your Affiant.
24
59.
25
format for the undersigneds names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic
Page 11 of 54
26
27
28

deceit.
60.
is a type of fraud.
61.
semantic deceit to commit fraud upon the court record.
62.
semantic deceit to commit fraud upon the undersigned.
63.
name of a living man/woman is illegal, under the U.S. postal codes without the express
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the use of semantic deceit
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the use of an all capitalized
(written and verified) permission of the natural living man/woman.

64.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that usage of fictitious names or
addresses (ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) in a private individuals name, or a ZIP CODE,

against the individuals wishes, is a crime under Title 39 U.S.C. 3003, Title 18 U.S.C.
1302, 1341, 1342, and is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and
$1,000,000.00 fine.
65.
semantic deceit by use of the all capitalized name ROSALIE GUANCIONE in the
instant case, to knowingly, willfully and wantonly, claim jurisdiction over the
undersigned Secured Party and natural woman.
66.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013, David H.
Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY for
the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, each agreed that they DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
UNDERSIGNED,
67.
as judicially noticed in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013, David H.
26
Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY for
Page 12 of 54
27
28

the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, each agreed that the undersigned is a Secured Party, which is a status that
has standing above that of all incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.
68.
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which
included Judge Mary E. Arand, agreed that they did not have jurisdiction over the
undersigned, as judicially noticed in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
69.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013 all 104 judges in
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013 all 104 judges of
10
included Judge Mary E. Arand, agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, which is a
11
status that has standing above that of all incorporated courts, including the above
12
captioned court.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
70.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013 all 104 judges of

included Judge Mary E. Arand, agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, with
immunity to all state incorporated courts.
71.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in 2013 all 104 judges in

included Judge Mary E. Arand, self recused in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
STEWART and cross complaint, a case in which the undersigned was a party.
72.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the state court is a
corporation, also known as the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no

jurisdiction over the natural living man/woman.
73.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious business name for the legal fiction incorporated in
25
26
Page 13 of 54
27
28

Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
74.
countyname court is a wholly owned, for profit, subsidiary, or division, of the
incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
75.
acknowledgments of lack of jurisdiction by public officials regarding the undersigned in
all state incorporated courts was filed as judicially noticed evidence into numerous other
federal court cases, including the U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubre Guancione, case no. 11-57656
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that each COUNTY OF
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the aforementioned
ASW.
76.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned, as
executrix, has never expressly consented to the use of the estate ROSALIE
GUANCIONEs name by either the state court nor by Judge Mary E. Arand in any form
or manner or in any arena.
77.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned real and
natural living woman Aubre Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia,
does NOT hold the office of person.
78.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the semantic deceit by
Judge Mary E. Arand was committed in order to treat this case as an uncontested division
of assets outside of either the probate court or the bankruptcy court.
79.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that this semantic deceit by
Judge Mary E. Arand was a deliberate contrivance to facilitate the theft of the Defendant
and the undersigneds assets.
23
80.
24
or assign the assets of the undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is
25
deceased.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the court may not disperse
26
Page 14 of 54
27
28

81.
examinations prove that an all upper case formatted name was misapplied to the
undersigned by the Clerk of the Court, and Deputy Clerks using David H. Yamasakis
delegated signature authority, in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA.
82.
examinations prove that an all upper case formatted name was misapplied to the
undersigned by judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
83.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the unauthorized use of the
Defendants name in all upper case format violated the ROSALIE GUANCIONE,
estate name copyright.
84.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned had filed
the estate copyright notice into the public record on a UCC-1 in the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF WASHINGTON, SANTA CLARA
COUNTY, and KING COUNTY.
85.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned had a
reasonable expectation that the copyright over the all capitalized name would not be
infringed by any of the judicial officers of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
86.
reasonable expectation that the estates copyright would not be infringed by the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
87.
23
reasonable expectation that the estates copyright would not be infringed by either the
24
Clerk, any of the Deputy Clerks of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
25
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
26
Page 15 of 54
27
28

88.
estates copyrighted name in all upper case format violated the undersigneds civil rights
to her lien on the copyright ownership.
89.
the estates name in all upper case format is $500,000.
90.
unauthorized use of the estates name in all upper case format is treble damages.
91.
the undersigneds name in all upper case format is the license fee and the penalty, or $2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the unlicensed use of the
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the license fee for use of
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the penalty for
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that each unauthorized use of
million USD.
92.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand has
performed unauthorized use of the estates name in all upper case format and is
personally and individually responsible for damages for each instance of $2 million USD.
93.
been recused in a prior case involving the undersigned.

94.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand acted
without jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case 1-07-CV189409, SFPCU v. STEWART in 2008.
95.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the prior recusal of Judge
Mary E. Arand establishes proof of the bias and prejudice of Judge Mary E. Arand
against the undersigned.
96.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand has a
bias and a prejudice against the undersigned.

97.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand HAS
A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE
PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY, a
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA employee.

Page 16 of 54
27
28

98.
A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
verdicts for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
99.
A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
which the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA receives money.
100.
BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE
case outcomes that include favorable
case outcomes that include verdicts in
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY, COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DUE TO

that Judge Mary E. Arand has received and continues to receive
10
REGULAR PAYMENTS
11
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. (see exhibit attached from County Auditor)
12
101.
13
Arand HAS RECEIVED AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE from the COUNTY OF
14
SANTA CLARA are called local judicial benefits. (see exhibit attached from County
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the payments that Mary E.
Auditor)
102.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the term local judicial
benefits is semantic deceit for bribes to judges by other than the judges employer of
record.
103.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the payments that Mary E.
Arand HAS RECEIVED AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE from the COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA constitute bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
case law, see federal case law on bribery cited below, see exhibit attached from County
Auditor.
104.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that no other proof is required
to establish the quid-pro-quo between Judge Mary E. Arand and the COUNTY OF
25
26
Page 17 of 54
27
28

SANTA CLARA pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see
federal case law on bribery cited below, see exhibit attached from County Auditor.
105.
Judge Mary E. Arand and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE
UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND PREJUDICE in favor of the Plaintiffs attorney, the
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
106.
CLARA receives a portion of the payment of the fine in every traffic ticket case heard in
the courts of the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in which a guilty verdict is rendered
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the quid-pro-quo between
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the COUNTY OF SANTA
10
against a Defendant.
11
107.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
misconstrued to be the Defendant in the instant traffic ticket case.

108.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the quid-pro-quo is
present in the instant case between Judge Mary E. Arand and the COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA.
109.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a judge whose impartiality
might reasonably be questioned has a mandatory duty to self recuse pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. section 455(a).
110.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Title 28 U.S.C. section
455(a) states:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
21
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
22
23
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is
questioned.
111.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that where a judge has a
24
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, he has a mandatory requirement to self
25
recuse pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b).

Page 18 of 54
26
27
28

112.
455(b) states:
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Title 28 U.S.C. section
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private
practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom
he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the
10
proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
11
controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or
12
minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter
13
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be
14
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a
15
person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of
16
such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of
17
a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to
18
have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
19
proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the
20
21
22
23
proceeding.
113.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the judges in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA are subject to the laws in Title 28 U.S.C. section
144 and Title 28 U.S.C. section 455.
24
25
26
Page 19 of 54
27
28

114.
agreed in the SFPCU v Stewart Case in 2013 that SHE HAS A LIFE TIME BAR TO
HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THE UNDERSIGNED AS A
115.
WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
116.
in fraud in the instant case by issuing any rulings.
117.
denied the undersigned her civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand
PARTY.
in her rulings in the case sub judice.
law, by issuing rulings in the case sub judice without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.
118.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that when a judge acts without
jurisdiction, that is known as in corum non judice.

119.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that at the moment a judge
performs an act or acts in violation of a litigants civil rights, the JUDGE IS ACTING
OUTSIDE OF HIS OFFICE AS JUDGE ,
120.
and WITHOUT THE IMMUNITY of his office.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a judge acting outside their
office as judge is acting in their private capacity, WITHOUT IMMUNITY TO EITHER

CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR LAW SUIT,
pursuant to MILLBROOK v.
UNITED STATES.
121.
WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
122.
at all times in the instant appeal.
DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY AND WANTONLY ACTED TO DISREGARD A DUTY TO SELF

RECUSE
at all times in the appeal sub judice.
24
25
26
Page 20 of 54
27
28

123.
NO immunity to either civil or criminal prosecution or law suit for her actions in
violation of the undersigneds civil rights, or that of the ROSALIE GUANCIONE
estate or trust, based upon the fraud in the instant case.
124.
given notice of all disqualified judges at the start of the appeal sub judice, pursuant to
their self recusal in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
125.
an up to date list of their conflicts of interest.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand was
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that judges are required to keep
10
126.
11
and inform themselves of their conflicts of interest, personally and thru their relatives up
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that judges are required to know
to and including the third civil familial degree.

127.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that all judges in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the

OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY COUNSEL and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an
Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia
(aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III,
MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN
FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE
NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER
2008 stating that all judges in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT
24
OF CALIFORNIA, self disqualified in Nov. 2008, in a case involving Your Affiant.
25
128.
26
Page 21 of 54
27
28

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2008 stating that all judges in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA, have a lifetime bar to hearing any cases involving Your Affiant.
129.

23
2008 stating that your Affiant has immunity to all state court jurisdiction.
24
130.
25
COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
Page 22 of 54
26
Your Affiants state Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Affidavit of CROSS-
27
28

Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B.
Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony
Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG
WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stated that your
Affiant is NOT a U.S. citizen.
131.
COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B.
10
Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Affidavit of CROSS-
Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG

WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stated that your
Affiant is an American National under Federal Law 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
132.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that state court Judge Mary E.
Arand, recused herself in November 2008, in state court case 107-CV-189409, a case
involving Your Affiant as a party SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.
133.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that corporations, including the
incorporated SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do NOT have any jurisdiction over

a natural living man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.
134.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in the US SUPREME
COURT ruling of Penhallow v Doanes Administraters, corporate courts can only

interface and have jurisdiction over other artificial persons.
23
135.
24
STATE OF NEW YORK, the NEW YORK STATE SECRETARY OF STATE recognized
25
that the undersigned is a Secured Party Creditor whose standing is above the courts.
Page 23 of 54
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that in an official act by the
27
28

136.
Section I of the federal Constitution, the Full Faith & Credit Clause, this state court
must accept official acts, rulings and/or laws of any other state.
137.
reasonable expectation of immunity from all state court jurisdiction due to her established
standing as a Secured Party.
138.
previously agreed formally, in March 2013, by affidavit, that in November 2008, that she,
Judge Mary E. Arand, had a lifetime bar from ruling in any case that involved your
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that pursuant to Article IV
Affiant.
139.
semantic deceit in falsely claiming that it was the responsibility of the undersigned to
prove a negative in her order of May 15, 2015.
140.
semantic deceit in her order dated May 15, 2015 implying that it was the responsibility
of the undersigned to prove that the undersigned had not received notice of an order.
141.
semantic deceit in her order dated May 15, 2015, implying that there was any law that
the Defendant could be tried without an attorney present and without the Defendants
presence in the court.
142.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Commissioner in the
trial court case for the instant appeal ordered the self represented Defendant/the
undersigned removed from the trial court hearing without any attorney present to
23
represent the Defendant/the undersigneds interests, in violation of the undersigneds civil
24
rights on December 28, 2009.
25
143.
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that it is BLATANTLY ILLEGAL
Page 24 of 54
27
28

to conduct a trial that denies the accused access to the trial court, when the accused is self
represented.
144.
the accused is denied access to the court, and there is no attorney to represent the interests
of the accused, is fraud.
145.
knowingly, willfully and wantonly failed to perform her duty to uphold her oath of office
to support and faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States, and the civil rights
of the undersigned, thru either semantic deceit; the misapplication of a law; or thru the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that conducting a trial wherein
use of a law that is repugnant to the Constitution regarding due process and equal
protection, in application of a time constraint on notice of appeal that ignores the legal
right to notice.
146.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that when a judge receives
payments or payments in kind from an individual or entity who is NOT his/her employer
of record, those payments must be disclosed.
147.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the state law SBX 211,
giving judges immunity in this instance, cannot supersede the state constitution because it
VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION
because it creates more than one class of
citizens.
148.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the employer of record for
state court judges is the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

149.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the payments from the
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in cash or in kind, to Judge Mary E. Arand,

CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS
150.
of California Penal Code 92, 93.
25
26
Page 25 of 54
27
28

on the quid-pro-quo by issuing an erroneous and void judgment, WITHOUT
JURISDICTION,
151.
agreed to her lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party,
in her failure to answer an Affidavit served upon her and filed into the public record, as
supported by the following case law.
152.
notice to Judge Mary E. Arand to answer, than the Traffic Court gave to the undersigned
in which the case that this appeal is based.
in the instant appeal.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned gave more
10
153.
11
declares that the undersigned can be held to unnoticed orders as enforceable.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
154.
noticed by unrebutted Affidavit of the previous recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand and of
the standing of the undersigned as a Secured Party, with immunity to all state court
jurisdiction.
155.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the instant case is an
infraction case, which is a civil case and not a criminal case.

156.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the immunity of a Secured
Party does apply to civil cases.

157.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the legal maxims, common
law, case law, and civil rules regarding the requirement to answer an Affidavit, and how
to answer it, are contained in the memorandum, for brevity herein.
158.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Appellant now
objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Mary E. Arand in the above entitled matter
24
under C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Section 144 and Section 455; and Marshall v
25
Jerrico Inc.; 446 US 238, 242; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).
Page 26 of 54
26
27
28

159.
Judge Mary E. Arand are C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, Title 28 U.S.C. 144, 455, 455(a),
455(b)(1), 45(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule
201, the case law and common law and maxims of law set forth in the memorandum
herein, and Judge Mary E. Arand admissions, as set forth in judicially noticed
evidence sets previously filed into the instant case, the trial court case, other
incorporated case records, and other federal cases, and incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
160.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted the grounds to recuse
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that "State courts, like federal
courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold

Federal law."
161.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that RI Supreme Court Article
VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6 are also applicable to recusal.

162.
has in the past deliberately violated other litigant's personal liberties, and/or, has
wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before
the court or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full,
fair, impartial hearings.
163.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is NOT a
14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED STATES) citizen/an employee of the corporation.

164.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is
established and recognized as a Secured Party and an American National under Federal
Law 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
23
165.
24
Constitution guarantees a neutral (an unbiased) Judge who will always provide litigants
25
with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.

Page 27 of 54
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the United States
27
28

166.
demands that Judge Mary E. Arand self recuse in light of the judicially noticed evidence
incorporated herein by reference, as if fully incorporated herein, detailing prior unethical
and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives your Affiant good reason to believe Judge
Mary E. Arand cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner.
167.
concealed from litigants bribes that she has received. See federal case law on bribery
below.
168.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Appellant respectfully
engaged in an undisclosed quid pro quo with the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See
federal case law on bribery below.
169.
has engaged in a scheme or artifice to deprive litigants appearing before her, of the
intangible right of honest services, by accepting undisclosed bribes from the
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 1346.
18
Judge Mary E. Arand Admitted that the following is FEDERAL CASE LAW ON
BRIBERY
(MEMORANDUM INSERTED IN MIDDLE OF AFFIDAVIT)
Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346 Scheme To Defraud The Public Of
19
18 U.S.C 201 provides: (Addendum 1)
17
20
21
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that In the U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.
22
(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,
23
24
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that The US SUPREME COURT has explained, in
25
interpreting the federal bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, that bribery requires
26
Page 28 of 54
27
28

a quid pro quo, which includes an intent to influence an official act or to be
influenced in an official act. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S.
398, 404, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 201(b)). This
may be contrasted to both a gratuity, which may constitute merely a reward for some
future act that the public official will take (and may already have determined to take), or
for a past act that he has already taken, and to a noncriminal gift extended to a public
official merely to build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more
of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the future. Id. at 405, 119 S.Ct. 1402. This
discussion is equally applicable to bribery in the honest services fraud context, and we
10
11
thus conclude that bribery requires a specific intent to give or re-ceive something of
value in exchange for an official act. Id. at 404-05, 119 S.Ct. 1402.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that In the U.S. v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 78
Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1185, (9th Cir.(Nev.) Feb 20, 2009), the court stated,
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that [W]e agree that at least an implicit quid pro quo
is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 28182.
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282
the court stated in,
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95
S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). [ ]the instructions proffered by the District Court
23
repeatedly emphasized the critical quid pro quo, explaining that [t]o establish such
24
bribery the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro
25
quo, ... that the benefit was offered in ex-change for the official act. (App. at 9642.) The
Page 29 of 54
26
27
28

Court continued, where there is a stream of benefits given by a person to favor a public
official, ... it need not be shown that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a
specific official act. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a person gave an official a
stream of benefits in implicit exchange for one or more official acts, you may conclude
that a bribery has occurred. (App. at 9643.) Finally, the Court explained,*282 [t]o find
the giver of a benefit guilty, you must find that the giver had a specific intent to give ...
something of value in exchange for an official act, that is, that the accused had the
specific intent to engage in such a quid pro quo exchange. (App. at 9643-44.) This
instruction correctly described the law of bribery
10
11
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that And the court stated at p. 282,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the
parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action; the
government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a
specific official act. See United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir.1998).
Rather, [t]he quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a
course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a
pattern of official actions favorable to the donor. Id. Thus, payments may be made
with the intent to retain the official's services on an as needed basis, so that whenever
the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf.
Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 730 (1st Cir.1996) (stating that a
person with continuing and long-term interests before an official might engage in a
23
pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to coax ongoing favorable
24
official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial official services). While the
25
26
form and number of gifts may vary, the gifts still constitute a bribe as long as the essential
Page 30 of 54
27
28

intent-a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official
act-exists.
3
4
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that In the 2008 impeachment of Federal Judge G.
Thomas Porteus, Judicial Conference of the United States, Secretary James C. Duff,
wrote in Certificate and report to the House of Representatives, dated June 18, 2008, I
refer to and incorp a true and correct copy.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Porteus willfully and systematically
concealed from litigants and the public financial transactions, including but not limited to
those designated in (d:, by filing false financial disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of the Code of Conduct Of United States
Judges, which require the disclosure of income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct
made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or to challenge his failure to recuse
himself in cases in which lawyers who appeared before him had given him cash and other
things of value for the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that In applying this case to cases involving the
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, or its employees, contractors, or agents, under authority
of the laws that are in force and effect Judge Mary E. Arand willfully concealed from
litigants the public financial transactions including but not limited to those designated in
(d, by filing false financial disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App.
4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the
disclosure of income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for
24
litigants to seek recusal or to challenge her failure to recuse herself in cases in which
25
partys who appeared before her had given her things of value.
Page 31 of 54
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
170.
Judge Mary E. Arand admitted to RECUSAL COUNT #1

C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

171.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that CCP 170.3 states in
relevant part (a)(1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge
shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further
participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her
disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).
172.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned has NEVER
10
WAIVED
11
173.
12
admitted thru self recusal that she was disqualified in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
13
STEWART and cross complaint that involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei
14
Gratia, also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, as a party, though it was not put
15
into writing at the time by the clerks of the court but was later documented in 2013.
16
174.
17
admitted through self recusal that she was disqualified in Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU
18
v. STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.
19
175.
20
admitted this disqualification and her lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which the
21
undersigned is a party through her failure to rebut an Affidavit Memorializing her self
22
recusal from Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint involving
23
the undersigned.
24
176.
25
the disqualification of Judge Mary E. Arand as provided in subdivision (b).
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that this admission was made
under the Doctrine of Silence is Agreement (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).
26
Page 32 of 54
27
28

177.
admitted pursuant to the doctrine of Silence is Agreement, in case #107-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that Judge Mary E. Arand has a lifetime bar to
jurisdiction in all cases involving the following party: Rosalie Aubre Guancione also
known as HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
178.
Memorializing the self recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand, and the Nihil Dicit (no
recourse default in Admiralty with prejudice), are filed into both Case #107-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and separately into U.S. BANKRUPTCY
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Affidavit
10
COURT case #11-57656 ASW, In Re: Rosalie Aubre Guancione, as judicially noticed
11
evidence documents 214 thru 214-4.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
179.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that each of the aforementioned
documents are incorporated by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.

180.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a failure to sustain this
recusal action is a violation that has both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US
Code 1983, 1988, and U.S. SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of
Independence.
181.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the attached Exhibit of
payments from the County Auditor, and the judicially noticed exhibits B, C, D, E, F:
Affidavits of Truth, support the allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)
21
22
182.
23
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
24
herein.
25
26
Page 33 of 54
27
28

183.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that CCP 170.3(b) states in
relevant part: (2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefore is
either of the following: (A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party. Emphasis added.
184.
personal bias and / or, prejudice against the undersigned party.
185.
A BIAS OR PREJUDICE
SANTA CLARA that established a quid -pro-quo relationship between her and the
because she has accepted bribes from the COUNTY OF
10
Plaintiff in the instant case. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C.
11
1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law provided above.
12
186.
13
provided with evidence in the court record that was clear proof, and prima facie evidence,
14
that the undersigned possesses immunity to all state incorporated courts in civil
15
proceedings, including the case sub judice, an infraction that is considered a civil case.
16
187.
17
American National pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
18
188.
19
Guancione, also known as, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living
20
woman and the undersigned, is formally established as an American National and
21
Secured Party Creditor.
22
189.
23
Guancione, also known as, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living
24
woman and the undersigned, is NOT under the jurisdiction of this incorporated court.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is an
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Rosalie Aubre
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Rosalie Aubre
25
26
Page 34 of 54
27
28

190.
waived the disqualification of Judge Mary E. Arand to hear cases in which the
undersigned is a party.
191.
waived the absence of jurisdiction of this incorporated state court in cases in which the
6
7
undersigned is construed to be a party.

192. Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned is an
American National with immunity to incorporated state court jurisdiction as a Secured
Party Creditor.
10
193.
11
and credit clause of the federal Constitution, THIS COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that the
12
SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK has recognized the secured party
13
status of HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia in an official act, pursuant to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that pursuant to the full faith
FRCP 9(d) and Fed. R. of Evid., rule 201.

194.
previously self recused in Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross

complaint.
195.
acted under color of law in the instant appeal, WITHOUT CONSENT, WITHOUT
JURISDICTION, AND WITHOUT STANDING TO DO SO, IN CORUM NON JUDICE.
196.
acting in racketeering to steal the undersigneds assets in order to guarantee the quidpro-quo bribed agreement between herself and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See
section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME
COURT case law.
25
26
Page 35 of 54
27
28

197.
(inalienable and guaranteed) rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart
from precedent, where parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States,
223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000);
198.
ignored the precedents, referred to in Anastasoff v. United States, in conducting hearings
and issuing orders without jurisdiction in the instant appeal, to fulfill, or perform, on the
quid-pro-quo bribed agreement between herself and the COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Litigants' constitutional
SUPREME COURT case law.

199.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted this departure from
precedent by Judge Mary E Arand purposely resulted in denial of civil rights of both the
Defendant/Appellant ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate, and misconstrued Defendant
Aubre Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
living woman.
200.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand,
admitted in 2013 in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that
she each had a lifetime bar at least as far back as November 2008 to jurisdiction over ALL
cases involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei
Gratia, the natural woman, a Secured Party.
201.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a failure to sustain this
recusal action is a violation that has both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US
Code 1983, 1988, and U.S. SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of
Independence.
24
25
26
Page 36 of 54
27
28

202.
payments from the County Auditor, and the judicially noticed exhibits B, C, D, E, F:
Affidavits of Truth, support the allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the attached Exhibit of

Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
4
5
6
7
8
9
203.

204.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that all of the required elements
for violation of Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Mary E.
11
Arand. See judicially noticed evidence attached, and Exhibit Affidavits B, C, D, E, F.

Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)
12
205.
13
14
206.
15
for violation of Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Judge
16
Mary E. Arand. See judicially noticed evidence attached, and Exhibits B, C, D, E, F,
17
Affidavits of Truth, which document bias. See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
10
18

4 , 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787,
As Perviewed thru the 14th Amendment and
California Constitution Article 1 1, 7
th
20
22
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that all of the required elements
case law on bribery, quid pro quo, and impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above.
19
21
207.
paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.
23
208.
24
1787 and each of the Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.
25
209.
26
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the federal Constitution of
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the amendments
Page 37 of 54
27
28

thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights
of the undersigned.
210.
constitutions for California are enforceable contracts for protection of the inalienable God
given civil rights of the undersigned.
211.
inalienable God given civil right to ownership of private property, including earnings and
assets.
212.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that each of the three state
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned has an
reasonable expectation of the enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal

Constitution of 1787.
213.
admitted that she has no jurisdiction over the undersigned.

214.
admitted in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the

truthfulness of the facts that the undersigned party is immune to all state court
jurisdiction.
215.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand has,
as shown by her tacit agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she knew of her lifetime bar to
presiding in cases involving the undersigned as a party (knowingly).
216.
issued orders in the instant appeal, though Judge Mary E Arand has previously admitted
23
to having a lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully).
24
217.
25
26
wantonly ignored a duty to self recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as
Page 38 of 54
27
28

a litigant.
218.
of the undersigneds civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law,
and in corum non judice.
219.
accepted jurisdiction of the instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to
violate both the Defendant/Appellants, and the undersigned misconstrued Defendants,
civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, and in corum non
judice, and including Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
220.
Your Affiant that Judge Mary E. Arand presiding in the instant appeal, in violation
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that when Judge Mary E. Arand
conducted any simulation of court or otherwise in the instant appeal case and when she
signed any order in the instant appeal case, that Judge Mary E. Arand, did so in
conspiracy with other judicial officers, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the
Defendant/Appellants, and the misconstrued Defendant, the undersigneds, civil rights,
in corum non judice.
221.
insufficiently supervised by the current presiding judge, Judge Ris Jones Pichon; former
presiding judge, Judge Brian Walsh; the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki; the Civil Court
Director Alicia Vojnik, and the former Criminal Administrative Court Director, Dawn
Saindon.
222.
ignored the standing of the undersigned, a Secured Party, and the immunity of that
standing to incorporated state courts, when Judge Mary E. Arand issued orders in the
23
instant appeal case without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th,
24
and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, and Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of
25
the Constitution of the California Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the
Page 39 of 54
26
27
28

undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non judice.
223.
was assigned to cases involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in
corum non judice, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil
rights, and in corum non judice.

Judge Mary E. Arand has Accepted Unreported and Undisclosed Bribes
in Violation of Penal Code 93 and 18 U.S.C. 1346
6
7
8
224.
10
225.
11
performed all the elements required for this count.
12
226.
13
knowingly, willfully, and wantonly disregarded her duty to report to litigants in cases that
14
she presided in, and to disclose the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF
15
SANTA CLARA on annual financial disclosure Form 700. See exhibit email, attached,
16
documenting payments, email from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE
17
AUDITOR CONTROLLER. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18
18
U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
19
227.
20
not disclose, to the undersigned, the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF
21
SANTA CLARA.
22
228.
23
reasonable expectation to believe that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge
24
Mary E. Arand.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand did
25
26
Page 40 of 54
27
28

229.
also received bribery through other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFFS FUND; the
JUDGES TRUST FUND; the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LAW LIBRARY
FOUNDATION; and numerous other slush funds.
230.
CLARA profits from every traffic court ruling made in this county.
231.
judicial benefits from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working
10
in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA buys and insures good will from the judges, as a
11
quid-pro-quo payment. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C.
12
1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
13
232.
14
due to acceptance of payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed
15
party to the traffic court case, constitute bribes, that resulted in denial of due process as
16
guaranteed by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the
17
undersigned.
18
233.
19
due to acceptance of payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed
20
party to the traffic court case, constitute bribes that resulted in denial of due process as
21
guaranteed by Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, to
22
the undersigned.
23
234.
24
due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the COUNTY OF SANTA
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the payments of local
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arands bias
25
26
Page 41 of 54
27
28

protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution
of 1787, to the undersigned.
235.
due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of the right to
private property ownership as guaranteed by California Constitution Article 1 Section 1,
to the undersigned.
//
// Continued on next page
236.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that county payments to Judge
10
Mary E. Arand were provided by the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY
11
OF SANTA CLARA, and are listed below (request judicial notice of attached email from
12
the auditor):
13
14
Calendar
Year Paid
Employer Cost for Medical,

Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Wages (Other
Compensation)
15
2007
$15,263.25
$8,808.46
16
2008
$17,859.98
$9,875.63
17
2009
$19,529.14
$9,538.52
18
2010
$21,304.72
$9,500.14
19
2011
$22,196.45
$9,500.14
20
2012
$22,228.72
$9,500.14
21
2013
$24,175.22
$9,500.14
22
2014
$25,175.78
$9,500.14
2015
$10,964.69
$4,019.29
Grand
Total
$178,697.95
$79,742.60
23
24
25
26
Page 42 of 54
27
28

237.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand bias
due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes resulted in violation of the
undersigneds civil rights.
238.
Judge Mary E. Arand exceed the threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013
pursuant to PC 92/93.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the payments received by
VERIFICATION
7
8
239.
The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
10
(1)
11
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
12
(2)
13
by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or
establishing new law;

(3)
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and
(4)
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically
so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of the UNITED STATES, and by the
laws of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.
23
24
25
26
Page 43 of 54
27
28

1
2
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Date: June 16, 2015
By: _/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______

HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia,
Attorney in Fact, UCC 3-418 Authorized Signer,
Executrix, Secured Party Creditor
Date: June 16, 2015
By:
3
4
5
6
7
_/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______
HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Also known as:
Rosalie Aubre Guancione,
the natural living woman,
Secured Party Creditor
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Common Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
15
16
17
Date: June 16, 2015
By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart_______

HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart
Witness #1, Common Law Notarization
Date: June 16, 2015
By: _/s/____ Wayne Springfield_______

Wayne Springfield
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 44 of 54
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
3
1)
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
2)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Appellant/Defendant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the

Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned was not
noticed of the final order issued on December 28, 2009.

3)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Judge Mary E. Arand, in
conspiracy with Judge Helen E. Williams, sought to deny the undersigned Appellants
rights to equal protection under the law for appeal as a matter of right herein, due to
bribery, judicial conspiracy, and other possibly unknown factors.
4)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned was
ordered out of the court during trial by the Commissioner conducting the hearing.
5)
represented during the hearing.

6)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that this was a blatant denial
of Appellants civil rights.

7)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the verdict and sentence
were rendered without the presence of the Appellant, or any attorney to represent the
Appellant, at the demand of the Commissioner who denied access to the Appellant
herein.
8)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that there is no evidence of
notice to the Appellant herein, of any final order issued in the trial court case.
9)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the court record
provided to the Appellant, and purported to be a complete record, contains no

evidence of notice of the final order prior to November 7, 2014.
25
26
Page 45 of 54
27
28

10)
of the federal Constitution of 1787, and the SUPREME COURT ruling in Marbury v.
Madison both establish that the federal Constitution and UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT rulings are the supreme law of the land.
11)
SUPREME COURT rulings are controlling on this court.
12)
SUPREME COURT ruling in 339 US 306, Mullane v. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST,
establishes that without proper notice, the "right to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Supremacy Clause
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that UNITED STATES
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that UNITED STATES
10
Amendment was of no practical consequence.
11
13)
12
given proper notice of any final order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.
13
14)
14
uncontroverted evidence in Affidavit form that the undersigned was never noticed of a
15
final order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.
16
15)
17
Affidavit established a presumption of evidence that refuted any presumption of mailing
18
of the final order by the clerk of the court.
19
16)
20
Affidavit of no notice, must be accepted as truth.
21
17)
22
contents of the undersigneds Affidavit of no notice is a denial of the undersigneds 14th
23
Amendment civil right.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigned provided
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the undersigneds
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the uncontroverted
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the failure to accept the
24
25
26
Page 46 of 54
27
28

18)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the denial of the
undersigneds civil rights by Judge Mary E. Arand, and in collusion with Judge Helen E.
Williams, rises from the level of mere judicial error to actual judicial misconduct.
19)
damaged by the conspiracy of Judges Mary E. Arand and Helen E. Williams to
fraudulently issue a summary judgment to dismiss Appellants appeal as a matter of right.
20)
of Silence is Agreement that Judge Mary E. Arand agreed, in 2013, to the truthfulness
of all facts stated in the undersigneds Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that your Appellant is
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that based upon the doctrine
10
judges in state court Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
11
21)
12
Memorializing the self recusal of 104 judges in state court Case #1-07-CV-189409,
13
SFPCU v. STEWART, established that the undersigned, HI&RH Empress Aubre
14
Regina Dei Gratis, is a Secured Party with immunity to all state incorporated courts.
15
22)
16
recourse default in Admiralty, default with prejudice) was taken against Judge Mary E.
17
Arand for failure to reply or rebut the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104
18
judges in Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, in which
19
the undersigned was a party.
20
23)
21
RECOURSE DEFAULT in Admiralty With
22
24)
23
law: Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.
24
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW
25
2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982.
Your /Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that the Affidavit
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a Nihil Dicit (no
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that a Nihil Dicit is a NO
Prejudice.
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted the following federal case
26
Page 47 of 54
27
28

25)
equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297,
299-300 (1997)
26)
required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent
to the granting or denial of the motion. United States District Court, Central District
of California, L.R. 7-12.
27)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Silence can only be
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that The failure to file any
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Court of Appeals may
10
not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.
11
28)
12
directly conflicting on material points. It is not possible for the district judge to
13
weight the affidavits in order to resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases
14
where the facts alleged in an affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so
15
characterized solely by a reading of the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for
16
determination of credibility. Data Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d
17
1280 (9th Cir. 1977)
18
29)
19
AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE. Claims made in your affidavit,
20
if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny,
21
admits."
22
30)
23
AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left
24
to resolve. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Where affidavits are
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that AN UNREBUTTED
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that AN UNREBUTTED
25
26
Page 48 of 54
27
28

contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in
the end stand as truth and matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
31)
states, An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point. And any rebuttal must have
evidence provided to the Affiant to demonstrate why the Affiants point isnt true, and
the Respondent needs to provide his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long
as you have your believed truth on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your
facts with their fiction, guaranteed!
32)
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that A Maxim of Law
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Morris v National Cash
10
Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 uncontested allegations in
11
affidavit must be accepted as true.
12
33)
13
F. Supp. 327 Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true
14
in absence of counter-affidavit.
15
34)
16
Group, LLC v. Berkshire Wind Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007)
17
(defendant's affidavit presumed true, because plaintiff presented no affirmative
18
evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).
19
35)
20
F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988) (affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding
21
presumed true)
22
36)
23
stands as a bar by estoppel to any future answer.
24
37)
25
6th Edition, page 48, defines Admissions by silence, in relevant part his failure to
26
Page 49 of 54
27
28
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Group v Finletter, 108
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Orion Construction
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Glass v. Pfeffer, 849
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that An unrebutted Affidavit
Your Affiant states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that Blacks Law Dictionary,

speak has traditionally been receivable against him as an admission.
38)
case laws cited indicates that an unrebutted Affidavit is an admission of the truth of all
of the facts stated in the Affidavit.
Your Affiants states Judge Mary E. Arand admitted that each of the previous
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
6
7
Date: June 16, 2015
By: _/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______

HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia,
Attorney in Fact, UCC 3-418 Authorized Signer,
Executrix, Secured Party Creditor
Date: June 01, 2015
By:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
_/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______
HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Also known as:
Rosalie Aubre Guancione,
the natural living woman, Secured Party Creditor
Common Law Notarization.
The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
18
19
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart_______

HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/____ Wayne Springfield_______

Wayne Springfield
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 50 of 54
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT UNREBUTTED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY

EMAIL OF PAYMENTS FROM COUNTY TO JUDGE
EXHIBIT A
Note: Unrebutted Judicially Noticed Affidavits, Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, are in a
separate document served on June 3, 2015.
Note: Unrebutted Judicially Noticed Evidence Exhibits of Appellants Secured
Party Status and Standing, as recognized by the STATE OF NEW YORK, are in a
separate document on June 8, 2015.
1
2
From: "Lee, Susana" <Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org>

To: Joanne Johnson <trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 8:01 AM
Subject: FW: Urgent Request for Judicial Benefits for Judge Mary J Arand
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ms. Joanne Johnson,

Attached you will find the information responsive to your California Public Records Request
made to the County of Santa Clara in an email to Susana Lee, Administrative Support Officer
with Employee Services Agency, dated May 27, 2015. There is no cost for these documents as
we are able to provide them to you electronically.
This completes this CPRA request.
Susie Lee, Administrative Support Officer
Employee Services Agency
70. W. Hedding 8th Floor East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
408-299-6853
email address: Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org
15
Calendar
Year Paid
Employer Cost for Medical,

Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Wages (Other
Compensation)
16
2007
$15,263.25
$8,808.46
17
2008
$17,859.98
$9,875.63
18
2009
$19,529.14
$9,538.52
19
2010
$21,304.72
$9,500.14
20
2011
$22,196.45
$9,500.14
21
2012
$22,228.72
$9,500.14
22
2013
$24,175.22
$9,500.14
23
2014
$25,175.78
$9,500.14
2015
$10,964.69
$4,019.29
Grand
Total
$178,697.95
$79,742.60
24
25
26
27
28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Joanne Johnson [mailto:trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:52 PM
1
2
To: Lee, Susana

Subject: Urgent Request for Judicial Benefits for Judge Mary J Arand
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Santa Clara County - Employee Services Agency

70 West Hedding Street - East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
May 27, 2015
Attn: Susana Lee - Administrative Support Officer

Re: Public Records Request for: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Mary J Arand
Dear Ms Lee,
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, a request is hereby
made for documents showing all payments from Santa Clara County commonly known
as:
1) "local judicial benefits" separately and individually to SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT Judge Mary J Arand from the commencement of such benefit
payments believed to be beginning approximately 2005 or prior thru to current date.
2) A yearly summary of "Megaflex Cafeteria Plan" benefits, 401(k), 457 and/or other
retirement contributions, "Professional Development Allowances", etc.
3) Any other Santa Clara County compensation for each year that the "local judicial
benefits" were paid, for the judge.
This is urgent. Time is of the essence. An e-mail e-response to my email at:
trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com regarding the information requested herein on
Santa Clara County letterhead, or comparable documentation of source origination of
the content of all available records information or a summary thereof, will be sufficient.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this most urgent matter. Your efforts are
greatly appreciated.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sincerely, Joanne Johnson 408-830-6266

Nihildicit Recuse MaryArand 6-16-15 SeatbeltAppeal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nihildicit Recuse MaryArand 6-16-15 SeatbeltAppeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, Executrix

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001829

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

) Count 1: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)

Count 2: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code 2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

not more than three years, or both.

material facts in the Affidavit of Objection pursuant to C.C.P. 431.10, 431.30,

Title 28 U.S.C. 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie

all apply to the recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand.

Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge.

SANTA CLARA, on June 16, 2015.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

Defendant ROSALIE GUANCIONE.

Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is a non-corporate, a non-combatant, private citizen and a

facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.

has an unrestricted licensed to practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF

is recognized as a competent medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

living woman, on January 21, 2013.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

memorialized the results of his examination of the undersigned, as a living natural

woman in a separate Affidavit attached and fully incorporated by reference as if fully

mortal human being.

Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

never their form.

undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in proper persona.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000)

Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Traffic Court case file:

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Civil Unlimited

Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668

Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

paragraph, as a material fact, in the Affidavit of OBJECTION TO JUDGE MARY E.

ARAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE as required by statute with either an

C.C.P. 170.3(c)(5), that is bad faith.

Your Affiant states that striking an Affidavit is not an answer to an Affidavit.

Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,