Pleading Recuse HelenWilliams 6-03-15

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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Appellate Division
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Appellant/Executrix
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)
Appellee
16
17
18
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)
Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
vs.
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001829

Trial Court Case No.: 7-09-TR-562668
GUANCIONE vs PEOPLE
1. Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural
living womans, Objection to Judge Helen
Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification for
Cause, to be filed Instantor
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. Memorandum
3. Incorporated by Reference as if fully
incorporated herein: Case #1-07-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint; Case
C1093451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE; and
C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE
27
Page 1 of 44
28
Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001829, Guancione v. PEOPLE,

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668
Rosalie Aubre Guancione, aka HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia s
Objection to Judge Helen E. Williams for Disqualification for Cause
4. Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes

5. Exhibit Affidavits of Bias
6. [ proposed ] ORDER
2
3
Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code 2071

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or

destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,
proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any 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,
13
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
14
three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
15
office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not
16
include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
17
United States.
18
19
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also
20
known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, objects, by Affidavit, to Judge Helen Elizabeth
21
Williams, due to disqualification for cause, based upon numerous reasons cited in the
22
Affidavit below and the caption above. This motion is made timely in that the judge is
23
still in office and the clock does not start to run until the public servant leaves office,
24
pursuant to civil rights federal law Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. 170.1,
25
170.3; Title 28 U.S.C. 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv),
26
Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and 6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA
27
Page 2 of 44
28

PC 92, 93, Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities cited in the
memorandum herein, to recuse Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams. Any opposition answer
to this motion to recuse Helen Elizabeth Williams, must under C.C.P. 170 et seq. be
served and filed 10 days from the filing and service date of this objection to judge for
disqualification for cause.
Objection to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification for Cause

AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia
7
8
9
10
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)ss
)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
12
Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
13
living woman, over the age of 18, who makes these statements under oath and after first
14
being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these
15
facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge.
16
1.
17
SANTA CLARA, on June 01, 2015.
18
2.
19
misleading
20
3.
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
4.
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

5.
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
living woman, is the estate executrix for the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate.
6.
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
27
Page 3 of 44
28

living woman, is also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione,
7.
corporate, a non-combatant and 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.
reservation.
9.
facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.
10.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is a non-
Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without
Your Affiant states that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the
Your Affiant states that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, has met with and
been examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.

11.
Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams has an unrestricted licensed to
practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

12.
Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent
medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

13.
Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams performed a physical examination
on Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, on January 21, 2013.

14.
Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21,
2013, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is living, and not deceased.
15.
Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams 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.
Your Affiant states that the physical examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall
Williams dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is
23
natural individual, and sentient living mortal human being.
24
17.
25
sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individuals name on a tombstone, or; a
26
corporation.
Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at
27
Page 4 of 44
28

18.
upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.
Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an all
Pro Se/pro per Standards
3
4
19.
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if those paragraphs
were fully set forth herein.
20.
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; and whose motions, pleadings and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the Supreme Court of the United States, Re:
all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.
21.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in
proper persona.
22.
Your Affiant states that pro se litigants complaints, pleadings and other papers are
exempt from dismissal for form not function and pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed
without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition;
AND the court MUST inform the pro se litigant of the Petitions deficiency; AND
instruct the pro se litigant on the necessary instructions; AND the pro se litigant may
introduce any evidence in support of his Petition.
23.
Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court 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.
24.
Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (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)
24
25
26
Governing Rules of this Case

25.
27

Page 5 of 44
28

paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if those paragraphs
were fully set forth herein.
26.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia is appearing specially and not generally, vi et armis, in
defense of her rights and that of the trust ROSALIE GUANCIONE.
27.
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states, In the name of God, with the gaze of Our Lord, that Empress
Your Affiant states that your Affiant is claiming, exercising and invoking ALL
International Treaties.
28.
Your Affiant states 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.
29.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Traffic Court case file: 7-09-TR-562668.
30.
Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute
Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
31.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Appellate Division case file: 1-14-AP-001829.
32.
23
24
25
33.
26
Page 6 of 44
27
28

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1096307, PEOPLE v.
GUANCIONE.
34.
35.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1103451, PEOPLE v.
GUANCIONE.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
36.

37.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and
authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.

38.
Your Affiant states 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, all estoppels on government agencies and/or
agents, and others and, inter alia. These Rules and Laws have not been abrogated.
22
STATEMENTS OF FACT
23
39.
24
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
25
40.
26
upper case formatted name was misapplied and misattributed to the undersigned, a
Page 7 of 44
27
28

Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examinations prove that an all

natural living woman, and NOT a deceased person, legal fiction, or a vessel at sea, by
Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams.
41.
jurisdiction over the undersigned, by a corporate court, that deliberately misconstrued the
undersigned as other than a natural living woman.
42.
the court correspondence, in the instant case, indicates that the undersigned is no longer
among the living.
43.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.
10
44.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used the use all capitalized
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that the all upper case name was applied to fraudulently capture
Your Affiant states that the all capitalized format of the undersigneds name in all
format for the undersigneds names.

45.
Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds
names was deliberate subterfuge upon the court record, the court, and your Affiant.
46.
Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds
names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic deceit.

47.
Your Affiant states that the use of semantic deceit is a type of fraud.
48.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceipt to commit
fraud upon the court record.

49.
fraud upon the the court.

50.
fraud upon the undersigned.

51.
Your Affiant states that the use of an all capitalized name of a living man/woman
is illegal, under the U.S. postal codes without the express (written and verified)
24
permission of the natural living man/woman.
25
52.
26
LETTERS) in a private individuals name, or a ZIP CODE, against the individuals

Page 8 of 44
27
28
Your Affiant states that usage of fictitious names or addresses (ALL CAPITAL

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.
53.
use of the all capitalized name ROSALIE GUANCIONE in the instant case, to
knowingly, willfully and wantonly, to fraudulently, claim jurisdiction over the
undersigned.
54.
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams used semantic deceit by
Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED .
55.
Your Affiant states 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 the
undersigned is a Secured Party, which is a status that has standing above that of all
incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.
56.
Your Affiant states that the state court is a corporation, also known as the
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over natural living

man/woman.
57.
Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious
business name for the legal fiction incorporated in Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
58.
Your Affiant states that each COUNTY OF countyname court is a wholly
owned, for profit, subsidiary, or division, of the incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA.
59.
Your Affiant states that the aforementioned acknowledgments of lack of
25
jurisdiction by public officials regarding the undersigned in all state incorporated courts
26
was filed as judicially noticed evidence into numerous other federal court cases,
Page 9 of 44
27
28

including the U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubre Guancione, case no. 11-57656 ASW.
60.
consented to the use of the estate ROSALIE GUANCIONEs name by either the state
court nor by Judge Helen E. Williams in any form or manner or in any arena.
61.
Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, does NOT hold the office of
person.
62.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that the undersigned, as executrix, has never expressly
Your Affiant states that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubre
Your Affiant states that the semantic deceit by Judge Helen E. Williams was
committed in order to treat this case as an uncontested division of assets outside of either
the probate court or the bankruptcy court.
63.
Your Affiant states that this semantic deceit by Judge Helen E. Williams was a
deliberate contrivance to facilitate the theft of the Defendant and the undersigneds assets.
64.
Your Affiant states that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the
undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.

65.
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.
66.
upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by judges in the
67.
Your Affiant states that the unauthorized use of the Defendants name in all upper
23
case format violated the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate name copyright.
24
68.
25
the public record on a UCC-1 in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF NEW
26
27
YORK, STATE OF WASHINGTON, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, and KING COUNTY.

Page 10 of 44
28
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had filed the estate copyright notice into

69.
copyright over the all capitalized name would not be infringed by any of the judicial
officers of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
70.
estates copyright would not be infringed by the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
71.
copyright would not be infringed by either the Clerk, any of the Deputy Clerks of the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
72.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the
Your Affiant states that the unlicensed use of the estates copyrighted name in all
upper case format violated the undersigneds civil rights to her copyright ownership.
73.
Your Affiant states that the license fee for use of the estates name in all upper case
format is $500,000.
74.
Your Affiant states that the penalty for unauthorized use of the estates name in all
upper case format is treble damages.

75.
Your Affiant states that each unauthorized use of the undersigneds name in all
upper case format is the license fee and the penalty, or $2 million USD.
76.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams 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.
77.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without jurisdiction
in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1096307, PEOPLE v.
GUANCIONE in December 2013.
23
78.
24
in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1103451, PEOPLE v.
25
GUANCIONE in December 2013.
26
79.
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without jurisdiction
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has been recused in at least two
Page 11 of 44
prior cases involving the undersigned.
80.
proof of the bias and prejudice of Judge Helen E. Williams against the undersigned.
81.
the undersigned.
82.
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE
CLARA employee.
83.
Your Affiant states that the prior recusals of Judge Helen E. Williams establish
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and a prejudice against
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams HAS A BIAS AND A
case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the
10
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
11
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
12
84.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY, a COUNTY OF SANTA
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA receives money.

85.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN
FAVOR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY, COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DUE TO REGULAR PAYMENTS that Judge

Helen E. Williams has received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA.
86.
Your Affiant states that the payments that Helen E. Williams HAS RECEIVED
AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA are called
local judicial benefits.

87.
Your Affiant states that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for bribes
to judges by other than the judges employer of record.

88.
Your Affiant states that the payments that Helen E. Williams HAS RECEIVED
AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA constitute
26
27
Page 12 of 44
28

bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law
on bribery cited below.
89.
between Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA pursuant to
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on bribery cited
below.
90.
the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND
PREJUDICE
Your Affiant states that no other proof is required to establish the quid-pro-quo
Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo between Judge Helen E. Williams and
in favor of the Plaintiffs attorney, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA -
10
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
11
91.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA 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 against a Defendant.
92.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is misconstrued to be the Defendant in the
instant traffic ticket case.

93.
Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo is present in the instant case between
Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

94.
Your Affiant states that bias or prejudice for or against a party are mandatory
requirements for self recusal in Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a).

95.
Your Affiant states 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.
96.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed in 2013 that SHE HAS A
LIFE TIME BAR TO HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THE UNDERSIGNED AS A
97.
PARTY.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
24
in her rulings in the case sub judice.
25
98.
26
by issuing any rulings.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted in fraud in the instant case
27
Page 13 of 44
28

99.
rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, by issuing rulings in the
case sub judice without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.
100.
corum non judice.
101.
of a litigants civil rights, the JUDGE IS ACTING OUTSIDE OF HIS OFFICE AS JUDGE,
and WITHOUT THE IMMUNITY of his office.
102.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams denied the undersigned her civil
Your Affiant states that when a judge acts without jurisdiction, that is known as in
Your Affiant states that at the moment a judge performs an act or acts in violation
Your Affiant states that a judge acting outside their office as judge, is acting in
10
their private capacity, WITHOUT IMMUNITY TO EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
11
PROSECUTION OR LAW SUIT,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
103.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted WITHOUT SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
104.
pursuant to MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES.
at all times in the instant appeal.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY AND
WANTONLY ACTED TO DISREGARD A DUTY TO SELF RECUSE
at all times in the appeal
sub judice.
105.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has 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.
106.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was given notice of all
disqualified judges at the start of the appeal sub judice.

107.
Your Affiant states that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their
conflicts of interest.
108.
Your Affiant states that judges are required to know and inform themselves of their
conflicts of interest, personally and thru their relatives up to and including the third civil
familial degree.
27
Page 14 of 44
28

109.
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do NOT have any jurisdiction over a natural living
man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.
110.
Doanes Administraters, corporate courts can only interface and have jurisdiction over
other artificial persons.
111.
YORK STATE SECRETARY OF STATE recognized that the undersigned is a Secured
Party Creditor.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
112.
Your Affiant states that corporations, including the incorporated SUPERIOR
Your Affiant states that in the US SUPREME COURT ruling of Penhallow v
Your Affiant states that in an official act by the STATE OF NEW YORK, the NEW
Your Affiant states that pursuant to Article IV 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.
113.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of immunity
from all state court jurisdiction due to her established standing as a Secured Party.
114.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceit in falsely
claiming that it was the responsibility of the undersigned to prove a negative in her order
of May 15, 2015.
115.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used 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.
116.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used 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.
23
117.
24
appeal ordered the self represented Defendant/the undersigned removed from the trial
25
court hearing without any attorney present to represent the Defendant/the undersigneds
26
interests, in violation of the undersigneds civil rights on December 28, 2009.

Page 15 of 44
27
28
Your Affiant states that the Commissioner in the trial court case for the instant

118.
accused access to the trial court, when the accused is self represented.
119.
the court, and there is no attorney to represent the interests of the accused, is fraud.
120.
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 use of a law that is
repugnant to the Constitution regarding due process and equal protection, in application
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Your Affiant states that it is BLATANTLY ILLEGAL to conduct a trial that denies the
Your Affiant states that conducting a trial wherein the accused is denied access to
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has knowingly, willfully and
of a time constraint on notice of appeal that ignores the legal right to notice.
121.
Your Affiant states 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.
122.
Your Affiant states that the state law SBX 211, giving judges immunity in this
instance, cannot supersede the state constitution because it VIOLATES THE STATE
CONSTITUTION
123.
because it creates more than one class of citizens.
Your Affiant states that the employer of record for state court judges is the
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

124.
Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in
cash or in kind, to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS of

California Penal Code 92, 93.
125.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted on the quid-pro-quo by
issuing an erroneous and void judgment, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in the instant

appeal.
126.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued a VOID ORDER in a
motion to dismiss, after Defendants civil rights were violated when the trial court
26
27
Page 16 of 44
28

conducted an arraignment of the Defendant without jurisdiction more than 4 months after
the issuance of a traffic ticket.
127.
motion to dismiss after Defendants civil rights were violated when the trial court
conducted a trial more than 45 days after the arraignment of the Defendant without
jurisdiction.
128.
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued a VOID ORDER in a
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has agreed to her lifetime bar
case law.
129.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned gave more notice to Judge Helen E.
Williams to answer, than the Traffic Court gave to the undersigned in which the case that
this appeal is based.
130.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams declares that the undersigned can
be held to unnoticed orders as enforceable.

131.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was noticed by unrebutted
Affidavit of the previous recusal of Judge Helen E. Williams and of the standing of the
undersigned as a Secured Party, with immunity to all state court jurisdiction.
132.
Your Affiant states that the instant case is an infraction case, which is a civil case
and not a criminal case.

133.
Your Affiant states that the immunity of a Secured Party does apply to civil cases.
134.
Your Affiant states 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.
24
135.
25
above entitled matter under C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Section 144 and Section
26
455; and Marshall v Jerrico Inc.; 446 US 238, 242; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182
Page 17 of 44
27
28
Your Affiant now objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Helen E. Williams in the

(1980).
136.
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 Helen E. Williams 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.
137.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The grounds to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams are C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3,
Your Affiant states that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional
obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."

138.
Your Affiant states that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6
are also applicable to recusal.

139.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams 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.
140.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED
STATES) citizen/an employee of the corporation.

141.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is established and recognized as a Secured
Party and an American National under Federal Law 8 USC 1101(a)(21).

142.
Your Affiant states that the United States Constitution guarantees a neutral (an
unbiased) Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.
143.
Your Affiant respectfully demands that Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in
23
light of the judicially noticed evidence incorporated herein by reference, as if fully
24
incorporated herein, detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which
25
gives your Affiant good reason to believe Judge Helen E. Williams cannot hear the above
26
case in a fair and impartial manner.
27
Page 18 of 44
28

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
18 U.S.C 201 provides: (Addendum 1)
5
6
In the U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,
7
8
The US SUPREME COURT has explained, in interpreting the federal bribery and
gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, that bribery requires a quid pro quo, which includes an
10
intent to influence an official act or to be influenced in an official act. United States
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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 thus conclude that bribery requires a specific
intent to give or re-ceive something of value in exchange for an official act. Id. at 40405, 119 S.Ct. 1402.
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,
23
24
[W]e agree that at least an implicit quid pro quo is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 281
25
82.
26
27
Page 19 of 44
28

In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated in,
2
3
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 repeatedly emphasized the critical quid pro
quo, explaining that [t]o establish such bribery the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo, ... that the benefit was offered in ex-
change for the official act. (App. at 9642.) The 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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
And the court stated at p. 282,
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
23
a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor. Id.
24
Thus, payments may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an as
25
needed basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take
26
specific action on the payor's behalf. Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713,
Page 20 of 44
27
28

730 (1st Cir.1996) (stating that a person with continuing and long-term interests before
an official might engage in a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to
coax ongoing favorable official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial
official services). While the form and number of gifts may vary, the gifts still constitute a
bribe as long as the essential intent-a specific intent to give or receive something of value
in exchange for an official act-exists.
7
8
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
10
of Representatives, dated June 18, 2008, I refer to and incorp a true and correct copy.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
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 Helen E. Williams willfully concealed from litigants the public financial
23
transactions including but not limited to those designated in (d, by filing false financial
24
disclosure forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of
25
the Code of Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of income,
26
27
gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or
Page 21 of 44
28

to challenge her failure to recuse herself in cases in which partys who appeared before
her had given her things of value.
RECUSAL COUNT #1
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
144.
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
herein.
145.
Your Affiant states 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).
146.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER WAIVED the disqualification
of Judge Helen E. Williams as provided in subdivision (b).

147.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams has admitted through self
recusal that she was disqualified in case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE that
involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Guancione,
as a party.
148.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams has admitted through self
recusal that she was disqualified in case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE that
20
involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Guancione,
21
as a party.
22
149.
23
Agreement (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).
24
150.
25
of Silence is Agreement, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross
26
complaint, that Judge Helen E. Williams has a lifetime bar to jurisdiction in all cases
Page 22 of 44
27
28
Your Affiant states that this admission was made under the Doctrine of Silence is
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams admitted pursuant to the doctrine

involving the following party: Rosalie Aubre Guancione also known as HI&RH
Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
151.
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.

RECUSAL COUNT #2
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
152.
Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
herein.
153.
Your Affiant states 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.
154.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a personal bias and / or,
prejudice against the undersigned party.

155.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams HAS A BIAS OR PREJUDICE
because she has accepted bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA that
established a quid -pro-quo relationship between her and the Plaintiff in the instant
case. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related
SUPREME COURT case law provided above.
156.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was provided with evidence in
the court record that was clear proof, and prima facie evidence, that the undersigned
22
possesses immunity to all state incorporated courts in civil proceedings, including the
23
case sub judice, an infraction that is considered a civil case.
24
157.
25
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National pursuant to Title
26
27
Page 23 of 44
28

158.
Your Affiant states that Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as, Empress
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is formally
established as an American National and Secured Party Creditor.
159.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is NOT under
the jurisdiction of this incorporated court.
160.
Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams to hear cases in which the undersigned is a party.
161.
Your Affiant states that Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as, Empress
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER waived the disqualification of
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER waived the absence of
10
jurisdiction of this incorporated state court in cases in which the undersigned is construed
11
to be a party.
12
162.
13
incorporated state court jurisdiction as a Secured Party Creditor.
14
163.
15
Constitution, THIS COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that the SECRETARY OF THE
16
STATE OF NEW YORK has recognized the secured party status of HI&RH
17
Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia in an official act, pursuant to FRCP 9(d) and Fed.
18
R. of Evid., rule 201.
19
164.
20
RECUSED
21
22
23
24
25
26
165.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National with immunity to
Your Affiant states that pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the federal
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has PREVIOUSLY SELF
in Case #C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has PREVIOUSLY SELF RECUSED
in Case #C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.

166.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has acted under color of law in
the instant appeal, WITHOUT CONSENT, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AND WITHOUT

STANDING TO DO SO, IN CORUM NON JUDICE.
167.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams was acting in racketeering
27
Page 24 of 44
28

to steal the undersigneds assets in order to guarantee 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 SUPREME COURT case law.
168.
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);
169.
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
Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams ignored the precedents, referred
10
agreement between herself and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See section above on
11
Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
12
170.
13
purposely resulted in denial of civil rights of both the Defendant/Appellant ROSALIE
14
GUANCIONE, estate, and misconstrued Defendant Aubre Guancione, also known
15
as Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
16
171.
17
CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she each had a lifetime bar to
18
jurisdiction over ALL cases involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as
19
Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural woman, a Secured Party.
20
172.
21
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
22
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.

RECUSAL COUNT #3
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
23
Your Affiant states that this departure from precedent by Judge Helen E. Williams
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams, admitted in 2013 in case #107-
Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has
24
173.
25
26
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

174. Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
27
Page 25 of 44
28

section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed
evidence attached, and Exhibit Affidavits B, C, D, E, F.
175.
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 that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County Auditor,
RECUSAL COUNT #4
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
176.

177.
evidence attached, and Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, Affidavits of Truth, which document bias.

See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law on bribery, quid pro quo, and
impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above.
RECUSAL COUNT #5
4 , 5 and 14 Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787,
As Perviewed thru the 14th Amendment and
California Constitution Article 1 1, 7
15
th
16
18
19
Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed
14
17
178.
th
th
paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.

179.
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and each of the
20
Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.
21
180.
22
thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights
23
of the undersigned.
24
181.
25
enforceable contracts for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the
26
undersigned.
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the amendments
Your Affiant states that each of the three state constitutions for California are
27
Page 26 of 44
28

182.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to
ownership of private property, including earnings and assets.
183.
enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.
184.
jurisdiction over the undersigned.
185.
189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the
undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted that she has no
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted in case #107-CV-
10
186.
11
agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
12
Stewart and cross complaint, that she knew of her lifetime bar to presiding in cases
13
involving the undersigned as a party (knowingly).
14
187.
15
appeal, though Judge Helen E. Williams has previously admitted to having a lifetime bar
16
to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully).
17
188.
18
self recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as a litigant.
19
189.
20
violation of the undersigneds civil rights to both due process and equal protection under
21
the law, and in corum non judice.
22
190.
23
instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to violate both the
24
Defendant/Appellants, and the undersigned misconstrued Defendants, civil rights to
25
both due process and equal protection under the law, and in corum non judice, and
26
including Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has, as shown by her tacit
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued orders in the instant
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has wantonly ignored a duty to
Your Affiant that Judge Helen E. Williams presiding in the instant appeal, in
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams accepted jurisdiction of the
27
Page 27 of 44
28

191.
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams 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 Helen E. Williams, 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.
192.
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.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was insufficiently supervised by
10
193.
11
undersigned, a Secured Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state
12
courts, when Judge Helen E. Williams issued orders in the instant appeal case without
13
jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the
14
federal Constitution of 1787, and Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the California
15
Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non
16
judice.
17
194.
18
involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in
19
violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non
20
judice.
21
22
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams ignored the standing of the
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams was assigned to cases
RECUSAL COUNT #6
Judge Helen E. Williams has Accepted Unreported and Undisclosed Bribes in
Violation of Penal Code 93 and 18 U.S.C. 1346
23
195.
24
25
196.
26
required for this count.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has performed all the elements
27
Page 28 of 44
28

197.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams knowingly, willfully, and
wantonly disregarded her duty to report to litigants in cases that she presided in, and to
disclose the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA on
annual financial disclosure Form 700. See exhibit email, attached, documenting
payments, email from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
CONTROLLER. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and
related SUPREME COURT case law.
198.
undersigned, the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams did not disclose, to the
10
199.
11
that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams.
12
200.
13
came from collected COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA property taxes euphemistically
14
called local judicial benefits. See Exhibits from SANTA CLARA COUNTY AUDITOR.
15
See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related
16
SUPREME COURT case law.
17
201.
18
other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA
19
CLARA COUNTY SHERIFFS FUND; the JUDGES TRUST FUND; the COUNTY OF
20
SANTA CLARA LAW LIBRARY FOUNDATION; and numerous other slush funds.
21
202.
22
taxes paid by the undersigned were used by the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to bribe
23
Judge Helen E. Williams. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C.
24
1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
25
203.
26
traffic court ruling made in this county.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation to believe
Your Affiant states that the public funds used to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has also received bribery through
Your Affiant states that a portion of the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA property
Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from every
27
Page 29 of 44
28

204.
Your Affiant states that the payments of local judicial benefits from the COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
buys and insures good will from the judges, as a quid-pro-quo payment. See section
above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT
case law.
205.
payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed party to the traffic
court case, constitute bribes, that resulted in denial of due process as guaranteed by the
4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias due to acceptance of
10
206.
11
payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed party to the traffic
12
court case, constitute bribes that resulted in denial of due process as guaranteed by Article
13
1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, to the undersigned.
14
207.
15
payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal protection under the law as
16
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the
17
undersigned.
18
208.
19
payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of the right to private property
20
ownership as guaranteed by California Constitution Article 1 Section 1, to the
21
undersigned.
22
209.
23
provided by the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SANTA
24
CLARA, and are listed below (request judicial notice of attached email from the auditor):
Your Affiant states that county payments to Judge Helen E. Williams were
25
26
27
Page 30 of 44
28

Name
2
3
4
Calendar Year
Paid
Health Benefits
and Life insurance
Other Retirement
Contributions
Wages (other
compensation) Paid
Helen
Williams
2013 to date
2012
$4,944.72
none
9,098.21
none
none
$
328.85
210.
payments that constitute bribes resulted in violation of the undersigneds civil rights.
211.
the threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013 pursuant to PC 92/93.
Your Affiant states that the payments received by Judge Helen E. Williams exceed
Prayer
10
11
Petitioner, the undersigned Affiant, prays that:
12
Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in the instant case, and the clerk notify the Judicial
13
Council to appoint another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the alternative
14
2.
15
notify the Judicial Council to assign another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in
16
the alternative
17
3.
18
that has not been previously recused in any case involving the undersigned as a party, to
19
conduct a hearing on the recusal motion herein.
20
Judge Helen E. Williams give statutory consent to recusal, and the court clerk
Judge Helen E. Williams notify the Judicial Council to appoint a neutral judge,
A judge may not pass on her own recusal. Attempts to strike this lawful and legal
21
action will be deemed an attempt by the judge to pass on the judges own recusal, in
22
violation of the law, done in bad faith, and a further attempt to deny the undersigneds
23
civil rights.
Opposition to an Affidavit must be in Affidavit form, with point for point answer,
24
25
26
as described in the Memorandum of authorities, herein. Affidavits are not answered by a

summary judgment strike. Any attempt to strike this affidavit will be both non-responsive
27
Page 31 of 44
28

to this action and stricken by the undersigned pursuant to the rules of Admiralty, and
FRCP rule 12(f) as scandalous, as Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted to having no
jurisdiction to issue orders in cases involving the undersigned as a party.

This motion is prepared in ops consili.
VERIFICATION
5
6
212.
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1)
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(2)
The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief,
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
by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for

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.

WHEREFORE, your Affiant, prays that this objection to judge for disqualification
for cause to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams be sustained.
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.
21
22
Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.
23
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
24
25
Date: June 01, 2015
26
By: _/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______

HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia,
27
Page 32 of 44
28

Attorney in Fact, UCC 3-418 Authorized Signer,

Executrix, Secured Party Creditor
2
3
4
Date: June 01, 2015
6
7
8
10
11
_/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
By:
Common Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
12
13
14
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart_______

HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart
Witness #1, Common Law Notarization
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam_______

K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam
15
16
17
18
19
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
20
21
1)
22
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23
2)
24
issued on December 28, 2009.
25
3)
26
Mary E. Arand, sought to deny the undersigned Appellants rights to equal protection
Appellant/Defendant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the

Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not noticed of the final order
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams, in conspiracy with Judge
27
Page 33 of 44
28

under the law for appeal as a matter of right herein, due to bribery, judicial conspiracy,
and other possibly unknown factors.
4)
trial by the Commissioner conducting the hearing.
5)
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not represented during the hearing.
6)
Your Affiant states that this was a blatant denial of Appellants civil rights.
7)
Your Affiant states 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.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was ordered out of the court during
10
8)
11
any final order issued in the trial court case.
12
9)
13
purported to be a complete record, contains no evidence of notice of the final order
14
prior to November 7, 2014.
15
10)
16
1787, and the SUPREME COURT ruling in Marbury v. Madison both establish that
17
the federal Constitution and UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are the
18
supreme law of the land.
19
11)
20
controlling on this court.
21
12)
22
US 306, Mullane v. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST, establishes that without proper
23
notice, the "right to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment was of no
24
practical consequence.
25
13)
26
order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.
Your Affiant states that there is no evidence of notice to the Appellant herein, of
Your Affiant states that the court record provided to the Appellant, and
Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution of
Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are
Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruling in 339
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not given proper notice of any final
27
Page 34 of 44
28

14)
Your Affiant states that the undersigned provided uncontroverted evidence in
Affidavit form that the undersigned was never noticed of a final order in the trial court
case that this appeal is based upon.
15)
evidence that refuted any presumption of mailing of the final order by the clerk of the
court.
16)
accepted as truth.
17)
Your Affiant states that the undersigneds Affidavit established a presumption of
Your Affiant states that the uncontroverted Affidavit of no notice, must be

Your Affiant states that the failure to accept the contents of the undersigneds
10
Affidavit of no notice is a denial of the undersigneds 14th Amendment civil right.
11
18)
12
E. Arand, and in collusion with Judge Helen E. Williams, rises from the level of mere
13
judicial error to actual judicial misconduct.
14
19)
15
Helen E. Williams and Mary E. Arand to issue a fraudulent summary judgment to dismiss
16
Appellants appeal as a matter of right.
17
20)
18
case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a
19
party.
20
21)
21
case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a
22
party.
23
22)
24
for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case
25
#C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.
Your Affiant states that the denial of the undersigneds civil rights by Judge Mary
Your Affiant states that your Appellant is damaged by the conspiracy of Judges
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed to recusal, in 2013, in
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed to recusal, in 2013, in
Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit was taken against Judge Helen E. Williams
26
27
Page 35 of 44
28

23)
for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case #C1103451,
PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.
24)
With Prejudice.
25)
affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case. United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd,
526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982.
26)
Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit was taken against Judge Helen E. Williams
Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT in Admiralty

Your Affiant states the following federal case law: Indeed, no more than
Your Affiant states that Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is
10
a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
11
intentionally misleading. U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300 (1997)
12
27)
13
failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial
14
of the motion. United States District Court, Central District of California, L.R. 7-12.
15
28)
16
allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.
17
29)
18
points. It is not possible for the district judge to weight the affidavits in order to
19
resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an
20
affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of
21
the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for determination of credibility. Data
22
Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)
23
30)
24
TRUTH IN COMMERCE. Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as
25
the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits."
Your Affiant states that The failure to file any required document, or the
Your Affiant states that Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of
Your Affiant states that Where affidavits are directly conflicting on material
Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS
26
27
Page 36 of 44
28

31)
JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a
court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a 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.
32)
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
Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE
Your Affiant states that A Maxim of Law states, An affidavit must be rebutted
10
on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their fiction,
11
guaranteed!
12
33)
13
clearly states at point #4 uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as
14
true.
15
34)
16
affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-
17
affidavit.
18
17)
19
Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit presumed true,
20
because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).
21
18)
22
(affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)
23
19)
24
any future answer.
Your Affiant states that Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433,
Your Affiant states that Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 Allegations in
Your Affiant states that Orion Construction Group, LLC v. Berkshire Wind
Your Affiant states that Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)
Your Affiants state that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to
25
26
27
Page 37 of 44
28

20)
Admissions by silence, in relevant part his failure to speak has traditionally been
receivable against him as an admission.
21)
unrebutted Affidavit is an admission of the truth of all of the facts stated in the
Affidavit.
Your Affiants state that Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 48, defines
Your Affiants states that each of the previous case laws cited indicates that an
7
8
9
10
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Date: June 01, 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:
11
12
13
14
HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Also known as:
Rosalie Aubre Guancione,
the natural living woman,
Secured Party Creditor
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
_/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______
Common Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
22
23
24
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart_______

HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart
25
26
27
Page 38 of 44
28

1
2
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam_______

K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam
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
Page 39 of 44
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 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY

EMAIL OF PAYMENTS FROM COUNTY TO JUDGE
1
2
3
----- Forwarded Message ----From: "Lee, Susana" <Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org>

To: "trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com" <trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:13 PM
Subject: FW: CPRA REQUEST 13-102.12-16 Public Records Request for:
Superior Court Judge Helen Williams
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 III, with Employee Services Agency, dated
December 05, 2013. There is no cost for these documents as we are able to
provide them to you electronically.
6
7
8
9
10
This completes this CPRA request.

Name
Calendar Year
Paid
11
12
Helen Williams
13
2013 to date
2012
14
2000-2011
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Health Benefits
and Life
insurance
Other Retirement
Contributions
Wages (other
compensation) Paid
$4,944.72
none
$
9,098.21
none
none
$
328.85
none
none
Susie Lee, Administrative Support Officer

Employee Services Agency
70. W. Hedding 8th Floor East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
408-299-6853
email address:
------------------------------------------------- Original Message
Santa Clara County
December 05, 2013
Attn: Auditor/Controller Department

70 West Hedding Street - East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
24
Attn: Susana Lee - Auditor/Controller Department

Re: Public Records Request for: Superior Court Judge Helen Williams
25
Dear Ms Lee,
26
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:
27
28
none
1) "local judicial benefits" separately and individually to Santa Clara County Superior Court 'Judge
Helen Williams', from the commencement of such benefit payments believed to be beginning 2000 or
prior thru to current date.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
Sincerely, Joanne Johnson 408-830-6266
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nothing else follows on this page

//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Appellate Division, Limited Civil Jurisdiction
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
9
10
11
12
13
14
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
Appellant
vs
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA (corpora ficta)
Appellee
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE 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 THE PEOPLE (corpora ficta)
)
)
)
)
)
) [ PROPOSED ] ORDER
)
)
)
HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, aka, Aubre Guancione, the natural
living woman and Secured Party, on behalf of the Defendant ROSALIE
GUANCIONE, estate, has filed and served an objection to Judge Helen E. Williams
for cause for disqualification, that includes two previous self recusals of Judge Helen
E. Williams in Cases C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, and C1103451, PEOPLE
v. GUANCIONE, and numerous notarized Affidavits of Bias of Judge Helen E.
Williams against the Defendant by third parties. The ROSALIE GUANCIONE Estate
Executrix seeks to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams from the instant case, pursuant to
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; violations of due process and equal protection: 4 th, 5th, 14th
Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias and prejudice mandatory
recusal of Title 28 455; violations of right to private property and due process
provisions of California Constitution Article 1 Section 1 and Section 7, and other case
law for defaulted Affidavits from 2013 regarding Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams
admission as truth of a lifetime bar of Judge Helen E. Williams to hear any cases
involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione as a party.
Good cause appearing, the motion of HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, aka,
Aubre Guancione, to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams from the instant case is
sustained, and
10
By order of the Court, Judge Helen E. Williams is recused from the instant appeal and
11
another appellate judge that has not been recused in any previous case involving
12
Appellant/Defendant herein shall be appointed to act in the instant case.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date: ____/____/20___
_____________________________
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Pleading Recuse HelenWilliams 6-03-15

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

Pleading Recuse HelenWilliams 6-03-15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, Executrix

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

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

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

4. Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes

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

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

known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, objects, by Affidavit, to Judge Helen Elizabeth

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

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

disqualification for cause.

Objection to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification for Cause

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

SANTA CLARA, on June 01, 2015.

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

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

living woman, is also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione,

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

been examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.

practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent

medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

on Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, on January 21, 2013.

examination of the undersigned, as a living natural woman in a separate Affidavit

natural individual, and sentient living mortal human being.

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

were fully set forth herein.

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

Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)

Governing Rules of this Case

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

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

were fully set forth herein.

defense of her rights and that of the trust ROSALIE GUANCIONE.

Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

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

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1096307, PEOPLE v.

Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1103451, PEOPLE v.

Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,

authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

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

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

Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams.

undersigned as other than a natural living woman.

among the living.

Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.

format for the undersigneds names.

names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic deceit.

fraud upon the court record.

fraud upon the the court.

fraud upon the undersigned.

permission of the natural living man/woman.

LETTERS) in a private individuals name, or a ZIP CODE, against the individuals

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

is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and $1,000,000.00 fine.

knowingly, willfully and wantonly, to fraudulently, claim jurisdiction over the

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED .