Recuse-HelenWilliams 6-05-15 HouseAppealFinalized

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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Appellate Division, Civil Limited Jurisdiction
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Appellant and Plaintiff
vs.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB,
(dissolved corpora ficta)
Appellee and Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825

State Ct. Case No. 110-CV-178733
GUANCIONE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
1. Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, 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
Page 1 of 38
Appeal No. 1-14-AP-001825, Dei Gratia v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB,
HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia s
Objection to Judge Helen E. Williams for Disqualification for Cause
)
)
)
)
1
2
3
4
C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE

4. Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes
5. Exhibit Affidavits of Bias
6. [ proposed ] ORDER
Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code 2071

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(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
10
judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
11
not more than three years, or both.
12
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document,
13
paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, oblitserates,
14
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
15
three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
16
office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not
17
include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
18
United States.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, objects,
by Affidavit, to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams, due to disqualification for cause, based
upon numerous reasons cited in the Affidavit below and the caption above. This motion is
made timely in that the judge is still in office and the clock does not start to run until the
public servant leaves office, pursuant to civil rights federal law Title 42 U.S.C. 1983,
1985, 1988, C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 U.S.C. 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3),
455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 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
Page 2 of 38
authorities cited in the memorandum herein, to recuse Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams.
Any opposition answer to this motion to recuse Judge 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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)
)ss
)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural
living woman, over the age of 18, who makes these statements under oath and after first
being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these
facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge.
1.
Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA, on June 01, 2015.

2.
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not
misleading
3.
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, is a non-
corporate, a non-combatant and real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood, natural born living
24
woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean hands, rectus curia.
25
6.
26
reservation.
27
28
Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without
Page 3 of 38
7.
facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.
8.
Your Affiant states that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is your Affiant.
9.
Your Affiant states that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is the Appellant in
the case sub judice, Appellate Division Case 1-14-AP-001825.
10.
case from which the current appeal is appealed from, Civil Division Limited Jurisdiction,
Case 110-CV-178733.
11.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the
Your Affiant states that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is the Plaintiff in the
Your Affiant states that Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is a Secured Party
Creditor.
12.
Your Affiant states that the standing of the undersigned as a Secured Party Creditor
is recognized through official acts of the STATE OF NEW YORK, pursuant to FRCP rule
9(d).
13.
Your Affiant states that the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution
of 1787 requires the STATE OF CALIFORNIA to recognize the standing of the

undersigned as a Secured Party.
14.
Your Affiant states that a Secured Party has standing above that of the incorporated
administrative corporate state courts.

15.
Your Affiant states that the status of the undersigned confers standing above that of
the Plaintiff herein.

16.
Your Affiant states that the standing of the undersigned is above that of Judge
Helen E. Williams.
17.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the Supreme Court of the United States, Re:
23
Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be held
24
to the same standard as a lawyers and/or attorneys; and whose motions, pleadings and
25
all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.
26
18.
27
28
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in
Page 4 of 38
proper persona.
19.
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.
20.
complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are deficient and how to repair the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that pro se litigants complaints, pleadings and other papers are
Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court dismisses the pro se litigants
pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.

21.
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)
Governing Rules of this Case
22.
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if those paragraphs
were fully set forth herein.
23.
Your Affiant states, 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..
24.
Your Affiant states 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
23
International Treaties.
24
25.
25
reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
26
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1096307, PEOPLE v.
27
28
Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by
Page 5 of 38
GUANCIONE.
26.
Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,
removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
27.
reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Criminal Division case file: C1103451, PEOPLE v.
GUANCIONE.
28.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by
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.
29.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and
authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.

30.
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.
21
22
Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute
STATEMENTS OF FACT
31.
23
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
24
32.
25
the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
26
and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, each agreed that they DID
27
28
Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and
Page 6 of 38
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED.
33.
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.
34.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over natural
living man/woman.
Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and
Your Affiant states that the state court is a corporation, also known as the
10
35.
11
business name for the legal fiction incorporated in Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
36.
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.
37.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubre
Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, does NOT hold the office of
person.
38.
Your Affiant states that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the
undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.

39.
Your Affiant states 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.
40.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without
24
jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1096307,
25
PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.
26
41.
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without
Page 7 of 38
jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1103451,
PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.
42.
prior cases involving the undersigned.
43.
presumption of proof of the bias and prejudice of Judge Helen E. Williams against the
undersigned.
44.
the undersigned.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has been recused in at least two
Your Affiant states that the prior recusals of Judge Helen E. Williams establish a
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
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANT CORPORATION, a corporation without
corporate capacity.
46.
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

47.
PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA receives money.

48.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN
FAVOR OF THE
49.
DEFENDANT, due to an undisclosed quid pro quo arrangement.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has received and continues to
receive regular payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

50.
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.

51.
Your Affiant states that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for bribes
to judges by other than the judges employer of record.

Page 8 of 38
52.
AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law
on bribery cited below.
53.
establish the quid-pro-quo 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.
54.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states that the payments that Helen E. Williams HAS RECEIVED
Your Affiant states that no other proof than proof of the payments is required to
Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo between Judge Helen E. Williams and
the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND

PREJUDICE
in favor of the case outcomes that favor or profit the COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA.
55.
Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from every
property transfer ordered by courts in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

56.
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.

57.
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).

58.
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.
59.
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
60.
in her rulings in the case sub judice.

61.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted in fraud in the instant case
by issuing any rulings.
26
62.
28
PARTY.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
25
27
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA constitute
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams denied the undersigned her civil
Page 9 of 38
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.
63.
corum non judice.
64.
of a litigants civil rights, the JUDGE IS ACTING OUTSIDE OF THEIR OFFICE AS
JUDGE,
65.
their private capacity, WITHOUT IMMUNITY TO EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
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
and WITHOUT THE IMMUNITY of their office.
Your Affiant states that a judge acting outside their office as judge, is acting in
10
PROSECUTION OR LAW SUIT,
11
66.
12
MATTER JURISDICTION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
67.
pursuant to MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted WITHOUT SUBJECT
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.
68.
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.
69.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was given notice of all
disqualified judges at the start of the appeal sub judice.

70.
Your Affiant states that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their
conflicts of interest.
71.
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.
72.
Your Affiant states that corporations, including the incorporated administrative

Page 10 of 38
corporate SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do NOT have any jurisdiction over a
natural living man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.
73.
Doanes Administraters, corporate courts can only interface and have jurisdiction over
other artificial persons.
74.
YORK STATE SECRETARY OF STATE recognized that the undersigned is a Secured
Party Creditor.
75.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
76.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams conducts court from a closed
courtroom, in which she excludes all parties and only allows attorneys to enter.
77.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams conducts court proceedings that
are not open to the public, as required by the federal Constitution of 1787 and the
amendments thereto.
78.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has 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 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.
79.
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
24
disclosed.
25
80.
26
instance, cannot supersede the state constitution because it VIOLATES THE STATE
27
28
Your Affiant states that the state law SBX 211, giving judges immunity in this
Page 11 of 38
CONSTITUTION
81.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
82.
cash or in kind, to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS of
California Penal Code 92, 93.
83.
issuing an erroneous and void judgment, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in the instant
appeal.
because it creates more than one class of citizens.
Your Affiant states that the employer of record for state court judges is the
Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted on the quid-pro-quo by
10
84.
11
to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party, in her failure to answer an
12
Affidavit served upon her and filed into the public record, as supported by the following
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has agreed to her lifetime bar
case law.
85.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams declares that the undersigned can
be held to unnoticed orders as enforceable.

86.
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.
87.
Your Affiant states that the instant case is a civil case.
88.
Your Affiant states that the immunity of a Secured Party does apply to civil cases.
89.
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.
90.
Your Affiant now objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Helen E. Williams in the
above entitled matter under C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Section 144 and Section
25
455; and Marshall v Jerrico Inc.; 446 US 238, 242; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182
26
(1980).
27
28
Page 12 of 38
91.
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.
92.
obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
93.
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
Your Affiant states that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6
are also applicable to recusal.

94.
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.
95.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED
STATES) citizen/an employee of the corporation.

96.
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).

97.
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.
98.
Your Affiant respectfully demands that Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in
light of the judicially noticed evidence incorporated herein by reference, as if fully
23
incorporated herein, detailing previous recusals in cases involving the undersigned, prior
24
unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives your Affiant good reason to
25
believe Judge Helen E. Williams cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial
26
manner.
27
28
Page 13 of 38
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
28
Page 14 of 38
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,
27
28
Page 15 of 38
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
gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or
27
28
Page 16 of 38
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
99.
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
herein.
100.
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).
101.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER WAIVED the disqualification
of Judge Helen E. Williams as provided in subdivision (b).

102.
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 Aubre
Guancione, as a party.
103.
20
21
22
104.
23
Agreement (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).
24
105.
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
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
Page 17 of 38
involving the following party: Rosalie Aubre Guancione also known as HI&RH
Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
106.
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.
Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has
RECUSAL COUNT #2
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
107.
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
herein.
108.
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.
109.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a personal bias and / or,
prejudice against the undersigned party, see judicially noticed Affidavits of Truth,
Exhibits B thru F.
110.
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, see judicially noticed Email from OFFICE
22
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER, attached.
23
111.
24
the court record that was clear proof, and prima facie evidence, that the undersigned
25
possesses immunity to all state incorporated courts in civil proceedings, including the
26
case sub judice, an infraction that is considered a civil case.
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was provided with evidence in
Page 18 of 38
112.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National pursuant to Title
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
113.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is formally
established as an American National and Secured Party Creditor.
114.
Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams to hear cases in which the undersigned is a party.
115.
Constitution, THIS COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that the SECRETARY OF THE
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 pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the federal
10
STATE OF NEW YORK has recognized the secured party status of HI&RH
11
Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia in an official act, pursuant to FRCP 9(d) and Fed.
12
R. of Evid., rule 201.
13
116.
14
RECUSED
15
117.
16
in Case #C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.
17
118.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
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.
119.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams was acting in racketeering
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,
and email from OFFICE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR
CONTROLLER, attached.
26
27
28
Page 19 of 38
120.
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);
121.
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 SUPREME COURT case law.
122.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams ignored the precedents, referred
Your Affiant states that this departure from precedent by Judge Helen E. Williams
10
purposely resulted in denial of civil rights of Appellant Empress Aubre Regina Dei
11
Gratia, the natural living woman.
12
123.
13
CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she each had a lifetime bar to
14
jurisdiction over ALL cases involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as
15
Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural woman, a Secured Party, as a party to any case.
16
124.
17
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
18
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.
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
19
21
RECUSAL COUNT #3
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
125. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
22
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23
126.
24
section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed
25
evidence attached, and Exhibit Affidavits B, C, D, E, F.
26
127.
20
27
28
Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
Your Affiant states that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County Auditor,
Page 20 of 38
and the judicially noticed exhibits B, C, D, E, F: Affidavits of Truth, support the
allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.
RECUSAL COUNT #4
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)
128. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
4
5
129.
section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed
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
10
impeachment transcript or order for former federal Judge Porteus, above.
11
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
12
th
13
14
15
16
17
18
Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
130.
th
th
paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.

131.
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and each of the
Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.

132.
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the amendments
19
thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights
20
of the undersigned.
21
133.
22
enforceable contracts for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the
23
undersigned.
24
134.
25
ownership of private property, including earnings and assets.
Your Affiant states that each of the three state constitutions for California are
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to
26
27
28
Page 21 of 38
135.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the
enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.
136.
jurisdiction over the undersigned.
137.
189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the
undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction.
138.
agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
10
Stewart and cross complaint, that she knew of her lifetime bar to presiding in cases
11
involving the undersigned as a party (knowingly).
12
139.
13
appeal, though Judge Helen E. Williams has previously admitted to having a lifetime bar
14
to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully).
15
140.
16
17
18
19
141.
20
21
22
23
142.
24
recused from a case involving a litigant that the judge is deemed disqualified in all other
25
cases involving the same litigant, which satisfies a mandatory self recusal requirement.
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-
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 the publics general presumption is that once a judge is
26
27
28
Page 22 of 38
143.
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has wantonly ignored a duty to
self recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as a litigant.
144.
violation of the undersigneds civil rights to both due process and equal protection under
the law, and in corum non judice.
145.
instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to violate both the
Plaintiff/Appellants, and the undersigned misconstrued Plaintiffs, civil rights to both
due process and equal protection under the law, and in corum non judice, and including
Your Affiant that Judge Helen E. Williams is presiding in the instant appeal, in
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams accepted jurisdiction of the
10
Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
11
146.
12
of court or otherwise in the instant appeal case and when she signed any order in the
13
instant appeal case, that Judge Helen E. Williams, did so in conspiracy with other judicial
14
officers, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the Plaintiff/Appellants, the
15
undersigneds, civil rights, in corum non judice.
16
147.
17
the current presiding judge, Judge Ris Jones Pichon; former presiding judge, Judge
18
Brian Walsh; the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia Vojnik,
19
and the former Criminal Administrative Court Director, Dawn Saindon.
20
148.
21
case without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th
22
Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, and Article 1 Section 7 of the
23
Constitution of the California Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds
24
civil rights, and in corum non judice.
25
149.
26
involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in
27
28
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams conducted any simulation
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was insufficiently supervised by
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued orders in the instant appeal
Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams was assigned to cases
Page 23 of 38
1
2
3
4
violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non
judice.
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
150.
151.
required for this count.
152.

Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has performed all the elements
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams knowingly, willfully, and
10
wantonly disregarded her duty to report to litigants in cases that she presided in, and to
11
disclose the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA on
12
annual financial disclosure Form 700. See exhibit email, attached, documenting
13
payments, email from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
14
CONTROLLER. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and
15
related SUPREME COURT case law.
16
153.
17
undersigned, the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
18
154.
19
that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams.
20
155.
21
came from collected COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA property taxes euphemistically
22
called local judicial benefits. See Exhibits from SANTA CLARA COUNTY AUDITOR.
23
See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related
24
SUPREME COURT case law.
25
156.
26
other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams did not disclose, to the
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
Page 24 of 38
CLARA COUNTY SHERIFFS FUND; the JUDGES TRUST FUND; the COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA LAW LIBRARY FOUNDATION; and numerous other slush funds.
157.
taxes paid by the undersigned were used by the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to bribe
Judge Helen E. Williams. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C.
1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
158.
property transfer made in this county thru property transfer tax, and increased property
appraisal with associated increased property tax.
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 real
10
159.
11
OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12
buys and insures good will from the judges, as a quid-pro-quo payment. See section
13
above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT
14
case law.
15
160.
16
payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed party to the traffic
17
court case, constitute bribes, that resulted in denial of due process as guaranteed by the
18
4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.
19
161.
20
payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, an undisclosed party to the traffic
21
court case, constitute bribes that resulted in denial of due process as guaranteed by Article
22
1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, to the undersigned.
23
162.
24
payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal protection under the law as
25
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the
26
undersigned.
27
28
Your Affiant states that the payments of local judicial benefits from the COUNTY
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias due to acceptance of
Page 25 of 38
163.
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.
164.
provided by the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SANTA
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
8
9
10
Calendar
Year Paid
Employer Cost for Medical,

Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Wages (Other
Compensation)
11
2012
$0.00
$328.85
12
2013
$1,394.74
$9,025.12
13
2014
$1,412.70
$9,025.12
14
2015
$676.17
$3,800.05
15
Grand
Total
$3,483.61
$22,179.14
16
17
165.
18
payments that constitute bribes which resulted in violation of the undersigneds civil
19
rights.
20
166.
21
the threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013 pursuant to PC 92/93.
22
23
Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias is due to acceptance of
Your Affiant states that the payments received by Judge Helen E. Williams exceed
Prayer
Petitioner, the undersigned Affiant, prays that:
24
Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in the instant case, and the clerk notify the Judicial
25
Council to appoint another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the alternative
26
27
28
Page 26 of 38
2.
Judge Helen E. Williams give statutory consent to recusal, and the court clerk
notify the Judicial Council to assign another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in
the alternative
3.
that has not been previously recused in any case involving the undersigned as a party, to
conduct a hearing on the recusal motion herein.
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
action will be deemed an attempt by the judge to pass on the judges own recusal, in
violation of the law, done in bad faith, and a further attempt to deny the undersigneds
10
11
civil rights.
Opposition to an Affidavit must be in Affidavit form, with point for point answer,
12
as described in the Memorandum of authorities, herein. Affidavits are not answered by a
13
summary judgment strike. Any attempt to strike this affidavit will be both non-responsive
14
to this action and stricken by the undersigned pursuant to the rules of Admiralty, and
15
FRCP rule 12(f) as scandalous, as Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted to having no
16
jurisdiction to issue orders in cases involving the undersigned as a party.

This motion is prepared in ops consili.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
167.
The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1)
it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2)
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
Page 27 of 38
investigation or discovery; and
(4)
so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
4
5
6
7
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically
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.
8
9
Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.
10
11
12
Date: June 01, 2015
14
16
_/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
13
15
By:
Common Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
17
18
19
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 28 of 38
1
2
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1)
Appellant/Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
10)
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)
controlling on this court.
Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution of
Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are
10
12)
11
US 306, Mullane v. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST, establishes that without proper
12
notice, the "right to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment was of no
13
practical consequence.
14
13)
15
order a trial court case involving the undersigned.
16
14)
17
Affidavit form that the undersigned was never noticed of a final order in the trial court
18
case that the appeal involved.
19
15)
20
evidence that refuted any presumption of mailing of the final order by the clerk of the
21
court.
22
16)
23
accepted as truth, based upon case law.
24
17)
25
Affidavit of no notice was a denial by Judge Helen E. Williams of the undersigneds 14 th
26
Amendment civil right.
27
28
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
Your Affiant states that the undersigned provided uncontroverted evidence in
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
Page 29 of 38
18)
Your Affiant states 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)
Helen E. Williams and Mary E. Arand to issue a fraudulent summary judgment to dismiss
Appellants appeal as a matter of right.
20)
case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a
party.
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
10
21)
11
case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a
12
party.
13
22)
14
for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case
15
#C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.
16
23)
17
for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case #C1103451,
18
PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.
19
24)
20
With Prejudice.
21
25)
22
affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case. United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd,
23
526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982.
24
26)
25
a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
26
intentionally misleading. U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300 (1997)
27
28
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
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
Page 30 of 38
27)
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.
28)
allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.
29)
points. It is not possible for the district judge to weight the affidavits in order to
resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an
affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of
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
10
the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for determination of credibility. Data
11
Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)
12
30)
13
TRUTH IN COMMERCE. Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as
14
the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits."
15
31)
16
JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a
17
court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial
18
affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as truth and
19
matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
20
32)
21
point-for-point. And any rebuttal must have evidence provided to the Affiant to
22
demonstrate why the Affiants point isnt true, and the Respondent needs to provide
23
his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long as you have your believed truth
24
on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their fiction,
25
guaranteed!
Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS
Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE
Your Affiant states that A Maxim of Law states, An affidavit must be rebutted
26
27
28
Page 31 of 38
33)
clearly states at point #4 uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as
true.
34)
affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-
affidavit.
35)
Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit presumed true,
because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).
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
10
36)
11
(affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)
12
37)
13
any future answer.
14
38)
15
Admissions by silence, in relevant part his failure to speak has traditionally been
16
receivable against him as an admission.
17
39)
18
unrebutted Affidavit is an admission of the truth of all of the facts stated in the
19
Affidavit.
20
Your Affiant states that Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)
Your Affiant states that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to
Your Affiant states that Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 48, defines
Your Affiant states that each of the previous case laws cited indicates that an
// Signature page follows.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 32 of 38
1
2
3
Date: June 01, 2015
_/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.
8
9
10
Date: June 01, 2015
By: _/s/_____ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart_______

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

K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 33 of 38
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 A
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY
EMAIL CONTAINING AMOUNTS OF PAYMENTS FROM
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TO JUDGE HELEN E. WILLIAMS
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE QUID PRO QUO
1
2
From: "Lee, Susana" <Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org>

To: Joanne Johnson <trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 11:02 AM
Subject: FW: Urgent Request for Judicial Benefits for Judge Helen Elizabeth 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 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.
5
6
7
8
9
10
This completes this CPRA request.

Susie Lee, Administrative Support Office
70. W. Hedding 8th Floor East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
408-299-6853
email address: Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org
Employee Services Agency
11
Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams
12
13
Calendar
Year Paid
Employer Cost for Medical,

Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Wages (Other
Compensation)
14
2012
$0.00
$328.85
15
2013
$1,394.74
$9,025.12
16
2014
$1,412.70
$9,025.12
17
2015
$676.17
$3,800.05
18
Grand Total
$3,483.61
$22,179.14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
----------------------
Original Message
From: Joanne Johnson [mailto:trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:54 PM
To: Lee, Susana
Subject: Urgent Request for Judicial Benefits for Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams
Santa Clara County - Employee Services Agency

70 West Hedding Street - East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
May 27, 2015
26
Attn: Susana Lee - Administrative Support Officer

Re: Public Records Request for: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams
27
Dear Ms Lee,
28
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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1) "local judicial benefits" separately and individually to SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams from the commencement of such
benefit payments believed to be beginning 2010 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.
12
Thank you in advance for your attention to this most urgent matter. Your efforts are greatly
appreciated.
13
Sincerely, Joanne Johnson 408-830-6266
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Appellate Division, Civil Limited Jurisdiction
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia
Appellant and Plaintiff
vs.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB,
(dissolved corpora ficta)
Appellee and Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825

State Ct. Case No. 110-CV-178733
GUANCIONE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
[ proposed ] ORDER
16
17
HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural living woman, has filed and
18
served an objection to Judge Helen E. Williams for cause for disqualification, that
19
includes two previous self recusals of Judge Helen E. Williams in Cases C1096307,
20
PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, and C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, and numerous
21
notarized Affidavits of Bias of Judge Helen E. Williams against the Plaintiff by case
22
non-parties who are members of the public. The Plaintiff seeks to recuse Judge Helen
23
E. Williams from the instant case, under a presumption of bias based on two previous
24
self recusals, public perception of bias by Judge Helen E. Williams, and pursuant to
25
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; violations of due process and equal protection: 4 th, 5th, 14th
26
Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias and prejudice mandatory
27
recusal of Title 28 455; violations of right to private property and due process
28
provisions of California Constitution Article 1 1, 7, and other case law for
defaulted Affidavits from 2013 in an unrelated case, Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
STEWART and cross complaint, regarding Judge Helen E. Williams admission as truth
the fact that Judge Helen E. Williams has a lifetime bar to hear any cases involving
Plaintiff Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and Secured
Party Creditor, as a party.
6
7
Good cause appearing, the motion of HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, to
recuse Judge Helen E. Williams from the instant case is sustained, and
By order of the Court, Judge Helen E. Williams is recused from the instant appeal, and
10
another appellate judge that has not been recused in any previous case involving
11
Appellant/Plaintiff herein shall be appointed to act as an appellant judge or member of
12
the appellant panel 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

Recuse-HelenWilliams 6-05-15 HouseAppealFinalized

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

Recuse-HelenWilliams 6-05-15 HouseAppealFinalized

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, Executrix

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001825

C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE

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

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

not more than three years, or both.

of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause.

Objection to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA CLARA, on June 01, 2015.

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

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

the case sub judice, Appellate Division Case 1-14-AP-001825.

of 1787 requires the STATE OF CALIFORNIA to recognize the standing of the

administrative corporate state courts.

the Plaintiff herein.

introduce any evidence in support of his Petition.

pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.

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

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

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.

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

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED.

incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over natural

Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious

Your Affiant states that each COUNTY OF countyname court is a wholly

owned, for profit, subsidiary, or division, of the incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.

the public record on a UCC-1 in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF NEW

PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.

PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.

prior cases involving the undersigned.

PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF THE

DEFENDANT CORPORATION, a corporation without

case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY

OF SANTA CLARA receives money.

DEFENDANT, due to an undisclosed quid pro quo arrangement.

receive regular payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE

from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA are called

local judicial benefits.

to judges by other than the judges employer of record.

AND CONTINUES TO RECEIVE

on bribery cited below.

federal case law on bribery cited below.

the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND

property transfer ordered by courts in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

requirements for self recusal in Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a).

LIFE TIME BAR TO HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THE UNDERSIGNED AS A

in her rulings in the case sub judice.

by issuing any rulings.