Pleading Recuse MaryArand 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
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)
Appellee
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

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

Trial Court Case No.: 7-09-TR-562668
GUANCIONE vs PEOPLE
Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living
womans,
1) OBJECTION TO JUDGE MARY E. ARAND
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;
27
Page 1 of 50
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 Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause
4) Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes

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

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(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,
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not
include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
United States.
17
18
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also
19
known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living woman, and Estate Executrix
20
for ROSALIE GUANCIONE, objects by Affidavit, to Judge Mary E. Arand, due to
21
disqualification for cause, based upon numerous reasons cited in the Affidavit below and
22
the caption above. This motion is made timely in that the judge is still in office and the
23
clock does not start to run until the public servant leaves office, pursuant to civil rights
24
federal law Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 U.S.C.
25
455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and
26
6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA PC 92, 93,
27
Page 2 of 50
28

Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities cited in the memorandum herein,
and Affidavits filed into Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross
complaint, and as Judicially Noticed Evidence in UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubre
Guancione, Case 11-57656 ASW (previously served on Judge Mary E. Arand); to recuse
Judge Mary E. Arand.
7
8
9
10

AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)ss
)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
11
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
stated herein.
22
4.
23
24
25
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
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 Defendant ROSALIE GUANCIONE.
26
27
Page 3 of 50
28

6.
known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living woman.
7.
corporate, a non-combatant, private citizen and a real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood,
natural born living woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean
hands, rectus curia.
8.
reservation.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is also
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
facts stated herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.

10.
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, the natural living woman, 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
24
Williams dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is a
25
natural individual, and a sentient living mortal human being.
26
17.
27
28
Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at
Page 4 of 50
sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individuals name on a tombstone, or; a
corporation.
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
5
6
19.
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
20.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
held to the same standard as a lawyers and/or attorneys.

21.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per motions, pleadings and
all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.
22.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro
per, also known as in proper persona.
23.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se litigants complaints, pleadings
and other papers are exempt from dismissal for form not function.
24.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed
without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition.
25.
23
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court MUST inform the pro se
24
litigant of the Petitions deficiency.
25
26.
26
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court must instruct the pro se
Page 5 of 50
27
28

litigant on the necessary instructions.
27.
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro se litigant may introduce any
evidence in support of his Petition.
28.
complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are deficient and how to repair the
pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.
29.
rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart from precedent, where parties
10
Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court dismisses the pro se litigants
Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)
are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000)
Governing Rules of this Case
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
30.

31.
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, in
defense of her rights and that of the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, trust estate
32.
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
International Treaties.
33.
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
23
appeal derives from.
24
34.
25
reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
26
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Traffic Court case file: 7-09-TR-562668.

Page 6 of 50
27
28
Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by

35.
Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,
removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
36.
reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.
37.
Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,
Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute
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
10
removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
11
38.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and
authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.

39.
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, the Affidavit Memorializing Conversations
Regarding Self Disqualification of Judges in COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and inter
alia, the Affidavit of Nihil Dicit and of Tacit Agreement filed on or about 35 days later. all
estoppels on government agencies and/or agents, and others and, inter alia. These Rules
and Laws have not been abrogated.
23
STATEMENTS OF FACT
24
40.
25
26
41.
27
28

Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examinations prove that an all
Page 7 of 50
upper case formatted name was misapplied and misattributed to the undersigned, a
natural living woman, and NOT a deceased person, legal fiction, or a vessel at sea, by
Judge Mary E. Arand.
42.
jurisdiction over the undersigned, by a corporate court, that deliberately misconstrued the
undersigned as other than a natural living woman.
43.
the court correspondence, in the instant case, indicates that the undersigned is no longer
among the living.
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
10
44.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.
11
45.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used the all capitalized format for the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
undersigneds names.
46.
Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds
name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court record.

47.
name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court.

48.
name was deliberate subterfuge upon your Affiant.

49.
names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic deceit.

50.
Your Affiant states that the use of semantic deceit is a type of fraud.
51.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used semantic deceit to commit
fraud upon the court record.

52.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used semantic deceit to commit
24
fraud upon the undersigned.
25
53.
26
is illegal, under the U.S. postal codes without the express (written and verified)
Page 8 of 50
27
28
Your Affiant states that the use of an all capitalized name of a living man/woman

permission of the natural living man/woman.
54.
LETTERS) in a private individuals name, or a ZIP CODE, against the individuals
wishes, is a crime under Title 39 U.S.C. 3003, Title 18 U.S.C. 1302, 1341, 1342, and
is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and $1,000,000.00 fine.
55.
all capitalized name ROSALIE GUANCIONE in the instant case, to knowingly,
willfully and wantonly, claim jurisdiction over the undersigned Secured Party and natural
woman.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56.
Your Affiant states that usage of fictitious names or addresses (ALL CAPITAL
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used semantic deceit by use of the
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 they DID
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNDERSIGNED ,
as judicially noticed in case 1-
07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

57.
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.
58.
Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Mary E. Arand,

agreed that they did not have jurisdiction over the undersigned, as judicially noticed in
case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
59.
Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF

agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, which is a status that has standing above
26
27
Page 9 of 50
28

that of all incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.
60.
agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, with immunity to all state incorporated
courts.
61.
self recused in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, a case in
which the undersigned was a party.
Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF
Your Affiant states that in 2013 all 104 judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF
10
62.
11
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over the natural
12
living man/woman.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63.
Your Affiant states that the state court is a corporation, also known as the
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.
64.
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.
65.
Your Affiant states that the aforementioned acknowledgments of lack of
jurisdiction by public officials regarding the undersigned in all state incorporated courts
was filed as judicially noticed evidence into numerous other federal court cases,
including the U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubre Guancione, case no. 11-57656 ASW.
66.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned, as executrix, has never expressly
consented to the use of the estate ROSALIE GUANCIONEs name by either the state
court nor by Judge Mary E. Arand in any form or manner or in any arena.
26
27
Page 10 of 50
28

67.
Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, does NOT hold the office of
person.
68.
committed in order to treat this case as an uncontested division of assets outside of either
the probate court or the bankruptcy court.
69.
deliberate contrivance to facilitate the theft of the Defendant and the undersigneds assets.
70.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Your Affiant states that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubre
Your Affiant states that the semantic deceit by Judge Mary E. Arand was
Your Affiant states that this semantic deceit by Judge Mary E. Arand was a
Your Affiant states that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the
undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.

71.
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.
72.
upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by judges in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
73.
Your Affiant states that the unauthorized use of the Defendants name in all upper
case format violated the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate name copyright.

74.
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.
75.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the
23
copyright over the all capitalized name would not be infringed by any of the judicial
24
officers of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
25
26
27
Page 11 of 50
28

76.
estates copyright would not be infringed by the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
77.
estates copyright would not be infringed by either the Clerk, any of the Deputy Clerks of
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
78.
upper case format violated the undersigneds civil rights to her lien on the copyright
ownership.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
79.
Your Affiant states that the unlicensed use of the estates copyrighted name in all
Your Affiant states that the license fee for use of the estates name in all upper case
format is $500,000.
80.
Your Affiant states that the penalty for unauthorized use of the estates name in all
upper case format is treble damages.

81.
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.
82.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has performed unauthorized use of
the estates name in all upper case format and is personally and individually responsible
for damages for each instance of $2 million USD.
83.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has been recused in a prior case
involving the undersigned.

84.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand acted without jurisdiction in hearing
the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART in
2008.
23
85.
24
of the bias and prejudice of Judge Mary E. Arand against the undersigned.
25
86.
26
undersigned.
Your Affiant states that the prior recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand establishes proof
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has a bias and a prejudice against the
27
Page 12 of 50
28

87.
IN FAVOR OF THE
employee.
88.
IN FAVOR OF
SANTA CLARA.
89.
IN FAVOR OF
CLARA receives money.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY, a COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the COUNTY OF
case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY OF SANTA
10
90.
11
FAVOR OF THE
12
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DUE TO REGULAR PAYMENTS that Judge
13
Mary E. Arand has received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA
14
CLARA. (see exhibit attached from County Auditor)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has a BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY, COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE
Your Affiant states that the payments that Mary E. Arand HAS RECEIVED AND
CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA are called local
judicial benefits. (see exhibit attached from County Auditor)

92.
Your Affiant states that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for bribes
to judges by other than the judges employer of record.

93.
Your Affiant states that the payments that Mary E. Arand HAS RECEIVED AND
CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA constitute bribes
pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on
bribery cited below, see exhibit attached from County Auditor.
94.
Your Affiant states that no other proof is required to establish the quid-pro-quo
between Judge Mary E. Arand and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA pursuant to
26
27
Page 13 of 50
28

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on bribery cited
below, see exhibit attached from County Auditor.
95.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CREATES THE UNDISCLOSED BIAS AND
PREJUDICE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
96.
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.
Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo between Judge Mary E. Arand and the
in favor of the Plaintiffs attorney, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA -
Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA receives a portion of
10
97.
11
instant traffic ticket case.
12
13
14
15
16
98.
99.
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that a judge whose impartiality might reasonably be questioned
has a mandatory duty to self recuse pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a).
100.
Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) states:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
18
20
Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo is present in the instant case between
Judge Mary E. Arand and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
17
19
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is misconstrued to be the Defendant in the
questioned.
101.
Your Affiant states that where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, he has a mandatory requirement to self recuse pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section
455(b).
102.
Your Affiant states that Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b) states:

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he
24
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
25
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private
26
practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom

Page 14 of 50
27
28

he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the
proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or
minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a

person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of
10
such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of
11
a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to
12
have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
13
proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
proceeding.
103.
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.
104.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand agreed in the SFPCU v Stewart Case
in 2013 that SHE HAS A LIFE TIME BAR TO HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THE
UNDERSIGNED AS A
105.
PARTY.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in
her rulings in the case sub judice.

106.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand acted in fraud in the instant case by
23
issuing any rulings.
24
107.
25
rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, by issuing rulings in the
26
case sub judice without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.

Page 15 of 50
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand denied the undersigned her civil

108.
corum non judice.
109.
of a litigants civil rights, the JUDGE IS ACTING OUTSIDE OF HIS OFFICE AS JUDGE,
and WITHOUT THE IMMUNITY of his office.
110.
private capacity, WITHOUT IMMUNITY TO EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION OR LAW SUIT,
111.
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 their
pursuant to MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand acted WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER
at all times in the instant appeal.
10
JURISDICTION
11
112.
12
WANTONLY ACTED TO DISREGARD A DUTY TO SELF RECUSE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY AND
at all times in the appeal
sub judice.
113.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand 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.
114.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand was given notice of all disqualified
judges at the start of the appeal sub judice, pursuant to their self recusal in case 1-07-CV189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
115.
Your Affiant states that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their
conflicts of interest.
116.
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.
117.
Your Affiant states that all judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
26
27
Page 16 of 50
28

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL and three
SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an Affidavit of CROSS-
COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B.
Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony
Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG
WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES
10
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stating that all judges
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, self

disqualified in Nov. 2008, in a case involving Your Affiant.
118.

SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an Affidavit of CROSSCOMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stating that all judges
23
in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, have a
24
lifetime bar to hearing any cases involving Your Affiant.
25
119.
26

Page 17 of 50
27
28

SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an Affidavit of CROSS-
COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stating that your
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Affiant has immunity to all state court jurisdiction.

120.
Your Affiants state that the Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B.
Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei
Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione IIIs
CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH
ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS
CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stated that your Affiant is NOT a U.S.
citizen.
121.
Your Affiant states that the Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B.
Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei
Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione IIIs
CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH
23
ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS
24
CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stated that your Affiant is an American
25
National under Federal Law 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
26
122.
27
Your Affiant states that state court Judge Mary E. Arand, recused herself in
Page 18 of 50
28

November 2008, in state court case 107-CV-189409, a case involving Your Affiant as a
party SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.
123.
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do NOT have any jurisdiction over a natural living
man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.
124.
Doanes Administraters, corporate courts can only interface and have jurisdiction over
other artificial persons.
125.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
YORK STATE SECRETARY OF STATE recognized that the undersigned is a Secured

Party Creditor whose standing is above the courts.
126.
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.
127.
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.
128.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand previously agreed formally, in March
2013, by affidavit, that in November 2008, that she, Judge Mary E. Arand, had a lifetime
bar from ruling in any case that involved your Affiant.
129.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand 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.
130.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used semantic deceit in her order
23
dated May 15, 2015 implying that it was the responsibility of the undersigned to prove
24
that the undersigned had not received notice of an order.
25
131.
26
dated May 15, 2015, implying that there was any law that the Defendant could be tried
Page 19 of 50
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand used semantic deceit in her order

without an attorney present and without the Defendants presence in the court.
132.
appeal ordered the self represented Defendant/the undersigned removed from the trial
court hearing without any attorney present to represent the Defendant/the undersigneds
interests, in violation of the undersigneds civil rights on December 28, 2009.
133.
accused access to the trial court, when the accused is self represented.
134.
the court, and there is no attorney to represent the interests of the accused, is fraud.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135.
Your Affiant states that the Commissioner in the trial court case for the instant
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 Mary E. Arand 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.
136.
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.
137.
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
138.
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.

139.
Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in
cash or in kind, to Judge Mary E. Arand, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS of California Penal

Code 92, 93.
26
27
Page 20 of 50
28

140.
issuing an erroneous and void judgment, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, in the instant
appeal.
141.
hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party, in her failure to answer an
Affidavit served upon her and filed into the public record, as supported by the following
case law.
142.
to answer, than the Traffic Court gave to the undersigned in which the case that this
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand acted on the quid-pro-quo by
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has agreed to her lifetime bar to
Your Affiant states that the undersigned gave more notice to Judge Mary E. Arand
10
appeal is based.
11
143.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand declares that the undersigned can be
held to unnoticed orders as enforceable.

144.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand was noticed by unrebutted Affidavit
of the previous recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand and of the standing of the undersigned as
a Secured Party, with immunity to all state court jurisdiction.
145.
Your Affiant states that the instant case is an infraction case, which is a civil case
and not a criminal case.

146.
Your Affiant states that the immunity of a Secured Party does apply to civil cases.
147.
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.
148.
Your Affiant now objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Mary E. Arand in the above
entitled matter under C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Section 144 and Section 455; and
Marshall v Jerrico Inc.; 446 US 238, 242; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).
24
149.
25
Title 28 U.S.C. 144, 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 45(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv),
26
FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, the case law and common law and maxims
Page 21 of 50
27
28
The grounds to recuse Judge Mary E. Arand are C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3,

of law set forth in the memorandum herein, and Judge Mary E. Arand admissions, as set
forth in judicially noticed evidence sets previously filed into the instant case, the trial
court case, other incorporated case records, and other federal cases, and incorporated
herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
150.
obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."
151.
are also applicable to recusal.
152.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand 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.
153.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. (UNITED
STATES) citizen/an employee of the corporation.

154.
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).

155.
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.
156.
Your Affiant respectfully demands that Judge Mary E. Arand self recuse in light of
the judicially noticed evidence incorporated herein by reference, as if fully incorporated

herein, detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives your
Affiant good reason to believe Judge Mary E. Arand cannot hear the above case in a fair
and impartial manner.
23
157.
24
that she has received. See federal case law on bribery below.
25
158.
26
that she has received. See federal case law on bribery below.
Page 22 of 50
27
28
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has concealed from litigants bribes
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has concealed from litigants bribes

159.
pro quo with the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See federal case law on bribery below.
160.
to deprive litigants appearing before her, of the intangible right of honest services, by
accepting undisclosed bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, in violation of
Title 18 U.S.C. section 1346.
7
8
9
10
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has engaged in an undisclosed quid
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has engaged in a scheme or artifice
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)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In the U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 281 (3rd Cir.(Pa.),Aug 27, 2007) the court stated,
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
intent to influence an official act or to be influenced in an official act. United States
v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576
(1999) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 201(b)). This may be contrasted to both a gratuity, which
may constitute merely a reward for some future act that the public official will take (and
may already have determined to take), or for a past act that he has already taken, and to a
noncriminal gift extended to a public official merely to build a reservoir of goodwill that
might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the
future. Id. at 405, 119 S.Ct. 1402. This discussion is equally applicable to bribery in the
honest services fraud context, and we thus conclude that bribery requires a specific
24
intent to give or re-ceive something of value in exchange for an official act. Id. at 404-
25
05, 119 S.Ct. 1402.
26
27
Page 23 of 50
28

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,
3
4
[W]e agree that at least an implicit quid pro quo is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 281
82.
6
7
In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated in,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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 exchange 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
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
21
22
And the court stated at p. 282,
23
24
whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be
25
made in exchange for some official action; the government need not prove that each gift
26
was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act. See United States v.
Page 24 of 50
27
28

Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir.1998). Rather, [t]he quid pro quo requirement is
satisfied so long as the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to
a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor. Id.
Thus, payments may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an as
needed basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take
specific action on the payor's behalf. Id.; see also United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713,
730 (1st Cir.1996) (stating that a person with continuing and long-term interests before
an official might engage in a pattern of repeated, intentional gratuity offenses in order to
coax ongoing favorable official action in derogation of the public's right to impartial
10
11
12
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.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In the 2008 impeachment of Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteus, Judicial Conference of

the United States, Secretary James C. Duff, wrote in Certificate and report to the House
of Representatives, dated June 18, 2008, I refer to and incorp a true and correct copy.
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
23
appeared before him had given him cash and other things of value for the Fifth Circuit
24
Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference
25
26
27
Page 25 of 50
28

In applying this case to cases involving the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, or its
employees, contractors, or agents, under authority of the laws that are in force and effect
Judge Mary E. Arand willfully concealed from litigants the public financial transactions
including but not limited to those designated in (d, by filing false financial disclosure
forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4, and Canon 5(C)(6) of the Code of
Conduct Of United States Judges, which require the disclosure of income, gifts, loans,
and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants to seek recusal or to
challenge her failure to recuse herself in cases in which partys who appeared before her
had given her things of value.
10
RECUSAL COUNT #1
11
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)
12
161.
13
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
14
162.
15
determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge
16
of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except
17
as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as
18
provided in subdivision (b).
19
163.
20
of Judge Mary E. Arand as provided in subdivision (b).
21
164.
22
was disqualified in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint that
23
involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Aubre
24
Guancione, as a party, though it was not put into writing at the time by the clerks of the
25
court but was later documented in 2013.
Your Affiant states that CCP 170.3 states in relevant part (a)(1) If a judge
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has NEVER WAIVED the disqualification
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted thru self recusal that she
26
27
Page 26 of 50
28

165.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has admitted through self recusal
that she was disqualified in Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross
complaint involving the undersigned.
166.
lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party through her failure to
rebut an Affidavit Memorializing her self recusal from Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v.
STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.
167.
Agreement (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted this disqualification and her
Your Affiant states that this admission was made under the Doctrine of Silence is
10
168.
11
Silence is Agreement, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint,
12
that Judge Mary E. Arand has a lifetime bar to jurisdiction in all cases involving the
13
following party: Rosalie Aubre Guancione also known as HI&RH Empress Aubre
14
Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
15
169.
16
Mary E. Arand, and the Nihil Dicit (no recourse default in Admiralty with prejudice), are
17
filed into both Case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and
18
separately into U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT case #11-57656 ASW, In Re: Rosalie
19
Aubre Guancione, as judicially noticed evidence documents 214 thru 214-4.
20
170.
21
reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.

171. Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has
22
23
24
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand admitted pursuant to the doctrine of
Your Affiant states that the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of Judge
Your Affiant states that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated by
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.
25
26
27
Page 27 of 50
28

172.
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 #2
C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)
173.
paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth
herein.
174.
Your Affiant states that CCP 170.3(b) states in relevant part: (2) There shall be no
10
waiver of disqualification if the basis therefore is either of the following: (A) The judge
11
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Emphasis added.
12
175.
13
prejudice against the undersigned party.
14
176.
15
because she has accepted bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA that
16
established a quid -pro-quo relationship between her and the Plaintiff in the instant
17
case. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related
18
SUPREME COURT case law provided above.
19
177.
20
court record that was clear proof, and prima facie evidence, that the undersigned
21
possesses immunity to all state incorporated courts in civil proceedings, including the
22
case sub judice, an infraction that is considered a civil case.
23
178.
24
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has a personal bias and / or,
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand HAS A BIAS OR PREJUDICE
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand was provided with evidence in the
Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National pursuant to Title
25
26
27
Page 28 of 50
28

179.
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.
180.
Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is NOT under
the jurisdiction of this incorporated court.
181.
Judge Mary E. Arand to hear cases in which the undersigned is a party.
182.
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
12
to be a party.
183. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National with immunity to
13
incorporated state court jurisdiction as a Secured Party Creditor.
14
184.
15
Constitution, THIS COURT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that the SECRETARY OF THE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Your Affiant states that pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the federal
STATE OF NEW YORK has recognized the secured party status of HI&RH
Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia in an official act, pursuant to FRCP 9(d) and Fed.
R. of Evid., rule 201.
185.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has previously self recused in Case
#1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

186.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has acted under color of law in the
instant appeal, WITHOUT CONSENT, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AND WITHOUT STANDING

TO DO SO, IN CORUM NON JUDICE.
187.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand 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
26
27
Page 29 of 50
28

U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.
188.
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);
189.
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.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
190.
Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand ignored the precedents, referred to in
Your Affiant states that this departure from precedent by Judge Mary E Arand
purposely resulted in denial of civil rights of both the Defendant/Appellant ROSALIE

GUANCIONE, estate, and misconstrued Defendant Aubre Guancione, also known
as Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman.
191.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand, admitted in 2013 in case #107-CV-
189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she each had a lifetime bar at least
as far back as November 2008 to jurisdiction over ALL cases involving Rosalie Aubre
Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural woman, a Secured
Party.
192.
Your Affiant states that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a violation that has
both civil and criminal liability under Title 42 US Code 1983, 1988, and U.S.
SUPREME COURT case law Owens v. City of Independence.
193.
Your Affiant states that the attached Exhibit of payments from the County Auditor,
and the judicially noticed exhibits B, C, D, E, F: Affidavits of Truth, support the

allegation of Bias and Prejudice against Appellant.
RECUSAL COUNT #3
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
27
Page 30 of 50
28

194.
195.
section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Mary E. Arand. See judicially noticed
evidence attached, and Exhibit Affidavits B, C, D, E, F.

RECUSAL COUNT #4
Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)
7
8
196.
10
197.
11
section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Judge Mary E. Arand. See judicially
12
noticed evidence attached, and Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, Affidavits of Truth, which
13
document bias. See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law on bribery, quid pro
14
quo, and impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above.
15
Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C.
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
th
16
17
th
th
18
198.
19
paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.
20
199.
21
Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.
22
200.
23
thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights
24
of the undersigned.

Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and each of the
Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the amendments
25
26
27
Page 31 of 50
28

201.
Your Affiant states that each of the three state constitutions for California are
enforceable contracts for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the
undersigned.
202.
ownership of private property, including earnings and assets.
203.
enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.
204.
jurisdiction over the undersigned.
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has admitted that she has no
10
205.
11
189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the
12
undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction.
13
206.
14
to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross
15
complaint, that she knew of her lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the
16
undersigned as a party (knowingly).
17
207.
18
though Judge Mary E Arand has previously admitted to having a lifetime bar to presiding
19
in cases involving the undersigned (willfully).
20
208.
21
recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as a litigant.
22
209.
23
of the undersigneds civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law,
24
and in corum non judice.
25
210.
26
instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to violate both the
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has admitted in case #107-CV-
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has, as shown by her tacit agreement
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand issued orders in the instant appeal,
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has wantonly ignored a duty to self
Your Affiant that Judge Mary E. Arand presiding in the instant appeal, in violation
Your Affiant states that when Judge Mary E. Arand accepted jurisdiction of the
27
Page 32 of 50
28

Defendant/Appellants, and the undersigned misconstrued Defendants, civil rights to
both due process and equal protection under the law, and in corum non judice, and
including Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
211.
court or otherwise in the instant appeal case and when she signed any order in the instant
appeal case, that Judge Mary E. Arand, did so in conspiracy with other judicial officers,
in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the Defendant/Appellants, and the
misconstrued Defendant, the undersigneds, civil rights, in corum non judice.
212.
Your Affiant states that when Judge Mary E. Arand conducted any simulation of
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand was insufficiently supervised by the
10
current presiding judge, Judge Ris Jones Pichon; former presiding judge, Judge Brian
11
Walsh; the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia Vojnik, and
12
the former Criminal Administrative Court Director, Dawn Saindon.
13
213.
14
undersigned, a Secured Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state
15
courts, when Judge Mary E. Arand issued orders in the instant appeal case without
16
jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the
17
federal Constitution of 1787, and Article 1 Section 1 and 7 of the Constitution of the
18
California Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in
19
corum non judice.
20
214.
21
involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in
22
violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non
23
judice.
24
25
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand ignored the standing of the
Your Affiant states that when Judge Mary E. Arand was assigned to cases
RECUSAL COUNT #6
Judge Mary E. Arand has Accepted Unreported and Undisclosed Bribes
in Violation of Penal Code 93 and 18 U.S.C. 1346
26
27
Page 33 of 50
28

215.
216.
required for this count.
217.
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
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has performed all the elements
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand knowingly, willfully, and wantonly
10
section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME
11
COURT case law.
12
218.
13
the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
14
219.
15
that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Mary E. Arand.
16
220.
17
other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA
18
CLARA COUNTY SHERIFFS FUND; the JUDGES TRUST FUND; the COUNTY OF
19
SANTA CLARA LAW LIBRARY FOUNDATION; and numerous other slush funds.
20
221.
21
traffic court ruling made in this county.
22
222.
23
OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
24
buys and insures good will from the judges, as a quid-pro-quo payment. See section
25
above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT
26
case law.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand did not disclose, to the undersigned,
Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation to believe
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand has also received bribery through
Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from every
Your Affiant states that the payments of local judicial benefits from the COUNTY
27
Page 34 of 50
28

223.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arands bias due to acceptance of 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 4 th, 5th, and
14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.
224.
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 Article 1 Section
1 and 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, to the undersigned.
225.
10
that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal protection under the law as guaranteed
11
by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.
12
226.
13
that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of the right to private property ownership as
14
guaranteed by California Constitution Article 1 Section 1, to the undersigned.
15
227.
16
by the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and are
17
listed below (request judicial notice of attached email from the auditor):
18
Your Affiant states that county payments to Judge Mary E. Arand were provided
19
Calendar
Year Paid
Employer Cost for Medical,

Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Wages (Other
Compensation)
20
2007
$15,263.25
$8,808.46
21
2008
$17,859.98
$9,875.63
22
2009
$19,529.14
$9,538.52
23
2010
$21,304.72
$9,500.14
24
2011
$22,196.45
$9,500.14
2012
$22,228.72
$9,500.14
2013
$24,175.22
$9,500.14
25
26
27
Page 35 of 50
28

2014
$25,175.78
$9,500.14
2015
$10,964.69
$4,019.29
Grand
Total
$178,697.95
$79,742.60
3
4
5
228.
that constitute bribes resulted in violation of the undersigneds civil rights.
229.
threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013 pursuant to PC 92/93.
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand bias due to acceptance of payments
Your Affiant states that the payments received by Judge Mary E. Arand exceed the
Prayer
9
10
Petitioner, the undersigned Affiant, prays that:
11
Judge Mary E. Arand self recuse in the instant case, and the clerk notify the Judicial
12
Council to appoint another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the alternative
13
2.
14
the Judicial Council to assign another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the
15
alternative
16
3.
17
has not been previously recused in any case involving the undersigned as a party, to
18
conduct a hearing on the recusal motion herein.
19
Judge Mary E. Arand give statutory consent to recusal, and the court clerk notify
Judge Mary E. Arand notify the Judicial Council to appoint a neutral judge, that
A judge may not pass on her own recusal. Attempts to strike this lawful and legal
20
action will be deemed an attempt by the judge to pass on the judges own recusal, in
21
violation of the law, done in bad faith, and a further attempt to deny the undersigneds
22
civil rights.
Opposition to an Affidavit must be in Affidavit form, with point for point answer,
23
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
to this action and stricken by the undersigned pursuant to the rules of Admiralty, and
27
Page 36 of 50
28

FRCP rule 12(f) as scandalous, as Judge Mary E. Arand 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
4
5
230.
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1)
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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 Mary E. Arand 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.
Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 37 of 50
28

1
2
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:
3
4
5
6
7
_/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______
HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

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

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
15
16
17
Date: June 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
18
19
20
21
22
23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
24
25
26
1)
Appellant/Defendant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
27
Page 38 of 50
28

2)
issued on December 28, 2009.
3)
E. Williams, sought to deny the undersigned Appellants rights to equal protection
under the law for appeal as a matter of right herein, due to bribery, judicial conspiracy,
and other possibly unknown factors.
4)
trial by the Commissioner conducting the hearing.
5)
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not represented during the hearing.
10
6)
Your Affiant states that this was a blatant denial of Appellants civil rights.
11
7)
Your Affiant states that the verdict and sentence were rendered without the
12
presence of the Appellant, or any attorney to represent the Appellant, at the demand of
13
the Commissioner who denied access to the Appellant herein.
14
8)
15
any final order issued in the trial court case.
16
9)
17
purported to be a complete record, contains no evidence of notice of the final order
18
prior to November 7, 2014.
19
10)
20
1787, and the SUPREME COURT ruling in Marbury v. Madison both establish that
21
the federal Constitution and UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are the
22
supreme law of the land.
23
11)
24
controlling on this court.
25
12)
26
US 306, Mullane v. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST, establishes that without proper
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not noticed of the final order
Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand, in conspiracy with Judge Helen
Your Affiant states that the undersigned was ordered out of the court during
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
27
Page 39 of 50
28

notice, the "right to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment was of no practical
consequence.
13)
order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.
14)
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
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
10
court.
11
16)
12
accepted as truth.
13
17)
14
Affidavit of no notice is a denial of the undersigneds 14th Amendment civil right.
15
18)
16
E. Arand, and in collusion with Judge Helen E. Williams, rises from the level of mere
17
judicial error to actual judicial misconduct.
18
19)
19
Mary E. Arand and Helen E. Williams to fraudulently issue a summary judgment to
20
dismiss Appellants appeal as a matter of right.
21
20)
22
Judge Mary E. Arand agreed, in 2013, to the truthfulness of all facts stated in the
23
undersigneds Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104 judges in state court
24
Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART.
25
21)
26
judges in state court Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART, established that
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
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 based upon the doctrine of Silence is Agreement that
Your /Affiant states that the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104
27
Page 40 of 50
28

the undersigned, HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratis, is a Secured Party with
immunity to all state incorporated courts.
22)
with prejudice) was taken against Judge Mary E. Arand for failure to reply or rebut the
Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of 104 judges in Case #1-07-CV-189409,
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, in which the undersigned was a party.
23)
With Prejudice.
24)
Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit (no recourse default in Admiralty, default
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
10
affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case. United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd,
11
526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982.
12
25)
13
a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
14
intentionally misleading. U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300 (1997)
15
26)
16
failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial
17
of the motion. United States District Court, Central District of California, L.R. 7-12.
18
27)
19
allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.
20
28)
21
points. It is not possible for the district judge to weight the affidavits in order to
22
resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an
23
affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of
24
the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for determination of credibility. Data
25
Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)
26
29)
Your Affiant states that Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is
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
27
Page 41 of 50
28

TRUTH IN COMMERCE. Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as
the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits."
30)
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.
31)
point-for-point. And any rebuttal must have evidence provided to the Affiant to
Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE
Your Affiant states that A Maxim of Law states, An affidavit must be rebutted
10
demonstrate why the Affiants point isnt true, and the Respondent needs to provide
11
his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long as you have your believed truth
12
on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their fiction,
13
guaranteed!
14
32)
15
clearly states at point #4 uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as
16
true.
17
33)
18
affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-
19
affidavit.
20
34)
21
Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit presumed true,
22
because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).
23
35)
24
(affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)
25
36)
26
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
27
Page 42 of 50
28

37)
Admissions by silence, in relevant part his failure to speak has traditionally been
receivable against him as an admission.
38)
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
ROSALIE GUANCIONE
8
9
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:
10
11
12
13
_/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
14
15
16
17
18
Common Law Notarization follows on next page.
19
The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
20
21
22
23
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_______
24
25
26
27
Page 43 of 50
28

1
2
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 44 of 50
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
From: "Lee, Susana" <Susana.Lee@esa.sccgov.org>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Public Records Request for: SUPERIOR COURT Judge Mary J Arand
Dear Ms Lee,
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, a request is hereby
made for documents showing all payments from Santa Clara County commonly known
as:
1) "local judicial benefits" separately and individually to SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT Judge Mary J Arand from the commencement of such benefit
payments believed to be beginning approximately 2005 or prior thru to current date.
2) A yearly summary of "Megaflex Cafeteria Plan" benefits, 401(k), 457 and/or other
retirement contributions, "Professional Development Allowances", etc.
3) Any other Santa Clara County compensation for each year that the "local judicial
benefits" were paid, for the judge.
This is urgent. Time is of the essence. An e-mail e-response to my email at:
trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com regarding the information requested herein on
Santa Clara County letterhead, or comparable documentation of source origination of
the content of all available records information or a summary thereof, will be sufficient.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this most urgent matter. Your efforts are
greatly appreciated.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sincerely, Joanne Johnson 408-830-6266
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 Mary E. Arand for
cause for disqualification, that includes a previous self recusal of Judge Mary E. Arand
in Case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART, and five notarized Affidavits of Truth
supporting an allegation of Bias, or a public perception of Bias, by Judge Mary E.
Arand toward the Defendant. The ROSALIE GUANCIONE Estate Executrix seeks
to recuse Judge Mary E. Arand from the instant case, pursuant to C.C.P. 170.1,
170.3, 170.3(a)(1), 170.3(b)(2)(A); Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a), 455(b)(1), violations of
due process and equal protection: 4th, 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 statutory law and case law for defaulted Affidavits
from 2013 regarding Judge Mary E. Arands admission as truth of a lifetime bar of
Judge Mary E. Arand 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 Mary E. Arand from the instant case is
10
sustained, and
11
By order of the Court, Judge Mary E. Arand is recused from the instant appeal and
12
another appellate judge that has not been recused in any previous case(s) involving
13
Appellant/Defendant herein shall be appointed to act in the instant case.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date: ____/____/20___
_____________________________
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Pleading Recuse MaryArand 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 MaryArand 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

for ROSALIE GUANCIONE, objects by Affidavit, to Judge Mary E. Arand, due to

455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and

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

complaint, and as Judicially Noticed Evidence in UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

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

Judge Mary E. Arand.

Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

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

SANTA CLARA, on June 01, 2015.

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

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

known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living woman.

hands, rectus curia.

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.

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

natural individual, and a sentient living mortal human being.

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

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

held to the same standard as a lawyers and/or attorneys.

litigant of the Petitions deficiency.

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

litigant on the necessary instructions.

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

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

appeal derives from.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Traffic Court case file: 7-09-TR-562668.

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

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

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

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

removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

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

Judge Mary E. Arand.

undersigned as other than a natural living woman.

among the living.

Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.

name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court record.

name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court.

name was deliberate subterfuge upon your Affiant.

names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic deceit.

fraud upon the court record.

fraud upon the undersigned.

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