Aurora Bautista Quicho

207 Albatross Lane

Fountain Valley, California
Attornatus Privatus

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Aurora Bautista Quicho, ) CASE NO. BC324176

Counterclaimant, )
) RULING ON DEMURRER OF
v. ) COUNTERDEFENDANTS
) Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Sokolov;
CALIFORNIA, et al. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
Counterdefendants. )
)
------------------------------------)----------------------------

TO COUNTERDEFENDANTS WILEY, ARNOLD, ELLISON, AND SOKOLOV:

1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 10, 2005 the hearing on the

demurrer of counterdefendants John Shepard Wiley Jr., Mark S.

Arnold, Laura C. Ellison, and Thomas R. Sokolov (hereinafter

“defendants”), to counterplaintiff's counterclaim, came on

regularly for hearing in Department 30 of the above entitled

court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Room 400, Los Angeles,

California, the Honorable Magistrate Joseph R. Kaplin, presiding.

2 Counterplaintiff Aurora Bauatista Quicho (hereinafter

“plaintiff”), who is in the custody of defendants Wiley and
Ellison1, did not appear. A Deputy Attorney General appeared on

1 Counterplaintiff’s Exhibit “E”, Page 4, line items dated 09/08/04

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 1 of 12

behalf of defendants John Shepard Wiley Jr., Mark S. Arnold,
Laura C. Ellison, and Thomas R. Sokolov.

JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE

3 This court takes judicial cognizance and decrees as follows:

4 JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE. Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which

a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence.
[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 760.]

5 The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof...

[California Government Code, Section 100(a)]

6 The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the

agencies which serve them. [California Government Code, Sections
11120 and 54950.]

7 Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of

jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion
between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the
record, in respect to the proceedings. [California Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1916]

8 ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people;

and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are
sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L
Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
9 The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the
sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29
S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

10 The people of this State, as the successors of its former

sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged
to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9
(N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C
Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C
Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

11 A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of

the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in
all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice.
(Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the

Counterplaintiff’s Exhibit “F”, Page 1, last paragraph

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 2 of 12

king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270,
Chapter 7, Section 379.

12 ....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair

or deny others retained by the people. [California Constitution,
Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]

13 The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v.

California, 100 US 516.]

14 The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably

made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.
[Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]

15 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there

can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

16 There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because

of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen,
481 F 946.]

17 Whereas, the people of California have presented a

constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be
republican in its form of government.... [Act [of Congress] for
the Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at
Large, Page 452.]

18 Republican government. One in which the powers of

sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the
people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the
people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re
Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law
Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

19 The State of California is an inseparable part of the United

States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. [California Constitution, Article 3,
Sec. 1.]

20 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution
for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]

21 COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where
the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may
be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 3 of 12

22 COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or
indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more
officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing
and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and
alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the
law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at
times and places previously determined by lawful authority.
[Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

23 COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have

four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and

exercising functions independently of the person of
the magistrate designated generally to hold it
[Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229;
Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw,
C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406,
155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law

[Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229;
Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw,
C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406,
155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or

recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3
Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton,
52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2
L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117
N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl.

Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher,
C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229;
Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229,
231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3

Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24
F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v.

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 4 of 12

 U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

24 The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the

superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]

25 ...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which

under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said
charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points,
that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....
[Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297" "Sources of Our
Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.]

26 Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be

served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to
lose his court. Magna Carta, Article 34.

27 CCP 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to

a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the
authority of the court:
. . .
3. Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or
violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff,
coroner, or other person [e.g. a judge or magistrate], appointed
or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service;
4. Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or
falsely pretending to act under authority of an order or process
of the court;
5. Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or
process of the court;
. . .
8. Any other unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court;
. . .
11. Disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate,
or officer, of the lawful judgment, order, or process of a
superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding
contrary to law, after such action or special proceeding is
removed from the jurisdiction of such inferior tribunal,
magistrate, or officer.
28 CCP 1211. (a) When a contempt is committed in the immediate
view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, it
may be punished summarily; for which an order must be made,
reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and
presence, adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby
guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as therein
prescribed.

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 5 of 12

 When the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and
presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit
shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts
constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the
referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers. ...

II

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

29 THIS COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

30 Plaintiff Aurora Bautista Quicho is a people of California.

35. This above-entitled court is a court of record in name and

function, namely proceeding according to the course of common law
with a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising
functions independently of the person of the magistrate
designated generally to hold it

III

DICTA

31 The question before the court is not whether the acts were
committed by the defendants (for they do not deny their actions),
but whether they have judicial immunity from common law suits
when their actions go beyond the constitutional limits or beyond
the authority of their office.

32 A review of the case law and ancient legal principles shows

this court that, indeed, there is ample precedent for judicial
immunity.2 Tagliava states the concept well: The rule is based
on a “general principle of the highest importance to the proper
administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising
the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own
convictions, without apprehension of personal consequence to
himself.”

33 But, it is also a well established principle that judicial

immunity does not extend to a person not a judicial officer, nor

2 Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 759, 761

Frost v. Geernaert (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1107.

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 6 of 12

to a person who is exercising judicial functions outside the
umbra of a properly constituted court with a properly established
jurisdiction.

34 So, the question hinges on a single point: Were the acts of

the defendants within the umbra of a properly constituted court
with a properly established jurisdiction? If yes, then the
demurrer must be granted. If no, the demurrer must be denied.

35 Because “The sovereignty of the state resides in the people

thereof...”3 the State of California has no direct sovereignty of
its own. It has a clipped sovereignty delegated by the people
through the Constitution to the State.

36 Who is the sovereign? It is the people either in plural4 or

in singular capacity.5 In singular capacity, in this case, it is
William Jones, one of the people as contemplated in the preambles
of the 1849 Constitution for California, the 1879 Constitution
for the State of California, and the 1789 Constitution for the
United States of America.

37 California, the State of California, and the United States of

America have no general sovereignty. Theirs is a clipped
sovereignty. Whatever sovereignty they have is limited to their
respective constitutionally defined spheres of control. The
general sovereignty is reserved to the people without
diminishment.6 Lest that be forgotten, the California Government
Code twice admonishes the public servants that, "The people of
this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them."7 Further, when the State of California did attempt
to diminish one's rights, it was determined that the state cannot
diminish rights of the people.8

3 California Government Code, Section 100(a)

4 PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the
people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural,
but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body,… Webster's 1828 Dictionary

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly
belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const.
Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
5 PEOPLE…considered as….any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Ibid.
6 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but
they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves" CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall
419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly
belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers
which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with
his Parliament;…" Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 American Decision 89; 10C Const. Law Sec.
298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
7 California Government Code, Sections 11120 and 54950
8 Hertado v. California, 100 US 516

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 7 of 12

38 It is by the prerogative of the sovereign9 whether and how a
court is authorized to proceed. In this case, the chosen form of
the court is that of a court of record.

39 The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to

the agencies which serve them.10 For that reason the magistrates
of the State of California can only acquire jurisdiction over the
people of California if said people voluntarily grant such
jurisdiction to the state. The record clearly shows, and the
defendants admit, that Aurora Bautista Quicho never voluntarily
yielded her sovereignty to the defendants and their private
court. It logically follows that defendants do not have lawful
jurisdiction over the plaintiff.

40 Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of

jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion
between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the
record, in respect to the proceedings.11 Without a voluntary
yielding of her sovereignty, defendants at no time acquired
unimpeachable jurisdiction to act against the sovereignty of the
state. The record shows evidence of a want of jurisdiction in
the defendants (aka judicial officers). Because defendants are
required to take an oath of office, and because of their acts,
one could almost conclude that the defendants committed treason
against the state and the sovereignty of the state.12 However,
treason is not an issue before this court, and this court does
not so conclude.

41 The sovereignty of the people orginates thus: ...at the

Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns
without subjects...with none to govern but themselves.....13

42 Sovereignty is recognized thus: The very meaning of

'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.14

43 The natural rights of any sovereign are thusly recognized:

The people of this State, as the successors of its former
sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged
to the King by his prerogative.15

9 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but
they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2
Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
10 [California Government Code, Sections 11120 and 54950.]
11 [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1916]
12 Treason against this state consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and
comfort, and can be committed only by persons owing allegiance to the state. [California Penal Code, Section 37]
13 [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
14 [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
15 [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3,
228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 8 of 12

44 A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of
the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in
all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice.16
His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is
reflected.17 That precedent alone prohibits any magistrate from
dismissing a sovereign plaintiff’s case. A magistrate who acts
without the permission of the sovereign is not the mirror of the
sovereign.

45 The State of California recognizes its limitations.

Specifically, the California Constitution states, “....This
declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.”18

46 That is further recognized by the Federal courts: “The state

cannot diminish rights of the people.”19 Denying the sovereignty
of the plaintiff is a diminishment of the rights of /the people.

47 The same principle applies to local practice: “The assertion

of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be
defeated under the name of local practice.”20

48 Further, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are

involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.”21

49 Further, There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one

because of this exercise of constitutional rights.22

50 The roots of the people’s sovereign immunity against the

state lies in the organization of the State: a Republic. This
is recognized by the Federal Congress which said, “Whereas, the
people of California have presented a constitution....and which,
on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of
government....”23

51 A Republican form of government is, “One in which the powers

of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the
people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the
people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.”24

16 (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186)
17 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.
18 [California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]
19 [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]
20 [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
21 [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]
22 [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]
23 [Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.]

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 9 of 12

52 A court is, “The person and suit of the sovereign; the place
where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever
that may be.”25 Further, it is, “An agency of the sovereign
created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained
for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact
regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course of law at times and places previously
determined by lawful authority.”26

53 This court is a court of record. To be a court of record a

court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They
are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and

exercising functions independently of the person of
the magistrate designated generally to hold it.27

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law28

29

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or

recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony.30

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt.31

E. Generally possesses a seal.32

24 [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed.
627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]
25 [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
26 [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
27 [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.
See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
28“...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall
allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the
common law....” [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297 "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry,
American Bar Foundation.]
29 [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.
See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
30 [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal
225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
31 [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal
225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
32 [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal
225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 10 of 12

54 The court of a people many not be denied to him.33

55 The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the

superior courts....34

56 Any attempt to deprive the sovereign of his court may be a

contempt of court.35

57 The 1879 Constitution for the State of California mandates

that the Superior Courts of California are courts of record.36

58 To be a court of record requires more than a name. The court

must also act as a court of record. The record shows that the
defendants were not acting as a court of record on two counts.
First, they were not proceeding according to the common law.
Second, the tribunal was not independent of the magistrate who
was conducting the proceeding.

59 Further, the record shows and defendants admit they did not
acquire the voluntary yielding of sovereignty from the plaintiff,
a people of California. Rather, they rode roughshod over the
plaintiff’s objections to their jurisdiction without even
bothering to acknowledge the objections or to come to any
relevent conclusion. Thus, any prosecution of a people of
California by the public servants must necessarily be found to be
without jurisdiction.

33 Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free
man to lose his court. Magna Carta, Article 34.
34 [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]
35 CCP 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are
contempts of the authority of the court:
...
3. Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk,
sheriff, coroner, or other person [e.g. a judge or magistrate], appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial
service;
4. Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under authority of
an order or process of the court;
5. Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court;
...
8. Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court;
...
11. Disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer, of the lawful judgment, order, or
process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding contrary to law, after such action or
special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction of such inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer.
36 California Constitution, Article 6, Section 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court,
courts of appeal, superior courts, and municipal courts, all of which are courts of record.

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 11 of 12

 IV

DECISION

60 FOR THE ABOVE STATED REASONS, THE COURT FINDS that the
demurrer is without merit. For purposes of determining
defendants’ demurrer, this above-entitled court finds that the
defendants do not have judicial immunity. This finding applies
only to this decision regarding defendants’ demurrer. The court
will revisit the issues before final judgment

61 FURTHER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT the defendants need not file
an answer to plaintiff’s counterclaim. Their demurrer will serve
as their answer.

62 FURTHER, THE COURT ORDERS that the defendants may show cause
within 15 days of the date of this order why this order is not
valid, if that it may be.

THE COURT

by_____________________________
Aurora Bautista Quicho
Attornatus Privatus

Ruling re Demurrer of Wiley, Arnold, Ellison, and Sokolov Page 12 of 12