You are on page 1of 50

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

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

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

Objection to Judge Mary E. Arand for Disqualification for Cause


AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

)
)ss
)

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

11

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

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

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

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
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

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.

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per motions, pleadings and
all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.
22.

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro
per, also known as in proper persona.
23.

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

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.

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed
without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition.
25.

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

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

Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

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

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 Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

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.

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

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.


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

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

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

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

26

41.

27
28

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


Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examinations prove that an all
Page 7 of 50
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

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.

Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds

name was deliberate subterfuge upon the court.


48.

Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds

name was deliberate subterfuge upon your Affiant.


49.

Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds

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

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

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

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Mary E. Arand,


agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, which is a status that has standing above

26
27

Page 9 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

that of all incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.

60.

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Mary E. Arand,

agreed that the undersigned is a secured party, with immunity to all state incorporated

courts.

61.

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, which included Judge Mary E. Arand,

self recused in case 1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, a case in

which the undersigned was a party.

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

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

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.

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

upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by the Clerk of the Court,
and Deputy Clerks using David H. Yamasakis delegated signature authority, in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
72.

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

upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned by judges in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
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

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

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 undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the

Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the

Your Affiant states that the unlicensed use of the estates copyrighted name in all

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

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

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

Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE
case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the COUNTY OF

Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arand HAS A BIAS AND A PREJUDICE
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Your Affiant states that all judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY


GENERAL, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL and three
SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an Affidavit of CROSSCOMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre
Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B.
Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony
Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG
WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES
RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stating that all judges

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

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY


Page 17 of 50

27
28

Your Affiant states that all judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

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

GENERAL, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL and three

SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an Affidavit of CROSS-

COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre

Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B.

Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony

Victor Guancione IIIs CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG

WANG, AND JOSH ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES

RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stating that 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.

Stewart III, Aubre Dei Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony
Victor Guancione III, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III, Aubre Dei
Gratia (aka Rosalie Aubre Guancione), and Anthony Victor Guancione IIIs
CONVERSATIONS WITH BRIAN FARAONE, LAN-FANG WANG, AND JOSH
ZENZEN, AND CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES RECUSED IN THIS
CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008 stated that your Affiant is NOT a U.S.
citizen.
121.

Your Affiant states that the 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

194.

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

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

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.

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

215.

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

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

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

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

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.

Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arands bias due to acceptance of payments

Your Affiant states that Judge Mary E. Arands bias due to acceptance of payments

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 Judge Mary E. Arands bias due to acceptance of payments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Date: June 01, 2015

By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam_______

24
25
26
27

Page 43 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

1
2

K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam


Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

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

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

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

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA


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