Blank Pleading Template With Line Numbering -- Word

HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, ExecutrixSui Juris, the natural living womanc/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: 408-830-6266SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Appellate Division191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113ROSALIE GUANCIONE

Appellant/Executrix vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)

Appellee

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (corpora ficta)

Plaintiff

vs.

ROSALIE GUANCIONE

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)))))))Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001829Trial Court Case No.: 7-09-TR-562668

GUANCIONE vs PEOPLE 1. Rosalie Aubre Guancione, the natural living womans, Objection to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification for Cause, to be filed Instantor Count 1: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)

Count 2: C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Count 3: Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)

Count 4: Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)

Count 5: Denial of Civil Rights to Due Process, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments fed. Const. of 1787 and Calif. Const. Art. 1 1, 7Count 6: Unreported and Undisclosed Acceptance of Bribes in Violation of PC 93, and 18 U.S.C. 13462. Memorandum

3. Incorporated by Reference as if fully incorporated herein: Case #1-07-CV-189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint; Case C1093451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE; and C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE4. Exhibit Email from Auditor on County Bribes5. Exhibit Affidavits of Bias6. [ proposed ] ORDER

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

Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any 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.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione, objects, by Affidavit, to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams, due to disqualification for cause, based upon numerous reasons cited in the Affidavit below and the caption above. This motion is made timely in that the judge is still in office and the clock does not start to run until the public servant leaves office, pursuant to civil rights federal law Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; Title28U.S.C. 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and 6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA PC 92, 93, Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities cited in the memorandum herein, to recuse Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams. Any opposition answer to this motion to recuse Helen Elizabeth Williams, must under C.C.P. 170 et seq. be served and filed 10 days from the filing and service date of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause. Objection to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams for Disqualification for CauseAFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

)

)ss AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTHCOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA)Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman, over the age of 18, who makes these statements under oath and after first being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge.1. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the City of San Jose, county of Santa Clara, on June 01, 2015.

2. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not misleading

3. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts stated herein.

4. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have occurred within the COUNTY OF Santa Clara.

5. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman, is the estate executrix for the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate.6. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman, is also known as Rosalie Aubre Guancione,7. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is a non-corporate, a non-combatant and real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood, natural born living woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean hands, rectus curia.8. Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without reservation.9. 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, on January 21, 2013.

14. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21, 2013, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, is living, and not deceased.

15. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams memorialized the results of his examination of the undersigned, as a living natural woman in a separate Affidavit attached and fully incorporated by reference as if fully incorporated herein.

16. Your Affiant states that the physical examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall Williams dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is natural individual, and sentient living mortal human being.

17. Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individuals name on a tombstone, or; a corporation.

18. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an all upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.Pro Se/pro per Standards

19. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

20. Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the Supreme Court of the United States, Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyers and/or attorneys; and whose motions, pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.

21. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is considered in pro per, also known as in proper persona. 22. Your Affiant states that pro se litigants complaints, pleadings and other papers are exempt from dismissal for form not function and pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition; AND the court MUST inform the pro se litigant of the Petitions deficiency; AND instruct the pro se litigant on the necessary instructions; AND the pro se litigant may introduce any evidence in support of his Petition. 23. Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court dismisses the pro se litigants complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are deficient and how to repair the pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.24. Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed) rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart from precedent, where parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000)Governing Rules of this Case

25. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.26. 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 trust ROSALIE GUANCIONE.

27. 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.

28. Your Affiant states that your Affiant is the Appellant in the case sub judice, and is a misconstrued Party in the trial court case against ROSALIE GUANCIONE that this appeal derives from.29. Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County OF Santa Clara, Traffic Court case file: 7-09-TR-562668.

30. Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

31. Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County OF Santa Clara, Appellate Division case file: 1-14-AP-001829. 32. Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

33. Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County OF Santa Clara, Criminal Division case file: C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.

34. Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

35. Your Affiant states that the undersigned adapts and incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, the entire SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County OF Santa Clara, Criminal Division case file: C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.

36. Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk, removals, and Orders, the entire docket.

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

38. Your Affiant states that the instant case is governed by, inter alia, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, inter alia, the Federal Rules of Evidence and, inter alia, the United States Code and, inter alia, the united States Constitution of 1787 and, inter alia, the amendments thereto including the original 13th Amendment and, inter alia, the California Constitution and, inter alia, the Treaty of Paris of 1781 and, inter alia, the Hague Convention and, inter alia, the Universal Postal Union Treaty and, inter alia, ALL other human rights treaties and, inter alia, all estoppels on government agencies and/or agents, and others and, inter alia. These Rules and Laws have not been abrogated.

STATEMENTS OF FACT39. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

40. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examinations prove that an all 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 Helen Elizabeth Williams.

41. Your Affiant states that the all upper case name was applied to fraudulently capture jurisdiction over the undersigned, by a corporate court, that deliberately misconstrued the undersigned as other than a natural living woman.

42. Your Affiant states that the all capitalized format of the undersigneds name in all the court correspondence, in the instant case, indicates that the undersigned is no longer among the living.

43. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is NOT deceased.

44. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used the use all capitalized format for the undersigneds names.

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

46. Your Affiant states that the use of the all capitalized format for the undersigneds names was deliberate subterfuge known as semantic deceit.

47. Your Affiant states that the use of semantic deceit is a type of fraud.

48. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceipt to commit fraud upon the court record.

49. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceipt to commit fraud upon the the court.

50. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceipt to commit fraud upon the undersigned.

51. Your Affiant states that the use of an all capitalized name of a living man/woman is illegal, under the U.S. postal codes without the express (written and verified) permission of the natural living man/woman.

52. Your Affiant states that usage of fictitious names or addresses (ALL CAPITAL 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.

53. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams used semantic deceit by use of the all capitalized name ROSALIE GUANCIONE in the instant case, to knowingly, willfully and wantonly, to fraudulently, claim jurisdiction over the undersigned.

54. 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. 55. Your Affiant states that in 2013, David H. Yamasaki, Court Clerk and CEO, and the Office of the District Attorney for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, each agreed that the undersigned is a Secured Party, which is a status that has standing above that of all incorporated courts, including the above captioned court.

56. Your Affiant states that the state court is a corporation, also known as the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, which has no jurisdiction over natural living man/woman.

57. Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a fictitious business name for the legal fiction incorporated in Washington, DC, as the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

58. Your Affiant states that each COUNTY OF countyname court is a wholly owned, for profit, subsidiary, or division, of the incorporated JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

59. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned acknowledgments of lack of 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.

60. 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 Helen E. Williams in any form or manner or in any arena.

61. Your Affiant states that the undersigned real and natural living woman Aubre Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, does not hold the office of person.

62. Your Affiant states that the semantic deceit by Judge Helen E. Williams was committed in order to treat this case as an uncontested division of assets outside of either the probate court or the bankruptcy court.

63. Your Affiant states that this semantic deceit by Judge Helen E. Williams was a deliberate contrivance to facilitate the theft of the Defendant and the undersigneds assets.

64. Your Affiant states that the court may not disperse or assign the assets of the undersigned under the presumption that the undersigned is deceased.

65. 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.

66. 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.

67. Your Affiant states that the unauthorized use of the Defendants name in all upper case format violated the ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate name copyright.

68. 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.

69. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the copyright over the all capitalized name would not be infringed by any of the judicial officers of the Judicial Council of California.

70. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the estates copyright would not be infringed by the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

71. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation that the copyright would not be infringed by either the Clerk, any of the Deputy Clerks of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

72. Your Affiant states that the unlicensed use of the estates copyrighted name in all upper case format violated the undersigneds civil rights to her copyright ownership.

73. Your Affiant states that the license fee for use of the estates name in all upper case format is $500,000.

74. Your Affiant states that the penalty for unauthorized use of the estates name in all upper case format is treble damages.

75. Your Affiant states that each unauthorized use of the undersigneds name in all upper case format is the license fee and the penalty, or $2 million USD.

76. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams has performed unauthorized use of the estates name in all upper case format and is personally and individually responsible for damages for each instance of $2 million USD.

77. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.

78. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams acted without jurisdiction in hearing the case sub judice, due to self recusal in case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE in December 2013.

79. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has been recused in at least two prior cases involving the undersigned.80. Your Affiant states that the prior recusals of Judge Helen E. Williams establish proof of the bias and prejudice of Judge Helen E. Williams against the undersigned.81. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and a prejudice against the undersigned.82. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and a prejudice in favor of the Plaintiffs Attorney, a COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA employee.83. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and a prejudice in favor of case outcomes that include favorable verdicts for the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.84. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and a prejudice in favor of case outcomes that include verdicts in which the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA receives money.85. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias and prejudice in favor of the Plaintiffs attorney, county employees in the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, due to regular payments that Judge Helen E. Williams has received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.86. Your Affiant states that the payments that Helen E. Williams has received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA are called local judicial benefits.87. Your Affiant states that the term local judicial benefits is semantic deceit for bribes to judges by other than the judges employer of record. 88. Your Affiant states that the payments that Helen E. Williams has received and continues to receive from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA constitute bribes pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on bribery cited below.89. Your Affiant states that no other proof is required to establish the quid-pro-quo between Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA pursuant to UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law, see federal case law on bribery cited below.90. Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo between Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA creates the UNDISCLOSED bias and prejudice in favor of the Plaintiffs attorney, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.91. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA receives a portion of the payment of the fine in every traffic ticket case heard in the courts of the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in which a guilty verdict is rendered against a Defendant.92. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is misconstrued to be the Defendant in the instant traffic ticket case.93. Your Affiant states that the quid-pro-quo is present in the instant case between Judge Helen E. Williams and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.94. Your Affiant states that bias or prejudice for or against a party are mandatory requirements for self recusal in Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a). 95. Your Affiant states that the judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA are subject to the laws in Title 28 U.S.C. section 144 and Title 28 U.S.C. section 455.96. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed in 2013 that she has a life time bar to hearing any cases involving the undersigned as a Party.97. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted without jurisdiction, in her rulings in the case sub judice.

98. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted in fraud in the instant case by issuing any rulings. 99. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams denied the undersigned her civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, by issuing rulings in the case sub judice without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.

100. Your Affiant states that when a judge acts without jurisdiction, that is known as in corum non judice.

101. Your Affiant states that at the moment a judge performs an act or acts in violation of a litigants civil rights, the judge is acting outside of his office as judge, and without the immunity of his office.

102. Your Affiant states that a judge acting outside their office as judge, is acting in their private capacity, without immunity to either civil or criminal prosecution or law suit, pursuant to MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES.103. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted without subject matter jurisdiction at all times in the instant appeal.

104. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams deliberately, willfully and wantonly acted to disregard a duty to self recuse at all times in the appeal sub judice.

105. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has no immunity to either civil or criminal prosecution or law suit for her actions in violation of the undersigneds civil rights, or that of the ROSALIE GUANCIONE estate or trust, based upon the fraud in the instant case.

106. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was given notice of all disqualified judges at the start of the appeal sub judice.107. Your Affiant states that judges are required to keep an up to date list of their conflicts of interest.

108. Your Affiant states that judges are required to know and inform themselves of their conflicts of interest, personally and thru their relatives up to and including the third civil familial degree.109. Your Affiant states that corporations, including the incorporated SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, do not have any jurisdiction over a natural living man/woman pursuant to US SUPREME COURT ruling.

110. Your Affiant states that in the US SUPREME COURT ruling of Penhallow v Doanes Administraters, corporate courts can only interface and have jurisdiction over other artificial persons.

111. 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.

112. Your Affiant states that pursuant to Article IV Section I of the federal Constitution, the Full Faith & Credit Clause, this state court must accept official acts, rulings and/or laws of any other state.

113. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of immunity from all state court jurisdiction due to her established standing as a Secured Party.

114. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceit in falsely claiming that it was the responsibility of the undersigned to prove a negative in her order of May 15, 2015.

115. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceit in her order dated May 15, 2015 implying that it was the responsibility of the undersigned to prove that the undersigned had not received notice of an order.116. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams used semantic deceit in her order dated May 15, 2015, implying that there was any law that the Defendant could be tried without an attorney present and without the Defendants presence in the court.

117. Your Affiant states that the Commissioner in the trial court case for the instant 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.

118. Your Affiant states that it is blatantly illegal to conduct a trial that denies the accused access to the trial court, when the accused is self represented.119. Your Affiant states that conducting a trial wherein the accused is denied access to the court, and there is no attorney to represent the interests of the accused, is fraud.120. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has knowingly, willfully and wantonly failed to perform her duty to uphold her oath of office to support and faithfully defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES, and the civil rights of the undersigned, thru either semantic deceit; the misapplication of a law; or thru the use of a law that is repugnant to the Constitution regarding due process and equal protection, in application of a time constraint on notice of appeal that ignores the legal right to notice.121. Your Affiant states that when a judge receives payments or payments in kind from an individual or entity who is not his/her employer of record, those payments must be disclosed. 122. Your Affiant states that the state law SBX 211, giving judges immunity in this instance, cannot supersede the state constitution because it violates the state constitution because it creates more than one class of citizens.

123. Your Affiant states that the employer of record for state court judges is the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

124. Your Affiant states that the payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA in cash or in kind, to Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams, constitute violations of California Penal Code 92, 93.

125. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams acted on the quid-pro-quo by issuing an erroneous and void judgment, without jurisdiction, in the instant appeal.

126. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued a void order in a motion to dismiss, after Defendants civil rights were violated when the trial court conducted an arraignment of the Defendant without jurisdiction more than 4 months after the issuance of a traffic ticket.127. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued a void order in a motion to dismiss after Defendants civil rights were violated when the trial court conducted a trial more than 45 days after the arraignment of the Defendant without jurisdiction.128. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has agreed to her lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which the undersigned is a party, in her failure to answer an Affidavit served upon her and filed into the public record, as supported by the following case law.

129. Your Affiant states that the undersigned gave more notice to Judge Helen E. Williams to answer, than the Traffic Court gave to the undersigned in which the case that this appeal is based.

130. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams declares that the undersigned can be held to unnoticed orders as enforceable.

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

133. Your Affiant states that the immunity of a Secured Party does apply to civil cases.134. Your Affiant states that the legal maxims, common law, case law, and civil rules regarding the requirement to answer an Affidavit, and how to answer it, are contained in the memorandum, for brevity herein.

135. Your Affiant now objects to the jurisdiction of Judge Helen E. Williams in the above entitled matter under C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Section 144 and Section 455; and Marshall v Jerrico Inc.; 446 US 238, 242; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

136. The grounds to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams are C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3, Title28U.S.C. 144, 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 45(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201, the case law and common law and maxims of law set forth in the memorandum herein, and Judge Helen E. Williams admissions, as set forth in judicially noticed evidence sets previously filed into the instant case, the trial court case, other incorporated case records, and other federal cases, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.

137. Your Affiant states that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."138. Your Affiant states that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6 are also applicable to recusal.

139. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has in the past deliberately violated other litigant's personal liberties, and/or, has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before the court or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

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

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

142. Your Affiant states that the United States Constitution guarantees a neutral (an unbiased) Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.

143. Your Affiant respectfully demands that Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in 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 Helen E. Williams cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner.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)

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 intent to give or re-ceive something of value in exchange for an official act. Id. at 404-05, 119 S.Ct. 1402.

In the U.S. v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 78 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1185, (9th Cir.(Nev.) Feb 20, 2009), the court stated,

[W]e agree that at least an implicit quid pro quo is required. See Kemp, 500 F.3d at 28182.

In the U.S. v. Kemp, supra, 500 F.3d at p. 281-282 the court stated in,

United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). [ ]the instructions proffered by the District Court repeatedly emphasized the critical quid pro quo, explaining that [t]o establish such bribery the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo, ... that the benefit was offered in ex-change for the official act. (App. at 9642.) The Court continued, where there is a stream of benefits given by a person to favor a public official, ... it need not be shown that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a person gave an official a stream of benefits in implicit exchange for one or more official acts, you may conclude that a bribery has occurred. (App. at 9643.) Finally, the Court explained,*282 [t]o find the giver of a benefit guilty, you must find that the giver had a specific intent to give ... something of value in exchange for an official act, that is, that the accused had the specific intent to engage in such a quid pro quo exchange. (App. at 9643-44.) This instruction correctly described the law of bribery

And the court stated at p. 282,

whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action; the government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act. See United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir.1998). Rather, [t]he quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to 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 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.

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 appeared before him had given him cash and other things of value for the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference

In applying this case to cases involving the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, or its employees, contractors, or agents, under authority of the laws that are in force and effect

Judge Helen E. Williams willfully concealed from litigants the public financial 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.

RECUSAL COUNT #1

C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(a)(1)144. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth herein.

145. Your Affiant states that CCP 170.3 states in relevant part (a)(1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).

146. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has never waived the disqualification of Judge Helen E. Williams as provided in subdivision (b).

147. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams has admitted through self recusal that she was disqualified in case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE that involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Guancione, as a party.

148. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams has admitted through self recusal that she was disqualified in case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE that involved HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, also known as Rosalie Guancione, as a party.

149. Your Affiant states that this admission was made under the Doctrine of Silence is Agreement (see Memorandum authorities on defaults).

150. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams admitted pursuant to the doctrine of Silence is Agreement, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that Judge Helen E. Williams has a lifetime bar to jurisdiction in all cases involving the following party: Rosalie Aubre Guancione also known as HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural living woman. 151. 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.

RECUSAL COUNT #2

C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3(b)(2)(A)152. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth herein.

153. Your Affiant states that CCP 170.3(b) states in relevant part: (2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefore is either of the following: (A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Emphasis added.154. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a personal bias and / or, prejudice against the undersigned party.155. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has a bias or prejudice because she has accepted bribes from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA that established a quid -pro-quo relationship between her and the Plaintiff in the instant case. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law provided above.156. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was provided with evidence in the court record that was clear proof, and prima facie evidence, that the undersigned possesses immunity to all state incorporated courts in civil proceedings, including the case sub judice, an infraction that is considered a civil case.157. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).

158. Your Affiant states that Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is formally established as an American National and Secured Party Creditor.

159. Your Affiant states that Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as, Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia, the natural living woman and the undersigned, is not under the jurisdiction of this incorporated court.

160. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has never waived the disqualification of Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams to hear cases in which the undersigned is a party.

161. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has never waived the absence of jurisdiction of this incorporated state court in cases in which the undersigned is construed to be a party.

162. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is an American National with immunity to incorporated state court jurisdiction as a Secured Party Creditor.

163. Your Affiant states that pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, this court must acknowledge that the SECRETARY OF THE 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 201.164. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has previously self recused in Case #C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.165. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has previously self recused in Case #C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE.166. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has acted under color of law in the instant appeal, without consent, without jurisdiction, and without standing to do so, in corum non judice. 167. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams was acting in racketeering to steal the undersigneds assets in order to guarantee the quid-pro-quo bribed agreement between herself and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.168. Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed) rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart from precedent, where parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000);

169. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams ignored the precedents, referred to in Anastasoff v. United States, in conducting hearings and issuing orders without jurisdiction in the instant appeal, to fulfill, or perform, on the quid-pro-quo bribed agreement between herself and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.170. Your Affiant states that this departure from precedent by Judge Helen E. Williams 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.171. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams, admitted in 2013 in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she each had a lifetime bar to jurisdiction over all cases involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione, also known as Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, the natural woman, a Secured Party.172. 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.

RECUSAL COUNT #3

Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a)

173. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

174. Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(a) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed evidence attached, and Exhibit Affidavits B, C, D, E, F.

175. 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 #4

Title 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)

176. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

177. Your Affiant states that all of the required elements for violation of Title 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(1) have been satisfied by Judge Helen E. Williams. See judicially noticed evidence attached, and Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, Affidavits of Truth, which document bias. See UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT case law on bribery, quid pro quo, and impeachment of federal Judge Porteus, above.RECUSAL COUNT #54th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787,

As Perviewed thru the 14th Amendment andCalifornia Constitution Article 1 1, 7

178. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs herein as if fully set forth herein.179. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and each of the Constitutions for the state of California are well established law.

180. Your Affiant states that the federal Constitution of 1787 and all of the amendments thereto is an enforceable contract for protection of the inalienable God given civil rights of the undersigned.

181. 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.

182. Your Affiant states that the undersigned has an inalienable God given civil right to ownership of private property, including earnings and assets.

183. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.184. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted that she has no jurisdiction over the undersigned.

185. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, to the truthfulness of the facts that the undersigned party is immune to all state court jurisdiction.

186. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has, as shown by her tacit agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, in case #107-CV-189409, SFPCU v. Stewart and cross complaint, that she knew of her lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the undersigned as a party (knowingly).

187. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams issued orders in the instant appeal, though Judge Helen E. Williams has previously admitted to having a lifetime bar to presiding in cases involving the undersigned (willfully).

188. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has wantonly ignored a duty to self recuse from the instant state involving the undersigned as a litigant.

189. Your Affiant that Judge Helen E. Williams presiding in the instant appeal, in violation of the undersigneds civil rights to both due process and equal protection under the law, and in corum non judice.

190. Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams accepted jurisdiction of the instant appeal case and worked in concert with other judges to violate both the 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.

191. Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams conducted any simulation of court or otherwise in the instant appeal case and when she signed any order in the instant appeal case, that Judge Helen E. Williams, did so in conspiracy with other judicial officers, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the Defendant/Appellants, and the misconstrued Defendant, the undersigneds, civil rights, in corum non judice.192. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams was insufficiently supervised by the current presiding judge, Judge Ris Jones Pichon; former presiding judge, Judge Brian Walsh; the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki; the Civil Court Director Alicia Vojnik, and the former Criminal Administrative Court Director, Dawn Saindon.

193. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams ignored the standing of the undersigned, a Secured Party, and the immunity of that standing to incorporated state courts, when Judge Helen E. Williams issued orders in the instant appeal case without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, and Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non judice.

194. Your Affiant states that when Judge Helen E. Williams was assigned to cases involving the undersigned as a party, it was without jurisdiction, in corum non judice, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 and the undersigneds civil rights, and in corum non judice.

RECUSAL COUNT #6Judge Helen E. Williams has Accepted Unreported and Undisclosed Bribes in Violation of Penal Code 93 and 18 U.S.C. 1346195. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

196. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has performed all the elements required for this count. 197. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams knowingly, willfully, and wantonly disregarded her duty to report to litigants in cases that she presided in, and to disclose the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA on annual financial disclosure Form 700. See exhibit email, attached, documenting payments, email from COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.198. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams did not disclose, to the undersigned, the payments that she received from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.

199. Your Affiant states that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation to believe that public funds would not be used to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams.

200. Your Affiant states that the public funds used to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams came from collected COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA property taxes euphemistically called local judicial benefits. See Exhibits from SANTA CLARA COUNTY AUDITOR. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.201. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams has also received bribery through other funds including: the POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FUND; the SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFFS FUND; the Judges Trust Fund; the County of Santa Clara law library foundation; and numerous other slush funds.

202. Your Affiant states that a portion of the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA property taxes paid by the undersigned were used by the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to bribe Judge Helen E. Williams. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.203. Your Affiant states that the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA profits from every traffic court ruling made in this county.

204. Your Affiant states that the payments of local judicial benefits from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA to each of the judges working in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA buys and insures good will from the judges, as a quid-pro-quo payment. See section above on Title 18 U.S.C. 201 Bribery; 18 U.S.C. 1346, and related SUPREME COURT case law.205. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams 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 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.

206. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams 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 Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the California Republic, to the undersigned.

207. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution of 1787, to the undersigned.

208. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes, resulted in denial of the right to private property ownership as guaranteed by California Constitution Article 1 Section 1, to the undersigned.

209. Your Affiant states that county payments to Judge Helen E. Williams were provided by the Office of the County Auditor, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and are listed below (request judicial notice of attached email from the auditor):NameCalendar Year Paid Health Benefits and Life insurance Other Retirement ContributionsWages (other compensation) Paid

Helen Williams2013 to date$4,944.72$ none$ 9,098.21

2012none$none$ 328.85

210. Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams bias due to acceptance of payments that constitute bribes resulted in violation of the undersigneds civil rights.

211. Your Affiant states that the payments received by Judge Helen E. Williams exceed the threshold for a felony payment or bribe in the year 2013 pursuant to PC 92/93.

Prayer

Petitioner, the undersigned Affiant, prays that:

Judge Helen E. Williams self recuse in the instant case, and the clerk notify the Judicial Council to appoint another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the alternative

2.Judge Helen E. Williams give statutory consent to recusal, and the court clerk notify the Judicial Council to assign another judge to preside over the instant appeal, or in the alternative3.Judge Helen E. Williams notify the Judicial Council to appoint a neutral judge, that has not been previously recused in any case involving the undersigned as a party, to conduct a hearing on the recusal motion herein. A judge may not pass on her own recusal. Attempts to strike this lawful and legal action will be deemed an attempt by the judge to pass on the judges own recusal, in violation of the law, done in bad faith, and a further attempt to deny the undersigneds civil rights.Opposition to an Affidavit must be in Affidavit form, with point for point answer, 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 FRCP rule 12(f) as scandalous, as Judge Helen E. Williams has admitted to having no jurisdiction to issue orders in cases involving the undersigned as a party.This motion is prepared in ops consili.

VERIFICATION212. The signer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

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

(2)the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3)the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4)the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

WHEREFORE, your Affiant, prays that this objection to judge for disqualification for cause to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams be sustained.

I declare under penalty of perjury by the laws of the UNITED STATES, and by the laws of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Further your Affiant, sayeth naught.

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 CreditorDate: June 01, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Also known as:

Rosalie Aubre Guancione,

the natural living woman,

Secured Party CreditorCommon Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.

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

Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES1)Appellant/Defendant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2)Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not noticed of the final order issued on December 28, 2009.

3)Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams, in conspiracy with Judge Mary E. Arand, 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)Your Affiant states that the undersigned was ordered out of the court during trial by the Commissioner conducting the hearing.

5)Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not represented during the hearing.

6)Your Affiant states that this was a blatant denial of Appellants civil rights.

7)Your Affiant states that the verdict and sentence were rendered without the presence of the Appellant, or any attorney to represent the Appellant, at the demand of the Commissioner who denied access to the Appellant herein.

8)Your Affiant states that there is no evidence of notice to the Appellant herein, of any final order issued in the trial court case.

9)Your Affiant states that the court record provided to the Appellant, and purported to be a complete record, contains no evidence of notice of the final order prior to November 7, 2014.

10)Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution of 1787, and the SUPREME COURT ruling in Marbury v. Madison both establish that the federal Constitution and UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are the supreme law of the land.

11)Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT rulings are controlling on this court.

12)Your Affiant states that UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruling in 339 US 306, Mullane v. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST, establishes that without proper notice, the "right to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment was of no practical consequence.13)Your Affiant states that the undersigned was not given proper notice of any final order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.

14)Your Affiant states that the undersigned provided uncontroverted evidence in Affidavit form that the undersigned was never noticed of a final order in the trial court case that this appeal is based upon.

15)Your Affiant states that the undersigneds Affidavit established a presumption of evidence that refuted any presumption of mailing of the final order by the clerk of the court.

16)Your Affiant states that the uncontroverted Affidavit of no notice, must be accepted as truth.

17)Your Affiant states that the failure to accept the contents of the undersigneds Affidavit of no notice is a denial of the undersigneds 14th Amendment civil right.

18)Your Affiant states that the denial of the undersigneds civil rights by Judge Mary E. Arand, and in collusion with Judge Helen E. Williams, rises from the level of mere judicial error to actual judicial misconduct.

19)Your Affiant states that your Appellant is damaged by the conspiracy of Judges Helen E. Williams and Mary E. Arand to issue a fraudulent summary judgment to dismiss Appellants appeal as a matter of right.20)Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed to recusal, in 2013, in case C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a party.21)Your Affiant states that Judge Helen E. Williams agreed to recusal, in 2013, in case C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned Appellant was a party.22)Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit was taken against Judge Helen E. Williams for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case #C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.23)Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit was taken against Judge Helen E. Williams for failure to reply or rebut when she agreed to the recusal in 2013 in case #C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, in which the undersigned was a party.24)Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit is a no recourse default in Admiralty With Prejudice.

25)Your Affiant states the following federal case law: Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case. United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 US LW 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982.

26)Your Affiant states that Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. U.S. vs. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300 (1997)

27)Your Affiant states that The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion. United States District Court, Central District of California, L.R. 7-12.

28)Your Affiant states that Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.

29)Your Affiant states that Where affidavits are directly conflicting on material points. It is not possible for the district judge to weight the affidavits in order to resolve disputed issues; accept in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of the affidavit, the district judge has not basis for determination of credibility. Data Disc, Inc v Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc. 557 F. 2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)

30)Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS 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."

31)Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as truth and matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.

32)Your Affiant states that A Maxim of Law states, An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point. And any rebuttal must have evidence provided to the Affiant to demonstrate why the Affiants point isnt true, and the Respondent needs to provide his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long as you have your believed truth on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their fiction, guaranteed!33)Your Affiant states that Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as true. 34)Your Affiant states that Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit. 17)Your Affiant states that Orion Construction Group, LLC v. Berkshire Wind Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit presumed true, because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).

18)Your Affiant states that Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988) (affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)

19)Your Affiants state that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to any future answer.

20)Your Affiants state that Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 48, defines Admissions by silence, in relevant part his failure to speak has traditionally been receivable against him as an admission.

21)Your Affiants states that each of the previous case laws cited indicates that an unrebutted Affidavit is an admission of the truth of all of the facts stated in the Affidavit.

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 CreditorDate: June 01, 2015 By: _/s/______ Empress Aubre Dei Gratia_______HI&RH Empress Aubre Regina Dei Gratia

Also known as:

Rosalie Aubre Guancione,

the natural living woman,

Secured Party CreditorCommon Law Notarization

The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman above.

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

Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

EXHIBIT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY

EMAIL OF PAYMENTS FROM COUNTY TO JUDGE----- Forwarded Message -----From: "Lee, Susana" To: "trueamericansovereign@yahoo.com" Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:13 PMSubject: FW: CPRA REQUEST 13-102.12-16 Public Records Request for:

Superior Court Judge Helen WilliamsMs. Joanne Johnson,Attached you will find the information responsive to your California Public Records Request made to the County of Santa Clara in an email to Susana Lee, Administrative Support Officer III, with Employee Services Agency, dated December 05, 2013. There is no cost for these documents as we are able to provide them to you electronically.

This completes this CPRA request. NameCalendar Year Paid Health Benefits and Life insurance Other Retirement ContributionsWages (other compensation) Paid

Helen Williams2013 to date$4,944.72$ none$ 9,098.21

2012none$none$ 328.85

2000-2011none$ none$ none

Susie Lee, Administrative Support Officer Employee Services Agency70. W. Hedding 8th Floor East WingSan Jose, CA 95110408-299-6853email address:------------------------------------------------- Original MessageSanta Clara County December 05, 2013Attn: Auditor/Controller Department70 West Hedding Street - East WingSan Jose, CA 95110

Attn: Susana Lee - Auditor/Controller DepartmentRe: Public Records Request for: Superior Court Judge Helen Williams

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 Helen Williams', from the commencement of such benefit payments believed to be beginning 2000 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.

Sincerely, Joanne Johnson 408-830-6266 Nothing else follows on this page//

//

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Appellate Division, Limited Civil Jurisdiction

191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113

ROSALIE GUANCIONE

Appellant

vs

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (corpora ficta) Appellee

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (corpora ficta) Plaintiff vs. ROSALIE GUANCIONE

Defendant

)))))))))))))))Appeal Case No.: 1-14-AP-001829Trial Court Case No.: 7-09-TR-562668

GUANCIONE vs THE PEOPLE (corpora ficta)

[ PROPOSED ] ORDER

HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, aka, Aubre Guancione, the natural living woman and Secured Party, on behalf of the Defendant ROSALIE GUANCIONE, estate, has filed and served an objection to Judge Helen E. Williams for cause for disqualification, that includes two previous self recusals of Judge Helen E. Williams in Cases C1096307, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, and C1103451, PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, and numerous notarized Affidavits of Bias of Judge Helen E. Williams against the Defendant by third parties. The ROSALIE GUANCIONE Estate Executrix seeks to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams from the instant case, pursuant to C.C.P. 170.1, 170.3; violations of due process and equal protection: 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution of 1787; bias and prejudice mandatory recusal of Title28455; violations of right to private property and due process provisions of California Constitution Article 1 Section 1 and Section 7, and other case law for defaulted Affidavits from 2013 regarding Judge Helen Elizabeth Williams admission as truth of a lifetime bar of Judge Helen E. Williams to hear any cases involving Rosalie Aubre Guancione as a party.Good cause appearing, the motion of HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia, aka, Aubre Guancione, to recuse Judge Helen E. Williams from the instant case is sustained, and

By order of the Court, Judge Helen E. Williams is recused from the instant appeal and another appellate judge that has not been recused in any previous case involving Appellant/Defendant herein shall be appointed to act in the instant case.Date: ____/____/20___ _____________________________ SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Page 35 of 45

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

for infraction PEOPLE v. GUANCIONE, Case No. 7-09-TR-562668Rosalie Aubre Guancione, aka HI&RH Empress Aubre Dei Gratia sObjection to Judge Helen E. Williams for Disqualification for Cause