blank pleading template with line numbering -- word€¦ · web view24/07/2015 · now as long as...

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

Rosalie A. Guancione© Sui Juris, the natural living womanand Secured Party (aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©) HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, Sui Juristhe natural living man and Secured Party 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. 403Tel: 408-830-6266

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction in Admiralty191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113

Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman, Secured Party,HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, the natural living man, Secured Party

Cross Complainants/Libellants, v.

Richard K. Davis (private capacity),Richard C. Hartnack (private capacity),Jay Brian Ledford (private capacity)Neil Patel (private capacity) Leslie Nichols (private capacity)Carol Overton (private capacity)Patricia M. Lucas (private capacity)Griffin Bonini (private capacity)Edward J. Davila (private capacity)

Cross Defendants/LibelleesRIVERWALK HOLDINGS LTD

PLAINTIFF V.ANTHONY GUANCIONE

DEFENDANT_____________________________

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case: 1-12-CV-217973 Guancione© et al v. Richard K. Davis et al

1) Cross Complainant Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, (aka Rosalie A. Guancione©) the natural living woman’s: Objection to Judge William J. Elfving for Disqualification for Cause:Count 1: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving with subject matter of proceedingCount 2: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B), 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving’s wife Barbara Elfving with subject matter of proceedingCount 3: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii); 170.3(a)(1) Interests of Justice, or BiasCount 4: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii); 170.3(b)(2)(A) Count 5: 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title 11 U.S.C. § 362; C.C.P.

– of 26 –Guancione© et al v. Richard K. Davis et al, Case Case No.: 1-12-CV-217973, HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©’s

Objection to Judge William J. Elfving 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

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

§ 170.3(b)(2)(A), Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law [Title 28 §§ 455, Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980), Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976), RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6, FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201 ]2) Memorandum3) By Reference: JNE 56 Form 700 2014; Affidavits in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, as judicially noticed evidence, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 214-44) [ proposed ] ORDER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Cross Complainant HI&RH Prince Anthony-

Victor III: Guancione©, the natural living man, and Cross Complainant HI&RH

Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie A. Guancione©, the

natural living woman, each object to Judge William Johnson Elfving for cause for

disqualification.

Reasons for disqualification for cause include financial conflict of interest of

both Judge William Johnson Elfving, and separately financial conflict of interest of

his spouse Barbara Elfving, with the subject matter of the case – a US BANK issued

credit card, and with two Cross Defendant Board Members of US BANCORP; and a

previous self recusal in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross

complaint involving the undersigned parties; and previous admission by tacit

agreement, promissory estoppel, stare decesis, res judicata, the Doctrine of Res Ipsa

Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the bias, partiality, or other conflict of interest of

Judge William J. Elfving, who was previously recused in this case by statutory



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

consent but failed to step down. Further the parties above also have immunity to all

state court jurisdiction pursuant to their standing as officially recognized secured party

creditors. Additionally, this case is stayed by a noticed ‘automatic stay’ in

bankruptcy, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 362. The clerk of the court scheduled

motions to be heard in this case, in corum non judice, despite the notice of automatic

stay in bankruptcy.

The SUPERIOR COURT clerk of the court failed to give notice of the judicial

officer currently designated, Judge William J. Elfving, to ensure sufficient time to

motion for disqualification of judge prior to hearing in Feb. 2014. The clerk of the

court failed to reschedule that hearing to ensure at least 10 days notice prior to hearing

of the new assigned judge for research of possible disqualification.

The SUPERIOR COURT clerk and the court have NO JURISDICTION over this

case and NO JURISDICTION to schedule hearings in this case during the period

of automatic stay in bankruptcy pursuant to Title 28 § 1446.

The conduct of HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AND MORE RECENTLY IS A

VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY OF BANKRUPTCY AND A VIOLATION OF

CROSS COMPLAINT ROSALIE A. GUANCIONE©’S CIVIL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, 4TH , 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND TITLE 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986.

This motion is made timely effective to the date of notice of assignment of

Judge William J. Elfving to the case by the clerk of the court, to the Court pursuant to

CCP 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 §§ 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)

(iv), Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182

(1980), Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465,

483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976), RI Supreme Court Article VI and

Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.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, and Affidavits filed into Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v.



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

STEWART and cross complaint, and as judicially noticed evidence in U.S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re:

Rosalie A. Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1,

214-2, 214-3, 214-4 (previously served on Judge William J. Elfving); to recuse Judge

William J. Elfving. Any opposition answer to this motion to recuse Judge William J.

Elfving, must under CCP be served and filed 10 days from the filing and service date

of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause.

Comes now Cross Complainant HI&RH Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman, who does business in commerce as Rosalie A. Guancione©, the natural living woman, to propound an Affidavit of Truth:

Objection to Judge William J Elfving for Disqualification for Cause

AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

)ss AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTHAFFIDAVIT OF TRUTHCOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

Comes now your Affiant, HI&RH Empress Aubreé 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 first hand knowledge.

1. Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, on July 24, 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.



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

5. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also

known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman.

6. Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is a non-

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.

7. Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without

reservation.

8. Your Affiant states that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the

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

9. Your Affiant states that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, has met with and

been examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.

10. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams has an unrestricted licensed to

practice medicine and surgery in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

11. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent

medical authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

12. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams performed a physical examination

on Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman, on January 21, 2013.

13. Your Affiant states that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21,

2013, Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is living, and NOT deceased.

14. 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.

15. 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 a

natural individual, and a sentient living mortal human being.

16. Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at

sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individual’s name on a tombstone, or; a

corporation.



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

17. 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 StandardsPro Se/pro per Standards

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

paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.

19. 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 pleadings MAY NOT be

held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or attorney’s.


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.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro

per, also known as in proper persona.


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.


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.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court MUST inform the pro se

litigant of the Petition’s deficiency.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court must instruct the pro se

litigant on the necessary instructions.


Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro se litigant may introduce any

evidence in support of his Petition.



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

27. 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.

28. 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 CaseGoverning Rules of this Case



30. Your Affiant states, In the name of God, with the gaze of Our Lord, that Empress

Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia© is appearing specially and not generally, vi et armis, in

defense of her rights.

31. 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.

32. Your Affiant states that your Affiant is the Cross Complainant and Appellant in

the case sub judice.

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, Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case 1-07-CV-189409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

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 submits the following facts, law and

authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.



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

36. 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.

STATEMENTS OF FACTSTATEMENTS OF FACT



38. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving reported on his Annual

Form 700 for 2014 that he owns $100,000.00 in US BANCORP stock.

39. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving reported on his Annual

Form 700 for 2014 that his wife Barbara Elfving owns $100,000.00 in US BANCORP

stock.

40. Your Affiant states that the subject matter of the instant case involves US BANK.

41. Your Affiant states that the subject matter of the instant case involves a US BANK

issued credit card.

42. Your Affiant states that the credit card application says US BANCORP.

43. Your Affiant states that when the credit card comes in the mail it says that it is

issued by US BANK.

44. Your Affiant states that US BANK and US BANCORP are inter-locking

corporations doing banking business.

45. Your Affiant states that the parties in this case include two Cross Defendants who

are members of the Board of Directors of US BANCORP.



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

46. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a financial conflict of

interest in the subject matter of the instant case.

47. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving’s via his wife Barbara

Elfving has a financial conflict of interest in the subject matter of the instant case.

48. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a STATUTORY DUTY

to disclose financial conflicts of interest to the parties who appear before him.

49. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a STATUTORY DUTY

to tract his conflicts of interest.

50. Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a MANDATORY DUTY to self recuse due to his $100,000.00 financial conflict of interest in the US

BANCORP, which is subject matter of the instant case.

Unrebutted Affidavits of Self Disqualification

51) 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.

52) 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s 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 in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, self disqualified in Nov. 2008, in a case involving Your Affiants.

53) 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie



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

Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s 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 in the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, have a lifetime bar to hearing any cases involving Your Affiants.

54) 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with an “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s 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 Affiants have immunity to all state court jurisdiction.

55) Your Affiant states that the “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s 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 Affiants are NOT U.S. citizens.

56) Your Affiant states that the “Affidavit of CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©, MEMORIALIZING William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione III©’s 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 Affiants are sovereign American Nationals under Federal Law USC § 1101(a)(21).

57) Your Affiant states that state court Judge William J. Elfving recused himself in November 2008, in state court case 1-07-CV-089409, a case involving both of Your Affiants as parties, in SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.



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

58) Your Affiant states that if Judge William J. Elfving rules, holds court or performs any judicial process’ in the instant case, he will do so WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC STAY IN BANKRUPTCY.

59) Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is an Ens legis, corpora ficta and corporate court.

60) Your Affiant states that the CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL is an Ens legis, corpora ficta and corporate court.

61) Your Affiant states that the CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL is a political subdivision of the UNITED STATES.

62) Your Affiant states that the undersigneds, as officially recognized secured party creditors, had a reasonable expectation of immunity from all state court jurisdiction.

63) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving agreed in March 2013 that in November 2008, that he had a lifetime bar from ruling in any case that involved either of your Affiants.

64) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving is violating your Affiant’s civil rights to due process and equal protection under the law by conducting hearings and issuing orders in this instant case entirely without jurisdiction, in corum non judice.

65) Your Affiant states that the de facto corpora ficta CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL has no jurisdiction over either of your Affiants, who are natural living individuals and sovereign American Nationals, not corporations or of the kind.

66) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving was not a member of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry franchise) while sitting in judgment in this case, in violation of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Business and Professions Code.

67) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving received payments from the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA who was not his employer of record since 1997, in violation of the Constitution of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The Supremacy Clause states that SBX 211 cannot supersede the state constitution, which precludes acceptance of such payments, which constitute unreported bribes within the meaning of the law.

68) Your Affiant states that absolutely none of the entities or individuals who were served with your Affiant’s previous Affidavit, ever filed or served, an opposition or rebuttal of the aforementioned Affidavit Memorializing the self disqualification of 104 judges of the SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, within 30 days.



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

69) Your Affiant states that absolutely none of the entities who were served with your Affiant’s previous Affidavit, ever filed or served, an opposition or rebuttal of the aforementioned Affidavit within 35 days.

70) 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks, were served with a subsequent “Affidavit of Nihil Dicit (no recourse default) against, and Tacit admissions of, all members of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, who failed to answer within 30 days, with an opposing Affidavit to the original Affidavit filed March 27, 2013 by CROSS-COMPLAINANTS William B. Stewart III©, Aubreé Dei Gratia© (aka Rosalie Guancione©), and Anthony Victor Guancione©’s (aka Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, Anthony Victor Guancione III©) CONFIRMING THE NAMES OF ALL JUDGES SELF DISQUALIFIED / RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

71) Your Affiant states that through Nihil Dicit, 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks were defaulted through a no recourse default in Admiralty law form approximately 35 days after service on each and every judge, state, county, or other court official, filed in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.

72) Your Affiant states that through Tacit agreement, 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 ATTORNEY and three SUPERIOR COURT Clerks agreed to the truth of the facts in the original Affidavit, which was then memorialized in an Affidavit of Tacit Agreement.

73) Your Affiant states that a Legal Maxim is “An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in commerce”.

74) Your Affiant states that Claims made in an affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits."

75) Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a



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

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.

76) Your Affiant states that the unrebutted Affidavit served upon all the judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, are the judgment that your Affiants herein are immune to all state court jurisdiction, and that in this instant case, the complaint RIVERWALK HOLDINGS v. GUANCIONE©, must be dismissed with prejudice because it was brought in a court without any jurisdiction ab initio, the truthfulness of the facts as proven by unrebutted Affidavit and subsequent Nihil Dicit Affidavit.

77) Your Affiant states that the INCORPORATED COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER CROSS-COMPLAINANTS AND MISCONSTRUED DEFENDANT, BECAUSE THEY ARE ‘A NATURAL MAN AND A NATURAL WOMAN’.

78) Your Affiant states the explanation of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."

S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),

79) Your Affiant states that an unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to any future answer.

80) Your Affiant states that Black’s 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”. Your Affiants state that this definition indicates that the state court judges and THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY - SANTA CLARA COUNTY, and the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL - SANTA CLARA COUNTY, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY – SAN MATEO COUNTY, and the OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL - SAN MATEO COUNTY, and the OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, have each admitted to the immunity of your Affiants to all state court jurisdiction.



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

81) Your Affiant states 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 Affiant’s point isn’t true, and the Respondent needs to provide his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form.

82) Your Affiant nows move to recuse Judge William J. Elfving from the above entitled matter under CCP 170.1, 170.3, 28 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc . , 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

83) Your Affiant states that "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law."

84) Your Affiant states that the above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).

85) Your Affiant states that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."

86) Your Affiant states that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6 are also applicable to recusal.

87) Your Affiant states that the above mentioned Judge William J. Elfving 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.

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

89) Your Affiant respectfully demand that Judge William J. Elfving recuse himself in light of the judicially noticed evidence, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie A. Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 214-4; from state court case 107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint; incorporated herein by reference, as if fully incorporated herein, detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives your Affiants good reason to believe the above Judge William J. Elfving cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner.



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

90) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving was previously self recused in another case, 107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, in which the undersigned were parties.

91) Your Affiant states that the grounds to recuse Judge William J. Elfving are CCP 170.1, 170.3, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 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 William J. Elfving admissions, as set forth in the judicially noticed evidence sets previously filed into the instant case, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.

RECUSAL COUNT #1RECUSAL COUNT #1C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1 (a) (3) (A), 170.3(a)(1):

Financial conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving with Subject Matter of Proceeding


93) Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, pagespages 1, 19: 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORPSchedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORP as if fully set forth herein.

94) Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving owns $100,000.00 in stock of US BANCORP.

95) Your Affiant states that two Cross-Defendants in the instant case are sitting or former members of the Board of Directors for US BANCORP.

96) Your Affiant states that the subject matter of the instant case involves an alleged debt for a credit card issued by, and sold by, US BANK, a subsidiary or division of US BANCORP.

97) All of the elements of this count have been satisfied.



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

RECUSAL COUNT #2RECUSAL COUNT #2C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a), 170.1 (a) (3) (A), 170.1 (a) (3) (B), 170.1 (a) (3) (B) (i), 170.3(a)(1)

Financial conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving’s wife Barbara Elfving with Subject Matter of Proceeding


99) Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, pagespages 1, 19: 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORPSchedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORP as if fully set forth herein.

100) Your Affiant states that the WILLIAM & BARBARA ELFVING TRUST is jointly owned by Judge William Johnson Elfving and Barbara Elfving, as an asset of the marital estate.

101) Your Affiant states that the subject matter of the instant case involves an alleged debt for a credit card issued by, and sold by, US BANK, a subsidiary or division of US BANCORP.

102) All of the elements of this count have been satisfied.

RECUSAL COUNT #3RECUSAL COUNT #3C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), or 170.1(a)(6)(A)

(iii); 170.3(a)(1)Recuse in the Interests of Justice, Judicial bias, partiality,

or public perception of bias

103) Your Affiants repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth herein.

104) Your Affiants state 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).” Emphasis added.



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

105) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving came into the case and signed an order, without 10 days notice of assignment to the undersigned parties.

106) Your Affiants state that the undersigned parties did not find out that Judge William J. Elfving was assigned to the instant case and signed an order, until after Judge William J. Elfving signed the order.

107) Your Affiants state that the previous self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving in case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint was not put into writing at the time by the clerks of the court nor put in writing at the time by Judge William J. Elfving after his self recusal in that case.

108) Your Affiants state that 104 other judges of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA also performed self recusals in case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, although that was not put into writing at the time by the clerks of the court nor put in writing at the time by any of the judges.

109) Your Affiants state that the failure of the judges and the clerks in case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, to put the self recusals in writing delayed this recusal.

110) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving has admitted that he is disqualified.

111) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving admitted this disqualification and his lifetime bar to hearing any cases in which either of the undersigned are parties through his failure to rebut an Affidavit Memorializing his self recusal from Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.

112) Your Affiants state that this admission was made under the Doctrine of Silence is Agreement (see later authorities).

113) Your Affiants state that this admission was performed by Tacit Agreement.

114) Your Affiants state that this admission as to the truthfulness of all facts stated in the Affidavit Memorializing … proves under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) the bias, partiality, or other conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving.



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

115) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving admitted after issuance of his orders in the instant case and pursuant to the doctrine of Silence is Agreement that the judge had a lifetime bar to jurisdiction in all cases involving either of the two parties: Rosalie Guancione©, aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©; and HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione, III©.

116) Your Affiants state that the Affidavit Memorializing … the self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving, and the Nihil Dicit (no recourse default) in Admiralty, are filed into both Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and separately as judicially noticed evidence, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie A. Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 214-4.

117) Your Affiants state that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.

118) Your Affiants state that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a discrimination against petitioner /movant’s civil rights and said discrimination 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 #4RECUSAL COUNT #4C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii); 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Person Aware of the Facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial


120) Your Affiants state 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.

121) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving has a personal bias or prejudice against the undersigned parties.

122) Your Affiants state that the previous self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving in case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint was not put into writing at the time by the clerks of the court.



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

123) Your Affiants state that the previous self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving in case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint was not put into writing at the time by Judge William J. Elfving, after his self recusal in that case.

124) Your affiants state 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);

125) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving admitted pursuant to the doctrine of Silence is Agreement that the judge had a lifetime bar to jurisdiction over all cases involving either of the two parties: Rosalie A. Guancione©, aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman and secured party; and HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione©, the natural living man and secured party.

126) Your Affiants state that the Affidavit Memorializing … the self recusal of William J. Elfving, and the Nihil Dicit (no recourse default) in Admiralty, are both filed as judicially noticed evidence into U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie A. Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 214-4; from state court case 107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.


128) Your Affiants state that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a discrimination against petitioner /movant’s civil rights and said discrimination 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 #5RECUSAL COUNT #54th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal Constitution of 1787 As Perviewed by the States, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title 11 U.S.C. § 362; C.C.P. § 170.3(b)(2)(A)

Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law


130) Your Affiants state that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.



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

131) Your Affiants state that in Judge William J. Elfving has previously admitted to the truthfulness of the fact that he has no jurisdiction over either of the undersigned parties.

132) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of the facts that the undersigned parties are immune to all state court jurisdiction.

133) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving knowingly, as shown by his tacit agreement to the judicially noticed Affidavits, has willfully, wantonly, ignored a duty to recuse himself in state court cases involving the undersigned as parties, in violation of the undersigned civil rights, and in corum non judice.

134) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving continues to rule in cases in which the undersigned are parties, after his lifetime bar to presiding over any case involving either of the undersigned parties, which is a violation of the undersigned’s civil rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

135) Your Affiants state that when Judge William J. Elfving conducted court in the instant case and when he signed an order in the instant case, that Judge William J. Elfving, violated Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.

136) Your Affiants state that when Judge William J. Elfving conducts court in the instant case and when he signs an order in the instant case, that Judge William J. Elfving, is doing so in conspiracy with other judicial officers, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and the undersigned civil rights, and in corum non judice.

137) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving was insufficiently supervised by both the current and previous presiding judges, Judge Brian Walsh, Judge Richard Loftus Jr., and the Court CEO, David H. Yamasaki, and the Court CEO’s clerk designees, including Alicia Vojnik, Brian Faraone, Lan-Fang Wang, when Judge William J. Elfving was assigned to cases involving the undersigned as parties, and in corum non judice, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1986 and the undersigned civil rights, and in corum non judice.

Background138) Your Affiants repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause as if fully set forth herein.

139) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving, was previously recused in a different and unrelated state court case, and the judge admitted by tacit agreement that



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

Judge William J. Elfving had a lifetime bar to jurisdiction over all cases involving either of the two parties: Rosalie A. Guancione©, aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©, the natural living woman and secured party; and HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione, III©, the natural living man and secured party. 140) Your Affiants state that the Affidavits memorializing the self recusal of William J. Elfving, and the Nihil Dicit (no recourse default) in Admiralty are filed into both Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and separately as judicially noticed evidence, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re: Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 214-4; from state court case 107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.


142) Your Affiants state that All judicial officers who deny this motion are in violation of the movant’s civil rights, which is an action that has both civil and criminal liability under Owens v. City of Independence.

143) Your Affiants state that a judge who advocates for either party is recusable for bias, partiality, prejudice, against the other party.

144) Your Affiants state that the third time that state court Judge William J. Elfving has ruled in a case involving the undersigned after his lifetime bar due to self recusal was in case 112-CV-217973.

PrayerPrayerYour Affiant, prays that:

1. The Court or William J. Elfving recuse Judge William J. Elfving, or deem him

to be disqualified for cause, due to the aforementioned reasons, and/or the fact that

Judge William J. Elfving has admitted that he has a lifetime bar to sitting in judgment

over any cases involving either of the two undersigned parties herein.

2. Your Affiants state that in the alternative, that Judge William J. Elfving be

found to be suffering from a legal/judicial disability, in that he has admitted to having

a lifetime bar to hearing any case involving the undersigned as parties, but in



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

contradictory fashion, seeks to issue orders in the instant case after his tacit agreement

and admission of lifetime bar to hear any case involving the undersigned as parties.

This motion is prepared in ops consili.

VERIFICATIONVERIFICATION145) The signer certifies regarding this filing that:

(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 William J. Elfving 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.

Date: July 26, 2015 By: _______________________________ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©

(aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©) Secured Party Creditor

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

Dated: July 26, 2015 By: __________________________________HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Dated: July 26, 2015 By: __________________________________



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

King Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

Nothing else follows on this page////

//



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

MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM

1) Cross Complainant 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.

2) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving has failed to file or plead any objection to the Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving in a state court case.

3) Your Affiant states that based upon the doctrine of ‘Silence is Agreement’, that Judge William J. Elfving has agreed to the truthfulness of all facts stated in the undersigned’s Affidavit Memorializing the self recusal of Judge William J. Elfving in a state court Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

4) Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit was taken against Judge William J. Elfving for failure to reply or rebut the Affidavit Memorializing Judge William J. Elfving’s self recusal, in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART.

5) Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT in Admiralty.

6) Your Affiant states state that Judge William J. Elfving is Defaulted and has admitted to having a lifetime bar to any further jurisdiction over Anthony Guancione© or Rosalie Guancione© in any case involving either of the aforementioned individuals as parties.

7) Your Affiant states that an Affidavit must be answered or replied to with an opposing or replying Affidavit.

8) Your Affiant states that the Judge William J. Elfving failed to serve or file an Affidavit in reply to the Affidavit Memorializing Judge William J. Elfving’s self recusal.

9) 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.

10) 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)



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

11) Your Affiant states state 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.”

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

13) 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)”

14) 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." ”

15) 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.”

16) 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 Affiant’s point isn’t 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!”

17) 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.” ”

18) 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.” ”

19) 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



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

true, because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting personal jurisdiction).”

20) Your Affiant states that “Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988) (affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)”21) Your Affiants state that An unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to any future answer.

22) Your Affiant states that Black’s 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”.

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

Date: July 26, 2015 By: _______________________________ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©

(aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©) Secured Party Creditor

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

Dated: July 26, 2015 By: __________________________________HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Dated: July 26, 2015 By: __________________________________King Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©Witness #2, Common Law Notarization

Nothing else follows on this page//////



blank pleading template with line numbering -- word€¦ · web view24/07/2015 · now as long as...

Documents