1
2
3
4
5
Rosalie A. Guancione© Sui Juris, the natural living woman
and Secured Party (aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©)
HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III: Guancione©, Sui Juris
the 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. 403
Tel: 408-830-6266
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction in Admiralty
191 N. First St., SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, ) Case: 1-12-CV-217973
the natural living woman, Secured Party, )) Guancione© et al v. Richard K. Davis et al
HI&RH Prince Anthony-Victor III:
)
) 1) Cross Complainant Empress Aubreé
Guancione©, the natural living man,
) Regina Dei Gratia©, (aka Rosalie A.
Secured Party
)
Cross Complainants/Libellants, ) Guancione©) the natural living woman’s:
) Objection to Judge William J. Elfving for
v.
) Disqualification for Cause:
Richard K. Davis (private capacity),
)
Richard C. Hartnack (private capacity), ) Count 1: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a),
) 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.3(b)(2)(A), 170.3(c)(1):
Jay Brian Ledford (private capacity)
) financial conflict of interest of Judge
Neil Patel (private capacity)
) William J. Elfving with subject matter of
Leslie Nichols (private capacity)
)
) proceeding
Carol Overton (private capacity)
) Count 2: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a),
Patricia M. Lucas (private capacity)
) 170.1(a)(3)(A), 170.1(a)(3)(B),
Griffin Bonini (private capacity)
)
Edward J. Davila (private capacity)
) 170.1(a)(3)(B)(i), 170.3(b)(2)(A),
) 170.3(c)(1): financial conflict of interest of
Cross Defendants/Libellees
) Judge William J. Elfving’s wife Barbara
RIVERWALK HOLDINGS LTD
)
PLAINTIFF
) Elfving with subject matter of proceeding
) Count 3: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A),
V.
) 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i), or 170.1(a)(6)(A)(ii), or
ANTHONY GUANCIONE
)
DEFENDANT
) 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii); 170.3(a)(1) Interests of
_____________________________
) Justice, or Bias
) Count 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. §
– Page 1 of 25 –
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
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
[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) Memorandum
3) 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, 214-4
4) [ proposed ] ORDER
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Cross Complainant HI&RH Prince Anthony-
16
Victor III: Guancione©, the natural living man, and Cross Complainant HI&RH
17
Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie A. Guancione©, the
18
natural living woman, each object to Judge William Johnson Elfving for cause for
19
disqualification.
20
Reasons for disqualification for cause include financial conflict of interest of
21
both Judge William Johnson Elfving, and separately financial conflict of interest of
22
his spouse Barbara Elfving, with the subject matter of the case – a US BANK issued
23
credit card, and with two Cross Defendant Board Members of US BANCORP; and a
24
previous self recusal in Case #1-07-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross
25
complaint involving the undersigned parties; and previous admission by tacit
26
agreement, promissory estoppel, stare decesis, res judicata, the Doctrine of Res Ipsa
27
Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the bias, partiality, or other conflict of interest of
28
Judge William J. Elfving, who was previously recused in this case by statutory
– Page 2 of 25 –
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
consent but failed to step down. Further the parties above also have immunity to all
2
state court jurisdiction pursuant to their standing as officially recognized secured party
3
creditors. Additionally, this case is stayed by a noticed ‘automatic stay’ in
4
bankruptcy, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 362. The clerk of the court scheduled
5
motions to be heard in this case, in corum non judice, despite the notice of automatic
6
stay in bankruptcy.
7
The SUPERIOR COURT clerk of the court failed to give notice of the judicial
8
officer currently designated, Judge William J. Elfving, to ensure sufficient time to
9
motion for disqualification of judge prior to hearing in Feb. 2014. The clerk of the
10
court failed to reschedule that hearing to ensure at least 10 days notice prior to hearing
11
of the new assigned judge for research of possible disqualification.
12
The SUPERIOR COURT clerk and the court have NO JURISDICTION over this
13
case and NO JURISDICTION to schedule hearings in this case during the period
14
of automatic stay in bankruptcy pursuant to Title 28 § 1446.
15
The conduct of HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AND MORE RECENTLY IS A
16
VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY OF BANKRUPTCY AND A VIOLATION OF
17
CROSS COMPLAINT ROSALIE A. GUANCIONE©’S CIVIL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
18
AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, 4TH , 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF
19
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND TITLE 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986.
20
This motion is made timely effective to the date of notice of assignment of
21
Judge William J. Elfving to the case by the clerk of the court, to the Court pursuant to
22
CCP 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 §§ 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1), 455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i),
23
455(b)(5)(iv), Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d
24
182 (1980), Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US
25
465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976), RI Supreme Court Article
26
VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6, FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R. of Evid., Rule 201,
27
CALIFORNIA PC 92, 93, Constitution of the California Republic, the authorities
28
cited in the memorandum herein, and Affidavits filed into Case #1-07-CV-089409,
– Page 3 of 25 –
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
SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, and as judicially noticed evidence in U.S.
2
BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, In Re:
3
Rosalie A. Guancione©, Case No. 11-57656 ASW, docket documents 214, 214-1,
4
214-2, 214-3, 214-4 (previously served on Judge William J. Elfving); to recuse Judge
5
William J. Elfving. Any opposition answer to this motion to recuse Judge William J.
6
Elfving, must under CCP be served and filed 10 days from the filing and service date
7
of this objection to judge for disqualification for cause.
8
9
10
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:
11
Objection to Judge William J Elfving for Disqualification for Cause
AFFIDAVIT OF HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©
12
13
14
15
16
17
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)ss
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
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
18
being duly sworn according to law, states that she is your Affiant, and she believes these
19
facts to be true to the best of her belief and first hand knowledge.
20
1.
21
SANTA CLARA, on July 24, 2015.
22
2.
23
misleading
24
3.
25
stated herein.
26
4.
27
occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
Your Affiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein are true, complete and not
Your Affiant states that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the facts
Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have
28
– Page 4 of 25 –
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
5.
2
known as Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman.
3
6.
4
corporate, a non-combatant, private citizen and a real, mortal, sentient, flesh and blood,
5
natural born living woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean
6
hands, rectus curia.
7
7.
8
reservation.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also
Your Affiant states that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is a non-
Your Affiant states that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without
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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
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
22
attached and fully incorporated by reference as if fully incorporated herein.
23
15.
24
Williams dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is a
25
natural individual, and a sentient living mortal human being.
26
16.
27
sea, or; a deceased individual, and/or a deceased individual’s name on a tombstone, or; a
28
corporation.
Your Affiant states that the physical examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall
Your Affiant states that an all upper case formatted name applies only to vessels at
– Page 5 of 25 –
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
17.
Your Affiant states that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an
2
all upper case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.
Pro Se/pro per Standards
3
4
18.
5
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
6
19.
7
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per pleadings MAY NOT be
8
held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or attorney’s.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20.
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per motions, pleadings and
all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.
21.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the undersigned is considered in pro
per, also known as in proper persona.
22.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se litigants complaints, pleadings
16
17
18
19
20
21
and other papers are exempt from dismissal for form not function.
23.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se Petitions cannot be dismissed
without the court allowing the opportunity for the pro se litigant to correct the Petition.
24.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court MUST inform the pro se
22
litigant of the Petition’s deficiency.
23
25.
24
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the court must instruct the pro se
25
litigant on the necessary instructions.
26
26.
27
Re: Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), the pro se litigant may introduce any
28
evidence in support of his Petition.
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Your Affiant states that Pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
– Page 6 of 25 –
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
27.
Your Affiant states that the Court errs if the court dismisses the pro se litigants
2
complaint without instruction as to how the pleadings are deficient and how to repair the
3
pleadings. See Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25.
4
28.
5
rights (given by God) are violated when courts depart from precedent, where
6
parties are similarly situated. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.
7
2000)
Your Affiant states that Litigants' constitutional (inalienable and guaranteed)
Governing Rules of this Case
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
29.
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
24
34.
25
Entries, Rulings, Calendared hearings, Transfers/Referrals by court and/or clerk,
26
removals, and Orders, the entire docket.
27
35.
28
authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.
Your Affiant states that the incorporation by reference is not limited to, all Minute
Your Affiant states that the undersigned submits the following facts, law and
– Page 7 of 25 –
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
36.
2
Rules of Civil Procedure and, inter alia, the Federal Rules of Evidence and, inter alia, the
3
United States Code and, inter alia, the united States Constitution of 1787 and, inter alia,
4
the amendments thereto including the original 13th Amendment and, inter alia, the
5
California Constitution and, inter alia, the Treaty of Paris of 1781 and, inter alia, the
6
Hague Convention and, inter alia, the Universal Postal Union Treaty and, inter alia, ALL
7
other human rights treaties and, inter alia, the Affidavit Memorializing Conversations
8
Regarding Self Disqualification of Judges in COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, and inter
9
10
11
Your Affiant states that the instant case is governed by, inter alia, the Federal
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 FACT
12
13
14
15
37.
Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
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.
22
42.
Your Affiant states that the credit card application says US BANCORP.
23
43.
Your Affiant states that when the credit card comes in the mail it says that it is
24
issued by US BANK.
25
44.
26
corporations doing banking business.
27
45.
28
are members of the Board of Directors of US BANCORP.
Your Affiant states that US BANK and US BANCORP are inter-locking
Your Affiant states that the parties in this case include two Cross Defendants who
– Page 8 of 25 –
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
46.
2
interest in the subject matter of the instant case.
3
47.
4
Elfving has a financial conflict of interest in the subject matter of the instant case.
5
48.
6
to disclose financial conflicts of interest to the parties who appear before him.
7
49.
8
to tract his conflicts of interest.
9
10
11
12
50.
Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a financial conflict of
Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving’s via his wife Barbara
Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a STATUTORY DUTY
Your Affiant states that Judge William Johnson Elfving has a STATUTORY DUTY
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
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 CROSSCOMPLAINANTS 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– Page 9 of 25 –
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
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, have a
lifetime bar to hearing any cases involving Your Affiants.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 CROSSCOMPLAINANTS 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.
– Page 10 of 25 –
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
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.
3
4
59) Your Affiant states that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is an Ens
legis, corpora ficta and corporate court.
5
6
60) Your Affiant states that the CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL is an Ens legis,
corpora ficta and corporate court.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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.
25
26
27
28
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.
– Page 11 of 25 –
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
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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.
23
24
73) Your Affiant states that a Legal Maxim is “An unrebutted Affidavit stands as
truth in commerce”.
25
26
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."
27
28
75) Your Affiant states that AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE
JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a
– Page 12 of 25 –
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
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.
3
4
5
6
7
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.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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’.
77)
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.
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
– Page 13 of 25 –
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
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).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
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.
– Page 14 of 25 –
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
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.
6
RECUSAL COUNT #1
C.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
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
92) 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.
93) Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56:
California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14,
Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, pages 1, 19: Schedule 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.
RECUSAL COUNT #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(a)(1)
Financial conflict of interest of Judge William J. Elfving’s wife Barbara Elfving
with Subject Matter of Proceeding
27
28
– Page 15 of 25 –
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
98) 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.
3
4
5
6
99) Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56:
California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, FOR 2O14,
Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed 01/29/2015, pages 1, 19: Schedule A-1
Investments page: US BANCORP as if fully set forth herein.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 #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)
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.
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.
– Page 16 of 25 –
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
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 #1-07CV-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 #107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.
17
18
112) Your Affiants state that this admission was made under the Doctrine of Silence
is Agreement (see later authorities).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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.
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©.
28
– Page 17 of 25 –
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
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.
5
6
117) Your Affiants state that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated
by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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 #4
C.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
119) 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.
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.
19
20
121) Your Affiants state that Judge William J. Elfving has a personal bias or
prejudice against the undersigned parties.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
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);
– Page 18 of 25 –
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
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 107CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint.
127) Your Affiants state that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated
by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.
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 #5
4 , 5 and 14 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
th
th
th
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
129) 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.
130) Your Affiants state that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of the
enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.
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.
– Page 19 of 25 –
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
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.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Background
138) 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
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 AnthonyVictor III: Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione, III©, the natural living man and
secured party.
28
– Page 20 of 25 –
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
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.
141) Your Affiants state that each of the aforementioned documents are incorporated
by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.
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.
15
Prayer
16
Your Affiant, prays that:
17
1.
18
to be disqualified for cause, due to the aforementioned reasons, and/or the fact that
19
Judge William J. Elfving has admitted that he has a lifetime bar to sitting in judgment
20
over any cases involving either of the two undersigned parties herein.
21
2.
22
found to be suffering from a legal/judicial disability, in that he has admitted to having
23
a lifetime bar to hearing any case involving the undersigned as parties, but in
24
contradictory fashion, seeks to issue orders in the instant case after his tacit agreement
25
and admission of lifetime bar to hear any case involving the undersigned as parties.
The Court or William J. Elfving recuse Judge William J. Elfving, or deem him
Your Affiants state that in the alternative, that Judge William J. Elfving be
26
This motion is prepared in ops consili.
27
VERIFICATION
145) The signer certifies regarding this filing that:
28
– Page 21 of 25 –
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
(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
8
9
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
10
11
12
13
the laws of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Further your Affiant sayeth naught.
Date: July 26, 2015
14
15
By: _______________________________
Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©
(aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©)
Secured Party Creditor
16
17
18
Common Law Notarization:
The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
19
20
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
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nothing else follows on this page
//
//
//
– Page 22 of 25 –
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
MEMORANDUM
2
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
14
5)
Your Affiant states that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT in
Admiralty.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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.
23
24
25
26
27
28
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)
– Page 23 of 25 –
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
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.”
3
4
12) Your Affiant states that “Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of
allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.”
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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!”
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 counteraffidavit.” ”
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
– Page 24 of 25 –
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
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.
11
12
Date: July 26, 2015
13
14
By: _______________________________
Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©
(aka HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©)
Secured Party Creditor
15
16
17
Common Law Notarization:
The undersigned are witnesses to the signatures of the real man, and/or, real woman
above.
18
19
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Nothing else follows on this page
//
//
//
28
– Page 25 of 25 –
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