Aurora Bautista Quicho



Download 81.97 Kb.
Date conversion31.05.2016
Size81.97 Kb.

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


Aurora Bautista Quicho

207 Albatross Lane

Fountain Valley, California
Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION __
Aurora Bautista Quicho, ) CASE NO. ___________

)

Petitioner, ) PETITION FOR

) PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

vs. ) (VERIFIED)

)

Mark S. Arnold, and ) POINTS & AUTHORITIES

The Superior Court of California,)

Case No. YA058902, ) CCP §§1084 et seq.

People vs. Quicho )

) In re:

Respondents. )

) Los Angeles Superior Court,

) People vs. Quicho,

) Case No. YA058902 (Criminal)

)

) Los Angeles Superior Court,

) Quicho vs. People, et al.,

) Case No. BC324176 (At Law)

)

---------------------------------)-----------------------------

1 I am Aurora Bautista Quicho. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and am competent to testify as to the truth of these facts if called as a witness.


2 The appellate court may issue a writ of mandate to an inferior tribunal.1 Further, a writ of mandate is enforceable by the appellate court.2
3 My interest in the writ of mandate is presently existing. A writ of mandate would be beneficial to me, real and actual, direct and tangible.3 A writ of mandate would result in my incarceration being terminated and my liberty being fully restored.
SUMMARY
4 The judge of an inferior court not of record has a duty

  1. to order the dismissal, with prejudice, of a criminal

case against me,

  1. to order my release from incarceration, and

  2. to order full restoration of my liberty.

5 The duty is imposed by a direct order from a superior court which is a constitutional court of record.4 The judge and the inferior court are unlawfully breeching that duty. For that reason I am moving the above-entitled appellate court for a writ of mandate compelling the judge and the inferior court to execute the said duty owed to me.


BACKGROUND
6 On June 29, 2004 I was negotiating an agreement for the purchase of automobiles from an automobile dealership. It was understood by all parties that I was paying for the automobiles with a private check which required special procedures in order to provide the funds. It was understood that I would not accept delivery of the automobiles until the company received the funds. No one was injured: no one lost any property; no one lost any money. No one was at risk of losing any property or money.
7 While the negotiation was in progress, the police appeared and under color of law carried me away and imprisoned me against my will.
8 In an inferior court5 known as The Superior Court6 of the State of California, Case Number YA058902 (hereinafter “Inferior Court”), styled “People vs Quicho, in Torrance, California, under color of law (code) I was burdened with four charges:
COUNT 1: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459,

SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY;
COUNT 2: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §476a(a),

NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK MULTIPLE CHECKS;
COUNT 3: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459

SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; and
COUNT 4: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 476a(a)

NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK SINGLE CHECK, and

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §186.11

PATTERN OF RELATED FELONY CONDUCT.
9 Throughout all proceedings I objected to the jurisdiction. I demanded proof of jurisdiction. The judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders, all refused to respond or show any proof of jurisdiction. (However, one judge did say, “You are under my jurisdiction, whether you like it or not.” That was the closest any Inferior Court personnel came to justifying their de facto jurisdiction.) For them it was enough that they had physical dominion over me; they also felt no need to legitimize their de facto jurisdiction.
10 In November of 2004 in the capacity as one of the people7 of California, I filed in a court of record8 a counterclaim against the several judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders: The Superior Court9 of the State of California, Case Number BC324176 (hereinafter “Constitutional Court” ), styled “Quicho vs People, et al., in Los Angeles, California,
11 All of the defending judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders demurred to the counterclaim. None objected to my status as one of the people of California. None object to the Constitutional Court being a court of record. They each admitted the fact that they acted without jurisdiction, but claimed that they carried judicial immunity. The Constitutional Court found that they did not have judicial immunity because, by their own admissions in their demurrers, they acted without lawful jurisdiction.
12 The Constitutional Court awarded judgment in my favor. None objected. Though in the judgment the defendants were invited to file their post-judgment objections, none moved for reconsideration of the judgment. None filed a notice of appeal. None appealed the judgment. The judgment now stands without any legitimate sign of objection. Exhibit “A” is the Constitutional Court’s judgment that accompanies this petition.
13 Subsequently, the Constitutional Court ordered defendant (and respondent herein) Mark S. Arnold, who is the judge of the Inferior Court; and the Inferior Court to discharge with prejudice all charges nunc pro tunc, to order my release from incarceration, and to restore my full lawful liberty.
14 The order was an alternative order. Though invited, neither Mark S. Arnold nor the Inferior Court filed any paper to show cause why the Constitutional Court order should not be obeyed. Nevertheless, they continue to repeatedly disobey the order. Twice Mark S. Arnold was found in direct contempt of the Constitutional Court and fined (once for $1, once for $100). To date Mark S. Arnold has simply ignored all orders of the Constitutional Court. To my knowledge he has not yet paid any of the fines to the County of Los Angeles.
15 It appears to me that the Inferior Court is a judicial island respecting no law but its own, committed to causing me to lose my liberty and my common law substantive right to my own court:10 jurisdiction is something to be taken for themselves, and they are answerable to no one but themselves.
16 In the most recent finding of contempt (see Exhibit “C” that accompanies this petition) the Constitutional Court also issued a bench warrant to the sheriff to attach the body of the Mark S. Arnold if the sheriff cannot secure Mark S. Arnold’s performance of duties enumerated above. I believe the order is not yet executed, and it will not be executed.
17 After the Constitutional Court issued the bench warrant, I was visited in the Los Angeles County jail by three large intimidating male visitors, two well dressed and the other casually dressed. They said that I would be punished for threatening a judge (something I would never do). I asked for their business cards. They refused. I asked for their names. They refused. They told me that I was a “minority citizen of California.” They implied that I was a lesser being, not entitled to all the natural rights of one of the people of California. It appears to me that their sole purpose was to discriminate, harass and intimidate me into not asserting my rights as one of the people of California,11 and to cause me to give up or lose my Constitutional Court.12 As of this date I still do not know who those persons are who imposed upon me in the jail.
PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

18 The inferior court13 is known as The Superior Court14 of the State of California, Case Number YA058902 (hereinafter “Inferior Court”), styled “People vs Quicho, in Torrance, California, and proceeding under color of law (statutes & code).


19 I, Aurora Bautista Quicho, as one of the people of California petition the above-entitled appellate court of record15 to issue a writ of mandate commanding respondent Inferior Court, Mark S. Arnold, and its judges to obey the lawful judgment and alternative [now final] order served upon it by the Superior Court of the State of California, Case Number BC324176, (hereinafter “Constitutional Court”) styled “Quicho vs. the People of the State of California, et al.”, in Los Angeles, California, and proceeding as a court of record.
20 The Constitutional Court issued a final judgment16 finding that the Inferior Court does not have jurisdiction over Aurora Bautista Quicho. Subsequently the Constitutional Court issued the alternative order to the Inferior Court. The alternative order was violated within direct view of the Constitutional Court, so the Constitutional Court then issued a summary finding of direct contempt. A copy of the Constitutional Court judgment (EXHIBIT “A”), the alternative order (EXHIBIT “B”) and the contempt order (EXHIBIT “C”) are incorporated by reference as though fully stated herein.
21 The said alternative order of the Constitutional Court commands as follows:

TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO.

YA058902 -- SCILICET: JUDGES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPUTY

PUBLIC DEFENDER (ALL OFFICERS OF THE COURT), CLERKS,

SHERIFFS, BAILIFFS, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT

WITH YOU:
COMES NOW THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT OF RECORD OF AURORA

BAUTISTA QUICHO ON ITS OWN MOTION AND ORDERS AS

FOLLOWS: That all barratry17 shall cease, and all of

the following charges be DISCHARGED NUNC PRO TUNC,

IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT DELAY, IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE, and WITH PREJUDICE:
COUNT 1: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459,

SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY;
COUNT 2: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §476a(a),

NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK MULTIPLE CHECKS;
COUNT 3: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459

SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; and
COUNT 4: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 476a(a)

NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK SINGLE CHECK, and

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §186.11 PATTERN OF

RELATED FELONY CONDUCT.

Further, it is ordered that the defendant be released immediately, without delay and with full restoration of lawful liberty.
Further, if the above order is not obeyed, then no later than Wednesday, June 1, 2005 you shall show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified, or why you should not be held in contempt of court.
22 The alternative order of the Constitutional Court was timely served upon the Inferior Court, its judges, its officers, and interested parties. Though given the opportunity, no opposing response was filed by the Inferior Court or any of the officers or parties.
23 This verified petition for peremptory writ of mandate is presented to the above-entitled court of record (and not to a judge or justice) as described in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1085.18

24 This petition is made on the grounds that said Inferior Court, its officers, and other persons acting in concert with them are disobeying the order of the Constitutional Court and proceeding as if the Constitutional Court and its orders do not exist. That default of duty has resulted in the continuing loss of liberty of this petitioner, said liberty being a natural right of the petitioner. A writ of mandate is an appropriate remedy to compel public functionaries or bodies to perform the duties imposed on them by virtue of their office.


25 Further grounds are that said subjects of this court willfully conspired to, and did contemptuously subvert this court’s order to restore my liberties. For example, the officers of the Inferior Court have physically beaten, Tasered, injured, and jailed the 73-year-old female arthritic process server of the Constitutional Court after she served a Constitutional Court order upon the Inferior Court. The consequence of said contemptuous behavior is to unlawfully interfere with the conduct of the business, dignity, and authority of the Constitutional Court, and consequently the natural rights of this petitioner to orderly due process and liberty.
26 It should be noted that during all proceedings in the Inferior Court, at all times I, Aurora Bautista Quicho, maintained my position: I always objected (when allowed) to every exercise of false jurisdiction that was asserted under color of law. I never voluntarily agreed to be represented by any defender public or private, and I always objected to such forced representation. All entries in the Inferior Court’s Case Summary which lead one to believe that I voluntarily participated in the proceedings, or that I voluntarily accepted the forced representation are false.
27 WHEREFORE, I, the affiant herein, pray that this court issue a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the respondents and all persons acting in concert with them to obey the order of the Constitutional Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct, and that this was executed in the county of Los Angeles, California on August 22, 2005.
Aurora Bautista Quicho

1 CCP 1084. The writ of mandamus may be denominated a writ of mandate. CCP 1085. (a) A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.

2 CCP 1097. When a peremptory mandate has been issued and directed to any inferior tribunal,

corporation, Board, or person, if it appear to the Court that any member of such tribunal, corporation, or Board, or such person upon whom the writ has been personally served, has, without just excuse, refused or neglected to obey the same, the Court may, upon motion, impose a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. In case of persistence in a refusal of obedience, the Court may order the party to be imprisoned until the writ is obeyed, and may make any orders necessary and proper for the complete enforcement of the writ.



3352 Am Jur 2d Mandamus § 388

4California 1879 Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and municipal courts, all of which are courts of record.”

55“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

66“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

77“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." [California Government Code, Section 11120; see also California Government Code Section 54950]

“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” Merrion, et al., dba Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, et al. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.



88 A court of record may not be in name only. Further, keeping a record alone is not sufficient to qualify as a court of record. The court of record must meet all of the following requirements:

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

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

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

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

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



99 “The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

10 California Constitution (1879), ARTICLE 6, JUDICIAL : SEC. 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and municipal courts, all of which are courts of record.

1011 Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].

1112 “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." [California Government Code, Section 11120; see also California Government Code Section 54950]

“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” Merrion, et al., dba Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, et al. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.



1213 "Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court." Magna Carta, Article 34.

1314 “Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

1415 “The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

15 California 1879 Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and municipal courts, all of which are courts of record.”

COURT OF RECORD: To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:

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

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

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

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



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

1617 “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

17 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: BARRATRY, n. The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856: BARRATRY, crimes. In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting, and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise. 1 Inst. 368; 1 Hawk. 243.

18 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1085(a): "A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person."

Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Page of 13


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page