blank pleading template with line numbering -- word · web view2015/08/06 · stewart and cross...

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) Deborah A Ryan (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 vs. Davis et al

Cross Complainant Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, aka Rosalie A Guancione©, the natural living woman and Secured Party takes a Nihil Dicit Default; A No Recourse DefaultNihil Dicit Default; A No Recourse Default in Admiralty With Prejudice, in Admiralty With Prejudice, against against Judge William J. Elfving for Judge William J. Elfving for failurefailure to specifically and explicitly to specifically and explicitly answer each numbered paragraph, as a answer each numbered paragraph, as a material fact, with either Admit, Deny, or material fact, with either Admit, Deny, or Deny for Want of Knowledge in accordance Deny for Want of Knowledge in accordance with C.C.P. 431.30 and for passing on the with C.C.P. 431.30 and for passing on the sufficiency of his own recusal in violation of sufficiency of his own recusal in violation of C.C.P. §C.C.P. § 170.3(c)(5) in bad faith as a scheme170.3(c)(5) in bad faith as a scheme to bypass a hearing review by a neutral to bypass a hearing review by a neutral judge of the motion for disqualification judge of the motion for disqualification pursuant to C.C.P. §§pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 170.3(c)(4), 170.3(c)170.3(c)(4), 170.3(c)(5).(5).To be filed Instantor Admitted 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 proceedingAdmitted Count 2: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a),

– of 37 –Guancione© et al v. Davis et al, Case Case No.: 1-12-CV-217973, HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©’s Nihil Dicit, (with

prejudice, no recourse default in Admiralty) taken against Judge William J Elfving in 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

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00))

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 proceedingAdmitted 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) Interests of Justice, or BiasAdmitted Count 4: C.C.P. §§ 170.1(a)(6)(A), 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii); 170.3(b)(2)(A) Admitted 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. § 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, 214-4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Cross Complainant HI&RH Empress Aubreé

Regina Dei Gratia©, also known as Rosalie A. Guancione©, the natural living

woman takes a Nihil Dicit Default; A No Recourse Default in Admiralty With Prejudice,

against Judge William J. Elfving for failure to specifically and explicitly answer each

numbered paragraph, as a material fact, with either Admit, Deny, or Deny for Want of



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

Knowledge in accordance with C.C.P. 431.30 and passing on the sufficiency of his own

recusal in violation of C.C.P. § 170.3(c)(5) in bad faith in a scheme to bypass a hearing

review of the motion for disqualification by a neutral pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 170.3(c)(4),

170.3(c)(5), intended to deny Cross Complainants their due process right and their equal

protection under the law.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©,

takes a Nihil Dicit default in the objection, by Affidavit, to Judge William J. Elfving,

due to Judge William J. Elfving’s failure to answer the Affidavit of Objection to Judge

William J Elfving, due to disqualification for cause. An answer to an Affidavit that is in

any other form than Affidavit, is considered ‘non-responsive’ and is NOT considered an

answer. An answer in fraud or an answer with matters remaining in controversy requires

a hearing by a neutral judge for determination of recusal outcome. A Nihil Dicit Default

is a no recourse default in Admiralty, also known as a default with prejudice in

Admiralty. A default is considered a statutory consent. A default is an admission that all

material facts are established as truth and fact. An unrebutted Affidavit, an Affidavit not

answered timely, or an Affidavit that is not answered properly with either Admit, Deny,

or Deny for want of Knowledge, to each numbered paragraph, as required by statute, is a

statutory consent and admission of all material facts stated in the Affidavit as truth under

the evidence code. An unrebutted email, such as the one submitted with the Affidavit,

from the SANTA CLARA COUNTY Auditor, is also established as truth under the

evidence code. An unrebutted judicially noticed evidence, such as the supporting

evidence for recusal, Form 700 in Exhibit 56, which shows a $100,000.00 investment of

stock in US BANCORP by Judge William J. Elfving, is established as truth. US

BANCORP is involved in the instant case. The corporation is involved in the cross

complaint thru Cross Defendants who are two executive board members of US

BANCORP, and thru a matter in controversy of a purported credit card debt of a

subsidiary or interlocking daughter corporation of US BANCORP called US BANK.

Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of the material fact

that this default is taken timely in that the judge is still in office and the clock does not



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

start to run until the public servant leaves office. Judge William J. Elfving has admitted

to the truthfulness of the material facts contained in the Affidavit of Objection

pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 431.10, 431.30, that civil rights federal law Title 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, 1985, 1988, C.C.P. §§ 170.1, 170.3; Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 455(a), 455(b)(1),

455(b)(3), 455(b)(5)(i), 455(b)(5)(iv), Canons 1, 2, 3.B.6, and 6; FRCP Rule 7(b), Fed. R.

of Evid., Rule 201, CALIFORNIA PC §§ 92, 93, Constitution of the California Republic,

the authorities cited in the memorandum herein, and Affidavits filed into Case #107-CV-

189409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, (which are established as evidence

under the evidence code, and as truth and fact when unrebutted under the evidence code,

and the time to object to those Affidavits has past and been defaulted), apply to this

recusal.

Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of the material fact

that the motion of objection to Judge William J. Elfving was made timely, and is

effective to the date of notice of assignment of Judge William J. Elfving to the case by

the clerk of the court, nunc pro tunc, 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. 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.



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

Nihil Dicit in 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 Judge William J.

Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of the material fact that 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 August 04, 2015.

2) Your Affiant states Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of

the material fact that the facts described herein are true, complete and not misleading.

3) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the

truthfulness of all the material facts stated herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that the undersigned has first hand knowledge of all the

facts stated herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that the facts described herein describe events that have

occurred within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.


the material fact that HI&RH Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, is also known as

Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©, the natural living woman.


the material fact 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



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

living woman, who is living, breathing, and a being, on the soil, with clean hands, rectus

curia.


the material fact that the undersigned makes these statements freely, without reservation.


the material fact that if the undersigned is compelled to testify regarding the facts stated

herein that the undersigned is competent to do so.


the material fact that Empress Aubreé Regina Dei Gratia©, has met with and been

examined by Dr. Marshall Williams.


the material fact that Dr. Marshall Williams has an unrestricted licensed to practice

medicine and surgery in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.


the material fact that Dr. Marshall Williams is recognized as a competent medical

authority by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.


the material fact that Dr. Marshall Williams performed a physical examination on

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


the material fact that Dr. Marshall Williams determined that on January 21, 2013,

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


the material fact that Dr. Marshall Williams memorialized the results of his examination

of the undersigned, as a living natural woman in a separate Affidavit fully incorporated

by reference as if fully incorporated therein.


the material fact that the physical examinations and Affidavits of Dr. Marshall Williams



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

dated January 21, 2013, are unrebutted fact and truth that the undersigned is a natural [sic

individual] woman, and a sentient living mortal human being.


the material fact 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.


the material fact that the aforementioned medical examination proved that an all upper

case formatted name was misapplied to the undersigned, by the court.

Judge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of the following Judge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of the following

Material facts regarding Pro Se/pro per StandardsMaterial facts regarding Pro Se/pro per Standards


truthfulness of the material fact that your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates

by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth herein.


the material fact 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.



Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 at 521 (1972), pro se/pro per motions, pleadings and all

papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.

22) Your Affiant Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of the

material fact 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.





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

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.



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.



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

of the Petition’s deficiency.



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

on the necessary instructions.



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

evidence in support of his Petition.


the material fact 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.

29) Your Affiant states Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the

truthfulness of the material fact 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)



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 has admitted to the truthfulness of the material fact that thethe following are Governing Rules of this Case following are Governing Rules of this Case





the material fact that 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.


the material fact 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.


the material fact that your Affiant is the Cross Complainant and Appellant in the case

sub judice.


the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.



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


truthfulness of the material fact that the undersigned submits the following facts, law

and authority as basis for and in support of this pleading.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.

Judge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of each of the followingJudge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of each of the following

Material Facts as STATEMENTS OF FACTMaterial Facts as STATEMENTS OF FACT





the material fact that he reported on his Annual Form 700 for 2014 that he owns

$100,000.00 in US BANCORP stock.


the material fact that he reported on his Annual Form 700 for 2014 that his wife Barbara

Elfving owns $100,000.00 in US BANCORP stock.



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


the material fact that the subject matter of the instant case involves US BANK (US

BANCORP).


the material fact that the subject matter of the instant case involves a US BANK issued

credit card by US BANCORP.


the material fact that the credit card application says US BANCORP.


the material fact that when the credit card comes in the mail it says that it is issued by

US BANK.


the material fact that US BANK and US BANCORP are inter-locking corporations

doing banking business.


the material fact that the parties in this case include two Cross Defendants who are

members of the Board of Directors of US BANCORP.


the material fact that he has a financial conflict of interest in the subject matter of the

instant case.


the material fact that he has a financial conflict of interest in the subject matter of the

instant case via his wife Barbara Elfving.

49) Your Affiant states that Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness

of the material fact that his wife Barbara Elfving has a $100,000.00 financial investment

in US BANCORP.


truthfulness of the material fact that he had a FIDUCIARY DUTY AND 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

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


truthfulness of the material fact that he has a STATUTORY DUTY to tract his conflicts of

interest.


truthfulness of the material fact that he has a MANDATORY DUTY to self recuse due to

his $100,000.00 financial conflict of interest in the US BANCORP stock, which is

subject matter of the instant case.

Judge William J Elfving has admitted to the Truthfulness of the Unrebutted Affidavits of Self Disqualification





the material fact 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.



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












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.












RECUSED IN THIS CASE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 2008” stating that your

Affiants have immunity 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


the material fact 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.


the material fact 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).


the material fact that as a state court Judge he 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.


the material fact that if he 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.61) Your Affiant states Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of

the material fact that the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA is an Ens legis,

corpora ficta and corporate 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


the material fact that the CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL is an Ens legis, corpora

ficta and corporate court.


the material fact that the CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL is a political subdivision

of the UNITED STATES.


the material fact that the undersigned, as officially recognized a secured party creditor,

had a reasonable expectation of immunity from all state court jurisdiction.


the material fact that 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.


the material fact that he 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.


the material fact 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.


the material fact that he 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.


the material fact that he 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



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

the state constitution, which precludes acceptance of such payments, which constitute

unreported bribes within the meaning of the law.


the material fact 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.


the material fact 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.






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.


the material fact that through Nihil Dicit, all judges in the SUPERIOR COURT OF



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

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.


the material fact 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.


the material fact that a Legal Maxim is “An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in

commerce”.


the material fact that that Claims made in an affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth

of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who doesn't deny, admits."


the material fact 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.


the material fact that the unrebutted Affidavit served upon all the judges of the



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

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.


the material fact that the INCORPORATED COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER CROSS-COMPLAINANTS AND MISCONSTRUED DEFENDANT, BECAUSE THEY ARE ‘A NATURAL MAN AND A NATURAL WOMAN’.80) Your Affiant states Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the truthfulness of

the material fact that 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),


the material fact that an unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by estoppel to any future

answer.


the material fact 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



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

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.

83) Your Affiant states Judge William J. Elfving has admitted to the

truthfulness of the material fact 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.


the material fact that he agrees to recuse himself 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).


the material fact 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."


the material fact 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).


the material fact that "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional

obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law."


the material fact that RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6 are also

applicable to recusal.




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

the material fact that in the past he 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.


the material fact that the United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who

will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.


the material fact that he must 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. See Affidavit and Affidavit of Nihil Dicit from state

court case 107-CV-089409, SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint attached to:

CROSS COMPLAINANT Rosalie Guancione©, aka, HI&RH Empress Aubreé

Regina Dei Gratia©, the natural woman’s, AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE TO CLERK OF

STATUTORY CONSENT TO DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE OF JUDGE

WILLIAM J ELFVING FOR RECUSAL, and Requirement to Notify Presiding Judge

to Assign a New Civil Division Judge to Hear Civil Court Case, filed March 14, 2014.

92) Your Affiant states that because Judge William J. Elfving was presented with

true and correct copies of the previously defaulted Affidavit (of self recusal) from

March 2013, of which he was described to have self recused in a previous unrelated

case and he did not file and serve an answer in objection in a timely manner, and an

Affidavit of Nihil Dicit from April 2013, from state court case 107-CV-089409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, again on March 14, 2014, each 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

attachments to an AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE TO CLERK OF STATUTORY

CONSENT TO DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE OF JUDGE WILLIAM J

ELFVING FOR RECUSAL, a reasonable man or woman is not likely to believe

Judge William J. Elfving’s denials of knowledge of his own self recusal in case

107-CV-089409 involving parties in the instant case.


the material fact that he was previously self recused in another case, 107-CV-089409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint, in which the undersigned were parties.


the material fact that the grounds to recuse him 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.

Judge William J. Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of RECUSAL COUNT #1RECUSAL 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






by reference the foregoing paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: Notice of Exhibit 56: California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC

INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed



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

01/29/2015, 01/29/2015, pagespages 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORPBANCORP as if fully set forth herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that Judge William J. Elfving owns $100,000.00 in

stock of US BANCORP.


truthfulness of the material fact that two Cross-Defendants in the instant case are

sitting or former members of the Board of Directors for US BANCORP.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that all of the elements of this count have been

satisfied.

Judge William J. Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of RECUSAL COUNT #2RECUSAL 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






by reference the foregoing paragraphs of the Demand Mandatory Judicial Demand Mandatory Judicial Notice of Exhibit 56: Notice of Exhibit 56: California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC California Form 700, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC

INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, INTERESTS, FOR 2O14, Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed Judge William Johnson Elfving, filed



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

01/29/2015, 01/29/2015, pagespages 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US 1, 19: Schedule A-1 Investments page: US BANCORPBANCORP as if fully set forth herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that the WILLIAM & BARBARA ELFVING TRUST

is jointly owned by Judge William Johnson Elfving and Barbara Elfving, as an asset

of the marital estate.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that all of the elements of this count have been

satisfied.

Judge William J. Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of RECUSAL COUNT #3RECUSAL 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





truthfulness of the material fact 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


truthfulness of the material fact that he came into the case and signed an order,

without 10 days notice of assignment to the undersigned parties.


truthfulness of the material fact that the undersigned cross complaintant/appellant 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that his previous self recusal 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.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that he has admitted that he is disqualified.


truthfulness of the material fact that he admitted this disqualification and his lifetime

bar to hearing any cases in which the undersigned are parties through his failure to



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

rebut an Affidavit Memorializing his self recusal from Case #1-07-CV-089409,

SFPCU v. STEWART and cross complaint involving the undersigned.


truthfulness of the material fact that this admission was made under the Doctrine of

Silence is Agreement (see later authorities).


truthfulness of the material fact that this admission of prior recusal was performed by

Tacit Agreement.


truthfulness of the material fact that his 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that he 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©.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.



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


truthfulness of the material fact that each of the aforementioned documents are

incorporated by reference herein as if fully incorporated herein.


truthfulness of the material fact 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.

Judge William J. Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of RECUSAL COUNT #4RECUSAL 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





truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that he has a personal bias or prejudice against the

undersigned parties.


truthfulness of the material fact that the previous self recusal of himself 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that the previous self recusal of himself in case #1-07-



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

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.


truthfulness of the material fact 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);


truthfulness of the material fact that pursuant to the doctrine of Silence is 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 Anthony-

Victor III: Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione©, the natural living man and

secured party.


truthfulness of the material fact that the Affidavit Memorializing … the self recusal of

himself, 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.





truthfulness of the material fact that a failure to sustain this recusal action is a

discrimination against petitioner / movant’s civil rights and said discrimination is 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

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.

Judge William J. Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of RECUSAL COUNT #5RECUSAL 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. § 170.3(b)(2)(A)Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law



by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if those paragraphs were fully set forth

herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that the undersigned had a reasonable expectation of

the enforcement of the guaranteed rights of the federal Constitution of 1787.


truthfulness of the material fact that he has previously admitted to the truthfulness of

the fact that he has no jurisdiction over either of the undersigned parties.


truthfulness of the material fact that he has admitted to the truthfulness of the facts

that the undersigned parties are immune to all state court jurisdiction.


truthfulness of the material fact that he 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that he continues to rule in cases in which the

undersigned are parties, after his lifetime bar to presiding over any case involving



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

either of the undersigned parties, which is a violation of the undersigned’s civil rights

to due process and equal protection under the law.


truthfulness of the material fact that when he 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that when he 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that he 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.

Judge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of allJudge William J Elfving admitted to the Truthfulness of all FactsFacts

Stated in the BackgroundStated in the Background




herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that he was previously recused in a different and



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

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 Anthony-Victor III:

Guancione©, aka Anthony Guancione, III©, the natural living man and secured party.


truthfulness of the material fact that the Affidavits memorializing the self recusal of

himself, 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.





truthfulness of the material fact 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that a judge who advocates for either party is

recusable for bias, partiality, prejudice, against the other party.


truthfulness of the material fact that this is the third time that he, as a state court

Judge, has ruled in a case involving the undersigned after his lifetime bar due to self

recusal was in case 112-CV-217973.

VERIFICATIONVERIFICATION– of 37 –

Guancione© et al v. Davis et al, Case Case No.: 1-12-CV-217973, HI&RH Empress Aubreé Dei Gratia©’s Nihil Dicit, (with prejudice, no recourse default in Admiralty) taken against Judge William J Elfving

in 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

145) 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 nihil dicit taken in the 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: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/____ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione© _____ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©

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

Common Law Notarization to follow on next 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

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

Dated: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/___ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©___HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Dated: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©____King Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©Witness #2, Common Law Notarization



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 admitted to the truthfulness of allJudge William J Elfving admitted to the truthfulness of all facts in thefacts in the

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES




herein.


truthfulness of the material fact that he 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that based upon the doctrine of ‘Silence is

Agreement’, that he 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that a Nihil Dicit was taken against him 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.


truthfulness of the material fact that a Nihil Dicit is a NO RECOURSE DEFAULT-WITH

PREJUDICE in Admiralty.


truthfulness of the material fact that he is Defaulted and has admitted to having a

lifetime bar to any further jurisdiction over Anthony Guancione© or Rosalie A.

Guancione© in any case involving either of the aforementioned individuals as parties.



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


truthfulness of the material fact that an Affidavit must be answered or replied to with

an opposing or replying Affidavit.


truthfulness of the material fact that he failed to serve or file an Affidavit in reply to

the Affidavit Memorializing Judge William J. Elfving’s self recusal.


truthfulness of the material fact of 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.


truthfulness of the material fact 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)


truthfulness of the material fact 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.”


truthfulness of the material fact that “Court of Appeals may not assume the truth of

allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.”


truthfulness of the material fact 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



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

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)”


truthfulness of the material fact 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." ”


truthfulness of the material fact 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.”


truthfulness of the material fact 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!”


truthfulness of the material fact 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.” ”


truthfulness of the material fact 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.” ”



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


truthfulness of the material fact that “Orion Construction Group, LLC v. Berkshire

Wind Power, LLC, No. 07-C-10 (E.D.Wis. 04/13/2007) (defendant's affidavit

presumed true, because plaintiff presented no affirmative evidence supporting

personal jurisdiction).”


truthfulness of the material fact that “Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir.

1988) (affidavit in 28 USC 144 recusal proceeding presumed true)”


truthfulness of the material fact that an unrebutted Affidavit stands as a bar by

estoppel to any future answer.


truthfulness of the material fact 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”.


truthfulness of the material fact 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: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/____ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione© _____ Rosalie Aubreé Guancione©

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

Common Law Notarization to follow on next 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

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

Dated: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/___ Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©___HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart©Witness #1, Common Law Notarization

Dated: August 06, 2015 By: _/s/____ K. Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©____King Romano RA Pharol Beaujayam©Witness #2, Common Law Notarization



blank pleading template with line numbering -- word · web view2015/08/06 · stewart and cross...

Documents