1 Aurora Bautista Quicho

207 Albatross Lane

2 Fountain Valley, California

3
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 Aurora Bautista Quicho, ) CASE NO. BC324176
Counterclaimant, )
11 ) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT;
v. ) NOTICE OF MOTION;
12 ) AFFIDAVIT OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Aurora Bautista Quicho
13 CALIFORNIA, Federal Credit Union, ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
Land Rover South Bay, ) CONTEMPT;
14 Mercedez Benz South Bay, ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Quaker City Bank, Mark S. Arnold, )
15 Amy-Hannah Broersma, )
Eileen C. Butko, Complainer Doe, )
16 FCU Doe, Land Doe, Mercedez Doe, ) DATE:
17 Quaker Doe, Laura C. Ellison, ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
Gregg Hayata, Omar Hazel, ) DEPT: 30
18 David Hizami, Lisa V. Houle, )
1168 Johnson, Jodi Michelle Link, )
19 Grady Miles, Paulette Paccione, )
C. Rose, Sanjay Sahgal, )
20 John Torrelli, Thomas R. Sokolov, )
John Shepard Wiley Jr. and )
21 Cynthia Zuzga, )
)
22 Counterdefendants. )
----------------------------------)----------------------------
23
NOTICE
24
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
45
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 4, 2005 at 8:30 a.m., or as
26
soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Dept. "30" of the
27
above-entitled Court, located at 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles,
28
California, plaintiff Aurora Bautista Quicho will move this court
Page 1 of 8
 1 for an order of contempt.

2
3 AFFIDAVIT, MOTION, AND POINTS AND AUTHORITES

4
5 1 I am Aurora Bautista Quicho. I have personal knowledge of the

6 following facts and am competent to testify as to the truth of

7 these facts if called as a witness.

8
9 2 This affidavit is presented to the court (and not to a judge)
10 as described in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
11 1211(a), paragraph 2.1
12
13 3 COMES NOW Aurora Bautista Quicho as one of the people of
14 California to move the above-entitled court of record2 to find
15 1 California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1211(a), paragraph 2: "When the contempt is not committed in the
immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or
16 judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial
officers."
17
2 California 1879 Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme
18 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,
19 and may have a fifth. They are:
1.A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the
20 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.
21 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.
22 220, 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]
23 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.
24 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger
45 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.
26 383; 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;
27 Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
5. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
28 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]
Page 2 of 8
 1 the inferior court3 known as The Superior Court4 of the State of

2 California (hereinafter “Inferior Court”), Case Number YA58902,

3 Torrance, California proceeding according to statute and not

4 common law; and

5
Mark S. Arnold, purported judge;
6 Laura C. Ellison, purported judge;
Eric C. Taylor, purported judge;
7 Steven Ralph Belis, purported deputy district attorney;
8 Christopher Glenn Fong, purported deputy district attorney;
Paul Francis Guthrie III, purported deputy district atty;
9 Greta Backstrom Walker, purported deputy district attorney;
Cynthia Denise Legardye, purported bar panel attorney;
10 Robin Dwayne Perry, purported bar panel attorney
Gary Yoshio Tanaka, purported alternate public defender;
11 Grady Miles, purported witness;
Monte Alcanter, purported deputy sheriff
12
13 (hereinafter “Contemnors”) all subjects of this court; to be in
14 civil contempt, criminal contempt, and/or misdemeanor contempt of
15 this court.
16
17 4 This motion is made on the grounds that said subjects of this
18 court willfully conspired to, and did contemptuously subvert this
19 court’s order to the inferior court to dismiss with prejudice the
20 case called The People of the State of California vs. Aurora
21 Bautista Quicho, Superior Court of California, Torrance,
22 California, Case Number YA58902.
23
3 “Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to
24 the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
45
4 “The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a
26 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
27 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
28
Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

Page 3 of 8
 1
2 5 Further, on this above-entitled court of record made a final

3 judgment finding that the inferior court entitled The People of

4 the State of California vs. Aurora Bautista Quicho, Case Number

5 YA58902 does not have jurisdiction over Aurora Bautista Quicho.

6 Subsequently, as noted above, this court ordered that the

7 inferior court dismiss all charges nunc pro tunc.

8
9 6 Further grounds are that said subjects of this court willfully
10 conspired to, and did contemptuously subvert this court’s order
11 to restore nunc pro tunc the liberties of Aurora Bautista Quicho.
12 The consequence of said contemptuous behavior is to interfere
13 with the conduct of the business of the court, and subsequently
14 the rights of the parties to orderly due process and liberty, and
15 the authority and dignity of this court.
16
17 7 This motion is further based on the pleadings, records and
18 files of this court, and the affidavits and/or declarations of
19 “Joseph E. Waldemar: Berg” (Exhibit “J”), Ron Boggs (Exhibit
20 “K”), Barbara Busch (Exhibit “L”), Art Lawrence (Exhibit “M”),
21
Richard Weigal (Exhibit “N”), and Aurora Bautista Quicho; and the
22
Inferior Court’s Case Summary, a true and correct copy of which
23
is attached as Exhibit “H”.
24
45
8 Aurora Bautista Quicho further moves this court of record to
26
issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the rights of
27
the parties, the authority and dignity of this court, and her
28
full liberty unencumbered by said contemnors and the remaining
Page 4 of 8
 1 defendants of the above-entitled court of record.

2
3 9 During all proceedings in the Inferior Court, at all times

4 Aurora Bautista Quicho maintained her position: She always

5 objected to every exercise of false jurisdiction that was

6 asserted under color of law. She never agreed to be represented

7 by any defender public or private, and she always objected to

8 such forced representation. All entries in the Inferior Court’s

9 Case Summary which lead one to believe that she voluntarily

10 participated in the proceedings are false, with the exception of
11 those which note her objections.
12
13 10 Each of the following persons,
14
Mark S. Arnold, purported judge;
15
Laura C. Ellison, purported judge;
16 Eric C. Taylor, purported judge;
Steven Ralph Belis, purported deputy district attorney;
17 Christopher Glenn Fong, purported deputy district attorney;
Paul Francis Guthrie III, purported deputy district atty;
18 Greta Backstrom Walker, purported deputy district attorney;
Cynthia Denise Legardye, purported bar panel attorney;
19 Robin Dwayne Perry, purported bar panel attorney
Gary Yoshio Tanaka, purported alternate public defender;
20 Grady Miles, purported witness;
21
has been served with a copy of this court’s final judgment, or is
22
an officer or witness of the Inferior Court with full access to
23
the Inferior Court’s public files, and knows or should have known
24
of this court’s Order to Discharge which was served upon the
45
Inferior Court. Further, the judgment (containing an order to
26
show cause) of this court of record has not been appealed, and no
27
28 motion for reconsideration of judgment has been submitted; time

Page 5 of 8
 1 has run and neither such appeal nor motion may be made.

2
3 11 Further, Mark S. Arnold, purported judge; Laura C. Ellison,

4 purported judge; and Grady Miles, purported witness; are each

5 named defendants in this court (through their demurrers or

6 defaults have admitted their lack of jurisdiction) and have a

7 vested interest in the outcome of the Inferior Court’s decisions

8 and the continued incarceration of Aurora Bautista Quicho, and

9 when they act in the Inferior Court they cause her to lose her
10 court5 and inhibit the effectiveness of this court of record.
11
12 12 For the purpose of this motion only, the court of record is
13 invited to use its incidental equitable powers to adopt the rule
14 system native to the State of California. The contemnors have
15 shown their preference for the State of California rule system
16 over the common law rule system declared to be in effect by this
17 court and the State of California. If they must suffer the
18 pains of breaking the rules, let them be subject to the rules of
19 their own free will choosing. This courts attention is invited to
20 the following portions of the California Code of Civil Procedure:
21
22 Sec. 1209. (a) The following acts or
omissions in respect to a court of justice,
23 or proceedings therein, are contempts of the
authority of the court:
24
3. Misbehavior in office, or other willful
45
5 Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free
26 man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
27
California Constitution, Article 6, §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. [A court of record proceeds
28
according to the common law.]

Page 6 of 8
 neglect or violation of duty by an attorney,
1 counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other
person, appointed or elected to perform a
2 judicial or ministerial service;

3 4. Abuse of the process or proceedings of the

court, or falsely pretending to act under
4 authority of an order or process of the
court;
5
5. Disobedience of any lawful judgment,
6 order, or process of the court;
7 6. Rescuing any person or property in the
custody of an officer by virtue of an order
8 or process of such court;
9 7. Unlawfully detaining a witness, or party
to an action while going to, remaining at, or
10 returning from the court where the action is
on the calendar for trial;
11
Sec. 1897. The organic law is the
12 Constitution of Government, and is altogether
written. Other written laws are denominated
13 statutes. The written law of this State is
therefore contained in its Constitution and
14 statutes, and in the Constitution and
statutes of the United States.
15
16
13 At all times herein mentioned, Contemnors had the ability to
17
comply with the court’s order and continue to have the ability to
18
do so.
19
20
21 14 At all times herein mentioned, the court’s Order to Discharge

22 has remained in full force and effect.

23
24 15 Aurora Bautista Quicho alleges that Contemnors alleged

45 contempt is willful and with intent to frustrate the processes of

26 this court of record and to deprive plaintiff of the benefits to

27 which she is entitled under the order. On information and belief

28 Aurora Bautista Quicho alleges that one or more contemnors or

Page 7 of 8
 1 persons acting in concert with them have contacted her family to

2 enlist them to withdraw moral support from her, and to aid them

3 in discouraging her from asserting her rights.

4
5 16 WHEREFORE, I, the affiant herein, pray that this court either

6 issue an order requiring Contemnors, to show cause, if any they

7 have, why the court should not find each individually in contempt

8 of court by reason of their violation of the Order to Discharge,

9 as alleged above; or find Contemnors each individually in

10 contempt of court by reason of their violation of the Order to
11 Discharge, as alleged above; whichever the court deems proper.
12 Further, I invite the court to use its discretion to determine
13 whether or not this court of record should send, in accordance
14 with Commission Rule 109(a), a written notification of its
15 finding to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
18 correct, and that this affidavit was executed in the county of
19 Los Angeles, California on June ___, 2005.
20
21
22
Aurora Bautista Quicho
23
24
45
26
27
28

Page 8 of 8