William Jones The Foundation For This Case Is A Traffic Accident (2018 - 11 - 13 20 - 41 - 07 UTC) (2019 - 04 - 02 18 - 57 - 51 UTC) - 000

THIS CASE IS THE MOTHER EXAMPLE AND TRAINING FOR ALL
PROCEDURES TO DEFENSE ON ANY CASE
The foundation for this case is a traffic accident. But the real battle is the question of who is the higher
authority: one of the people acting in his personal sovereign capacity, or the government agencies. The
judge has made several attempts to assumptively grant judicial powers to himself. Now he has been
found in contempt of court (see 02-02-00 Ruling below). Once these jurisdictional issues are settled we
expect the remainder of the case to be rather mundane.
The contempt ruling is complete. Everything is in that ruling to establish the jurisdiction of the people
over the judge.
CASE LOG
[music]
10-07-98
Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court.
02-18-99
Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite
authoritative, tense, and quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted.
Defendant's demurrer was denied.
Transcript #1 tells the story.
COUNTY OF CALAMITY
William Jones ) CASE NO. ________

)
Plaintiff, ) Demurrer of Defendant,
) Robert Smith, father of
v. ) Mary Smith, A Minor to
) Plaintiff's Complaint;
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) Memorandum of Points
MARY SMITH, a minor ) and Authority's
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) DATE: February 18, 1999
Defendants. ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 1999, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in department 666 of the above entitled court, located at 1313 Bastille St.,
Megalopolis, CA., the court will hear the demurrer of Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary
Smith, a minor to plaintiff’s complaint.
Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, demurs to the following complaint of
Plaintiff, William Jones, as follows:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant,
Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor.
2. The complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
OBJECTION TO A PLEADING MAY BE TAKEN BY DEMURRER
IF DEFECTS APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE PLEADING
Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10 states in pertinent part:
"The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer
or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following
grounds:
(e) "The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."
The complaint clearly fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, for trespass. The essence of a cause of
action for trespass is an unauthorized or wrongful entry or intrusion onto land owned or occupied
by another that disrupts the other’s right to exclusive possession of the land. Civic Western Corp.
V Zila Industries, INC. (1977, 2nd Dist.) 66 Cal App. 3d 1, 135 Cal Rptr 915. Clearly plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state facts supporting such cause of action.
II.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS UNCERTAIN,

AMBIGUOUS AND UNINTELLIGIBLE
"Plaintiffs’ complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible."
(f) "The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, uncertain includes ambiguous and
unintelligible."
The complaint of William Jones is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.
III.
AN ATTORNEY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COURT AND
COUNSEL WITH A STREET ADDRESS AT WHICH HE MAY BE SERVED
California Rule of Court 201(e) provides that an attorney must provide, with respect to any
pleading, "the name, office address, or if none, the residence address, and telephone number, and
State Bar membership number of the attorney for the party.
The failure of Mr. Jones to provide his street address, or if he had none, his residence address is a
blatant violation of Rule 201 (e)
CONCLUSION
Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, requests that the court sustain his
demur without leave to amend.
DATED: January 5, 1999 Transcript LAW OFFICES OF LOWE

(Names and locations changed to protect the SHARKNETTE & ASSOC.
guilty.) Attorney for Defendant
ROBERT SMITH, father of
Style of the judge: Aggressive, authoritative, MARY SMITH, a minor
not particularly concerned about what the
parties want.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CALAMITY
HONORABLE ROY LeGUMÉ PRESIDING
DEPARTMENT 666
February 18, 1999
Duration: 7 minutes.
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Mr. Jones
versus Smith.
1-09 MR. SMITH: Good

morning. Lowe Sharknette on
1-10 behalf of the defendant.
1-11 THE COURT: Mr. Jones

you're --
1-12 MR. JONES: Good

morning, sir,
1-13 THE COURT: You're to

turn off that recording
1-14 device or leave the courtroom,

one of the two. That's
1-15 the order of the Court.
1-16 MR. JONES: Excuse me,

your Honor. This
1-17 is --
1-18 THE COURT: That's a

standing Rule of Court.
1-19 MR. JONES: I have a

problem hearing and I
1-20 cannot hear very well.
1-21 THE COURT: Well, we

have a court reporter.
1-22 I do not allow tape-recordings

in this court. That's a
1-23 California Rule of Court,

period.
1-24 MR. JONES: Well, your

Honor, I -- I can't
1-25 afford her services.

1-26 THE COURT: Mr. Jones,
there are ways to take
2-01 care of that, also
2-02 MR. JONES: And how

would that be?
2-03 THE COURT: I -- well,

I'm going to explain
2-04 some procedures to you. You

may leave the recording on
2-05 as I explain the proceedings

to you, then you're going
2-06 to turn it off, okay?
2-07 MR. JONES: Very well.
2-08 THE COURT: Are you an

attorney at law, sir?
2-09 MR. JONES: No .
2-10 THE COURT: You filed a

lawsuit in this
2-11 court. I have to hold you to

the same rules. Are you
2-12 hearing me?
2-13 MR. JONES: I -- yes.
2-14 THE COURT: Tell me if

you don't hear me,
2-15 okay?
2-16 MR. JONES: Yeah. If

you could speak up a
2-17 little bit, please.
2-18 THE COURT: All right.

I have to hold you to
2-19 the same rules that I do

everybody else that practices
2-20 law in my courtroom, okay?

Those are the Rules of
2-21 Court.
2-22 In other words --
2-23 MR. JONES: Which

rules?
2-24 THE COURT: -- in other

words, I have to hold
2-25 you to the same standard as

anybody else who comes into
2-26 my courtroom, including the

attorneys who have
3-01 knowledge of all of the Rules

of Court.
3-02 MR. JONES: Which Rules

of Court are we
3-03 talking about?
3-04 THE COURT: California

Rules of Court,
3-05 period. It's called,

California Rules of Court.
3-06 MR. JONES: Well, then

with all due respect,
3-07 sir, then I must object for

the record.
3-08 THE COURT: Okay.
3-09 MR. JONES: I have --

this is a court of
3-10 record, and we have chosen

those rules that govern the
3-11 procedures of this court.
3-12 THE COURT: That's

right. I have California
3-13 Rules of Court. I don't know

what you're talking about
3-14 now .
3-15 MR. JONES: Well, do

you have my action --
3-16 THE COURT: Yes.
3-17 MR. JONES: -- in front

of you.
3-18 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
3-19 MR. JONES: Well, the

second paragraph --
3-20 THE COURT: I'm trying

to explain to you,
3-21 sir, that you will comply with

the California Rules of
3-22 Court, and you will be held to

the same standards as
3-23 any attorney who practices in

this court because those
3-24 are the Rules of Court.
3-25 And so, one of the Rules

of Court is, we do
3-26 not allow electronic devices.
4-01 MR. JONES: Well,

that's a little unusual
4-02 because, I had --

Okay. You -- now, okay.
4-04 I've tried to explain this to

you.
4-05 First of all, you're

going to turn the
4-06 tape-recorder off.

As long as, for the
4-08 record, my objection is put on

the record.
4-09 THE COURT: You got it.

Turn the
4-10 tape-recorder off, please.
Thank you.
4-11 Now, there are ways to go

about getting
4-12 transcripts and other things

if you are not able to
4-13 afford them. The Legal Aid

Society -- there may be
4-14 some services available to

you. I cannot give you
4-15 legal advise on how to proceed

on the case. I want to
4-16 make that clear. I don't give

the other side legal
4-17 advise --
4-18 MR. JONES: I

understand.
4-19 THE COURT: -- and I

cannot give you legal
4-20 advice .
4-21 MR. JONES: I

understand that.
4-22 THE COURT: Okay. I'm

telling you, you have
4-23 to comport yourselves to the

California Rules of Court,
4-24 okay.
4-25 So, do we have that

understanding?
4-26 MR. JONES: Well, I

understand. But as I
5-01 said before, this --
5-02 THE COURT: Sir, you

brought a lawsuit in
5-03 the -- from the Superior Court

in the State of
5-04 California in the County of
Calamity. If you do
5-05 not like the rules of the

Superior Court in the State
5-06 of California, then file your

lawsuit in some other
5-07 jurisdiction that you feel

would accommodate you
5-08 better, okay?
5-09 MR. JONES: Well, as I

said, just for the
5-10 record, I object.
5-11 THE COURT: Sure.
5-12 MR. JONES: This is

court of record and this
5-13 court has chosen its rules

that will govern this
5-14 proceedings.
5-15 THE COURT: I didn't

pick them. They're
5-16 imposed on us. But I follow

them, and so are you, and
5-17 so is the other side.
5-18 Counsel, state your

appearance.
5-19 MR. SMITH: Lowe

Sharknette for the defendant.
5-20 THE COURT: All right.

Now, we're here today
5-21 because of they have filed a

demurrer on -- your
5-22 demurrer on your complaint.

And I'm going to resolve
5-23 that because I don't think

simply because he named the
5-24 cause of action incorrectly
that this is grounds to
5-25 sustain a general demurrer.
5-26 Because in the body of

his action, he states
6-01 out -- states, basically, what

would be an auto
6-02 accident, personal-injury

lawsuit. So I'm going to
6-03 overrule the demurrer.
6-04 Because it says, 'Action

of trespass for
6-05 damages,' on the caption is

not sufficient to sustain a
6-06 general demurrer. He states

facts sufficient, in my
6-07 opinion, to sustain a cause of

action.
6-08 But there is another

alleged violation of
6-09 rule 201(e) and that might be

the cause of a motion to
6-10 strike on a demurrer. And

that is -- I'm going to ask
6-11 that the plaintiff

interlineate his complaint to
6-12 provide his residence address

and phone number, because
6-13 that is required by the

California Rules of Court on
6-14 your complaint.
6-15 MR. JONES: First --

again, I must object,
6-16 for the record. This is a

court of record. The --

You've objected. If you
6-18 do not do that, I'm going to

dismiss your lawsuit at
6-19 some point.
6-20 MR. JONES: I have

served them with a --
6-21 THE COURT: I --
6-22 MR. JONES: -- a

address to serve me at.
6-23 They have been served with

that.
6-24 THE COURT: Sir, I'm

directing you on the
6-25 documents, under the

California Rule of Court 201(e),
6-26 and that you are to provide us

with a residence address
7-01 and a phone number. It's very

simple to do that. So
7-02 that the Court --
7-03 MR. JONES: Excuse me.
7-04 THE COURT: -- so that

the Court can
7-05 communicate with you if we

have problems

That is not simple as
7-07 a -- it seems. I do not have

a residence. Therefore,
7-08 I have given them a source

where they can communicate
7-09 to -- with me. And that's the

best I can do. I do not
7-10 have a residence. I could not

do anything else.
7-11 THE COURT: Well --
7-12 MR. JONES: -- I live

in this area, but I do
7-13 not have a residence. That's

that.
7-14 THE COURT: Okay, well

--
7-15 MR. JONES: I've done

the best I can.
7-16 THE COURT: Do you have

a phone number?
7-17 MR. JONES: I do not.
7-18 THE COURT: Fine. You

miss any
7-19 proceedings -- we'll note that

on the record. If we
7-20 have a problem noticing you,

your case will get thrown
7-21 out at some point. We're

going to use the P.O. box
7-22 and that's your problem.
7-23 MR. JONES: I have been

served with a
7-24 address --
7-25 THE COURT: I don't

care. I want the Court
7-26 to be served with something.
8-01 MR. JONES: Which we

did.
8-02 THE COURT: P.O. box

2277. Okay. Not --
8-03 it's not in the file.
8-04 MR. JONES: Well, it

should. It was filed on
8-05 February 9th. Notice of

Change of Address.
8-06 THE COURT: Well, we'll

see. It's not in my
8-07 file. It may be in the

computer somewhere.
8-08 THE CLERK: Yeah, there was

one filed on the
8-09 9th.
8-10 THE COURT: Okay. Will

it make it to the
8-11 file? All right.
8-12 I'm telling you, you need

to communicate with
8-13 us. And if you don't have a

phone, that's fine.
8-14 You're telling me you do

not have a phone?
8-15 MR. JONES: No, I do

not.
8-16 THE COURT: I have to

advise you to make sure
8-17 that you check your mail and

keep up on this lawsuit.
8-18 MR. JONES: I will.
8-19 THE COURT: Okay. All

right. I'm going to
8-20 give -- the demurrer is

overruled. You have 20 days to
8-21 answer. Please -- and the

next hearing, unless they
8-22 notice you of further motions,

is May the 7th. May the
8-23 7th, 1999. That's a Friday,

at the hour of 8:30 a.m.
8-24 MR. JONES: Again?
8-25 THE COURT: That's

stamped right on your
8-26 complaint, sir. By the way --
9-01 MR. JONES: Again, I --

with the way this
9-02 proceedings are going, I must

enter an objection for
9-03 the record.
9-04 THE COURT: What don't

you like about the way
9-05 the proceedings are going?

Tell me what your objection
9-06 is.
9-07 MR. JONES: Quite

frankly, this is a court of
9-08 record
9-09 THE COURT: So what.
9-10 MR. JONES: Well --
9-11 THE COURT: It's a court

of record. We're
9-12 making a record. Thank you.
9-13 MR. JONES: And that's

very defined in -- in
9-14 any law dictionary as to how

it will be run.
9-15 THE COURT: Well, I'm

telling you the
9-16 California Rules of Court

regulate the way we run.
9-17 Thank you.
9-18 MR. JONES: Okay.
9-19 MR. SMITH: Thank you,

your Honor.
9-20 THE COURT: Would you,

please, give notice?
9-21 MR. SMITH: I will.
CASE CONTENTS

One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely that of
"judge," his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a ministerial
capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to "judge" something, or to exercise any
discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of
the court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as
a writ of error coram nobus.
05-06-99 Plaintiff filed
Judicial Notice,
William Jones
10000 Mount High Blvd.
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDICIAL NOTICE
) (Calif. Ev. Code Sec. 451, 452)
v. )
)
ROBERT SMITH, father of )
MARY SMITH, a minor )
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the following:
1. All items mentioned in California Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452, [among which is
included the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].
2. The records of this court in general, and the Reporter's Transcript of the proceeding of
February 18, 1999 in particular.
3. "It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them." California Government Code, Section 11120.
4. "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions,
boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them." California Government Code Section 54950.
5. "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns
of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....".
CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.
6. "The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American
Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas.
1047.
7. "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.)
(1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat.
Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others
retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.
9. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California,
110 U.S. 516.
10. "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.
11. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
12. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
13. "Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due
examination, is found to be republican in its form of government...." Act [of Congress] for the
Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.
14. "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people
and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people,
to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary,
Fifth Edition, p. 626.
15. "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the
United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." California Constitution, Article 3,
Sec. 1.
16. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Constitution for
the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.
17. Americans with disabilities act, (Title II) Public services, which include state and local
government instrumentalities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in
programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. For existing facilities,
barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Miscellaneous (Title V) Includes a
provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or
those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.
18. "A 'court of record' is 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.
19. "The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts...." California
Penal Code, Sec. 808.
20. "'...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our
land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points,
that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....' Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5,
1297" "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.
21. "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.
22. "We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we
hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him
to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D 774
(CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
23. An act of the court shall prejudice no man. Jenkins' Eight Centuries of Reports, 118; Brooms
Legal Maxims, Lond. ed. 115; 1 Strange's Reports, 126; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 245-255; 12
English Common Bench Reports by Manning, Granger, & Scott, 415
DATED: May 5, 1999
THE COURT
By

______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE CONTENTS

Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff's status.,
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS OF FACT
)
v. )
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT, on its own motion, makes the following findings of fact based upon the court
record and upon the contents of the judicial notice dated May 5, 1999:
1. William Jones is one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the California
Constitution.
2. This court is a court of record.
3. All parties and court personnel have been properly apprised of the foregoing.
DATED: May 5, 1999
THE COURT
By
______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE
and a
Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) WRIT OF ERROR
) QUAE CORAM
v. ) NOBIS RESIDANT
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT COMES NOW to review the facts, record, and process resulting in the rulings
dated February 18, 1999:
The record shows that this court of record held a hearing on February 18, 1999 for the purpose of
considering defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's personal action of trespass for damages.
Plaintiff was present in personam, and defendant, though absent, was represented by counsel.
The record shows (Transcript, Pages 1-9) that the magistrate did not conduct the hearing in
accordance with either the stated rules of court (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specified in
Action of Trespass, Page 1:Line 19) or the foundation rules of a court of record (Judicial Notice,
Page 5, Lines 4-8). Instead, the magistrate conducted his own court, without notice or
concurrance of the parties, and without due process. In fact, at one point the magistrate made it
clear that he believed he was the owner of the courtroom (Transcript, Page 2, Line 20). Not
satisfied with the lawful rules of court, he became a loose cannon and at some points imposed his
own rules (Transcript, Page 1, Lines 13-15, 18; Page 2, Lines 4-6, 19-21, 24-26; Page 3, Lines 4-
5, 12-13, 21-22, 25--26; Page 4, Lines 24-24; etc.), and at other points rules of another
jurisdiction foreign to this court (Transcript, Page 1, Line 23; Page 2, Lines 4-5, 12-13, 21-22,
23-24; Page 4, Line 23; Page 5, Lines 15-17; Page 6, Lines 13, 25; Page 9, Line 16).
In the exchange between plaintiff and magistrate, the magistrate made it perfectly clear that the
fact that this is a court of record was of no consequence to him; in two words: "So what"
(Transcript, Page 9, Lines 7-9).
Further, without proper authority, the magistrate stepped out of his function as a magistrate and,
by his actions and statements, figuratively assumed the cloak of a tribunal (Page 5, Lines 22-25;
Page 6, Lines 2-3, Page 8, Line 20).
The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every American to
settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses.
Throughout the transcript, the record shows that the rules of the court were not followed, that the
magistrate attempted to function as a tribunal, and that the court was ineffective in furthering the
goal of justice for all. These failures to follow the prescribed procedures are sufficiently
disruptive to the goal of providing fair justice that the court finds it necessary to issue a writ of
error quae coram nobis residant as follows:
THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND THE PROCESS BY
WHICH THE RULING WAS ISSUED, and finding that the magistrate rendered a ruling by
applying rules from several jurisdictions foreign to this court without leave of court; and finding
that the orderly decorum of the court was replaced by defective impromptu process and
usurpation of legislative and court powers without leave of court,
And, finding that there is partial merit in the defendant's demurrer, namely that the action,
though barely sufficient, should contain a complete statement of facts upon which to grant relief,
And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendant as well as plaintiff,
NOW THEREFORE, THE COURT issues this WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS
RESIDANT, to wit:
The court rescinds all rulings entered February 18, 1999.
Further, the court orders that in the interest of justice and fair play to all parties, plaintiff and
defendants, and with the concurrence of plaintiff, that the action for trespass is dismissed with
prejudice if the plaintiff does not file a first amended action on or before June 8, 1999.
Further, the court orders that if the defendant chooses to file an answer to the first amended
action, then the filing fees paid for the answer filed under the rescinded court order are applied to
that answer to the first amended action; for the court wills not the pains of its error on the
defendants.
Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other
interested parties a brief no later than June 7, 1999 to show cause to this court why this order
should not take effect or should be modified. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and
the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented.
Further, the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 7, 1999, will be reset to a date
determined by the clerk, no later than September 6, 1999 unless for good cause.
THE COURT
WITNESS: the SEAL of the
COURT this fifth day of May,
1999
______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE CONTENTS
. Defined
Definition
Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobis Residant
Quae = What
Coram Vobis = Before you,
Coram Nobis = Before us, ourselves, the king
Residant = resident, i.e. in this place
Writ of Error Coram Nobis.

Order of error, before us [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct our own error.
Order issued from a court to itself or its own personnel to correct an error in procedure or judgment.
Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobis Residant.

Order of error, what before us in this place [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct what is our own error in this place.
Order issued from a court to itself or its own personnel to correct an error in procedure or judgment.
Writ of Error Coram Vobis

Order of error, before you [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct your error.
Order issued from a higher court to a lower court to correct an error in judgment.
05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and asked
the plaintiff "What are we doing at this point?" The plaintiff simply said, "The only business before the
Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday.
As far as -- barring that, there's no business before the Court today." The hearing was terminated.
When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant's attorney was heard to ask, "Okay. Am I correct in that
the Court's made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?" The magistrate
replied, "I've made no rulings. I've made -- what I've done -- the record speaks for itself."
Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it.
Transcript #2 reports the day's proceeding.
Transcript
(Names and locations changed to protect the guilty.)
Style of the judge: Gentlemanly, accommodating, concerned about what the parties want.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CALAMITY
DEPARTMENT 666
May 7, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Mr. Jones and Smith.
1-09 MR. JONES: Good morning, your Honor.
1-10 William Jones, plaintiff.
1-11 MR. SMITH: Jerry Thompson for defendant,
1-12 Robert Smith.
1-13 THE COURT: Father of Mary Smith, a minor.
1-14 Okay. All right, in this matter it looks like, to me,
1-15 that Mr. Jones filed -- I think we resolved the
1-16 difficulties from last -- the last proceeding.
1-17 An answer has been filed. And Mr. Jones
1-18 filed some paperwork yesterday which was complaining
1-19 about the proceedings that I conducted on February
1-20 18th, what I had to say. And I don't feel there was
1-21 any error. I respectfully disagree, but your paperwork
1-22 is on file.
1-23 MR. JONES: Very well. I'll take note of
1-24 that for the record.
1-25 THE COURT: The big question is -- the big
1-26 question is, what are we doing at this point? I read
2-01 in there at some point -- are you asking -- are you
2-02 going to want to amend your complaint at some time?
2-03 MR. JONES: No. The only business before the
2-04 Court, at this point today, is making sure the
2-05 defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday.
2-06 As far as -- barring that, there's no business before
2-07 the Court today.
2-08 THE COURT: Well, there's business in the

2-09 sense that we need to push the matter towards a trial,
2-10 or whatever is going to happen on it. That's why today
2-11 is a case management.
2-12 MR. JONES: That's taken care of in my
2-13 paperwork. It's addressed and we're to move forward.
2-14 THE COURT: You want a continuance? I saw a
2-15 date of September in there.
2-16 MR. JONES: There's nothing I could add to
2-17 the paperwork to make it any more clearer. It's pretty
2-18 much all there.
2-20 MR. JONES: Barring that, as I said, all the
2-21 business before the Court is completed as of now.
2-22 THE COURT: Well, you do want this case, I
2-23 assume, Mr. Jones, and we've talked previously, but I
2-24 assume you want this case to go to trial at some point;
2-25 is that correct?
2-26 MR. JONES: Yeah, absolutely.
3-01 THE COURT: Do you want me to -- do you want
3-02 me to set a trial at this time?
3-03 MR. JONES: No, I'm not asking for anything
3-04 at this point in time. It's -- the paperwork itself is
3-05 explanatory.
3-06 THE COURT: Okay. Self-explanatory.
3-07 MR. JONES: It says everything I needed to
3-08 say at this point in time. There's nothing that I
3-09 could say to clarify it any more than what it is.
3-10 There's nothing I have to add at this point in time --

3-12 MR. JONES: -- and that's where --
3-13 THE COURT: If --
3-14 MR. JONES: -- at this point in time, we are
3-15 done. And --
3-16 THE COURT: You're done? Okay.
3-17 MR. JONES: Yeah.
3-18 THE COURT: You want -- a case management
3-19 conference scheduled for May 7th, '99, will be reset to
3-20 a date determined by the clerk no later than September
3-21 6th unless for good cause.
3-22 So, I'll give you another case management
3-23 conference date.
3-24 MR. SMITH: Is there some reason for that?
3-25 THE COURT: I -- it's all explained in his
3-26 paperwork.
4-01 MR. SMITH: Well, I couldn't make heads or
4-02 tails of it either, your Honor.
4-03 THE COURT: Well, I've talked to Mr. Jones
4-04 before, and I told Mr. Jones that we have rules. That
4-05 he -- let me explain it this way. Nobody is forcing
4-06 Mr. Jones to be here. He has voluntarily chosen this
4-07 forum to litigate, or bring this dispute for resolution
4-08 to the courts of the State of California.
4-09 He is not a defendant. Nobody is trying to
4-10 take property from him. He's not charged with a
4-11 criminal offense. He is here of his own free will to
4-12 process his dispute, which is set forth in his
4-13 complaint.
4-14 I have advised him, I will continue to advise
4-15 him, that he has selected and elected to be here. And
4-16 therefore, he will have to follow the rules because he
4-17 chose to be in this forum. He will have to follow the
4-18 rules of the forum of the State of California, which
4-19 includes the Fast-Track Rules and the California Rules
4-20 of Court. And, so, I've tried to make him aware of
4-21 that.
4-22 Previously, we had a little dispute about
4-23 that, I guess, but there is no dispute as far as I'm
4-24 concerned. We have -- we have a case -- I'm willing to
4-25 set the matter for a trial, Mr. Jones, because that's
4-26 what you want. I mean, you want somebody --
5-01 MR. JONES: Eventually we will get there,
5-02 yes, sir.
5-03 THE COURT: You want me to set a trial date
5-04 today, or put this matter -- you wanted a further case
5-05 manage --
5-06 MR. JONES: There are other matters in the
5-07 paperwork that have to be accomplish before the --
5-08 THE COURT: He wants to file, maybe, an
5-09 amended complaint or something and there are rules that
5-10 govern that. So, you'll have to follow the properly
5-11 notice -- the notice procedures and things likes that.
5-12 MR. SMITH: I want to clarify, it's not the
5-13 order?
5-14 THE COURT: No. No, you know -- and I'm
5-15 going to allow him to do this. And I'm going to, you
5-16 know -- if he wants -- you know, we had a dispute about

5-17 the tape recording. If you properly come to me under
5-18 rule 980 of the California Rules of Court, and there's
5-19 a procedure set forth in there that you can request to
5-20 do that, but --
5-21 MR. JONES: I was under -- at that point in
5-22 time, I was under previous interpretation of that rule.
5-23 However --
5-24 THE COURT: I'll direct you to that. And if
5-25 there's a problem, I don't want to have -- you know, I
5-26 just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. I know
6-01 where you're coming from. I've dealt with these
6-02 problems and this type of, you know -- I understand a
6-03 bit where you're coming from. I respectfully disagree
6-04 to some extent, but that's okay.
6-05 But nobody is forcing you to be here. And so
6-06 you're kind of -- you're in the driver's chair as far
6-07 as processing the lawsuit.
6-08 MR. JONES: I understand that.
6-09 THE COURT: Do you -- you want to come back
6-10 for a further case management? How about on a Friday
6-11 in August, or any day of the week in August?
6-12 MR. JONES: There's other things I wish to
6-13 accomplish that are listed in the paperwork and, at
6-14 that point in time, I'll move forward.
6-15 THE COURT: All right. You want to come
6-16 back -- you pick a day in August.
6-17 MR. JONES: I have no date in mind at this
6-18 time.
6-19 THE COURT: Okay. Can I pick one? I'm going
6-20 to pick a date where you have to come back.
6-22 THE COURT: That's the way it runs,
6-23 Mr. Jones.
6-25 THE COURT: That's the way it runs.
6-26 MR. JONES: However, I will object for the
7-01 record. I wish that to be on the record.
7-02 THE COURT: Okay. And that will be in
7-03 compliance with the Fast-Track Rules. And I will set
7-04 it for dismissal. And when you don't show up for that,
7-05 your case gets dismissed.
7-06 MR. JONES: As I said --
7-07 THE COURT: That's the rules. You -- well,
7-08 now you know. You volunteered to be here so the system
7-09 can voluntarily, on its own, throw you out of here.
7-10 It's your choice.
7-11 I mean, I'm not here to argue with you today.
7-12 MR. JONES: I'm not here to argue today,
7-13 either. The paperwork explained my process, the
7-14 direction I'm going, and there's nothing else I can
7-15 say.
7-16 THE COURT: Further case management Monday,
7-17 August 16th, 8:30, this department, 666.
7-18 I ask that the defendant give notice.
7-19 Written notice, okay?
7-20 MR. JONES: The only -- could you process a
7-21 transcript for me and I will get in contact with you?

7-22 THE REPORTER: Yes.
7-23 MR. JONES: Thank you, very much.
7-24 MR. SMITH: That date again?
7-25 THE COURT: August the 16th at 8:30 of 1999.
7-26 8:30 a.m., this department.
8-01 MR. SMITH: Okay. Am I correct in that the
8-02 Court's made no ruling on this apparent request to
8-03 amend the complaint today?
8-04 THE COURT: I've made no rulings. I've
8-05 made -- what I've done -- the record speaks for itself.
8-06 MR. SMITH: Thank you, your Honor.
8-07 THE COURT: Thank you.
06-07-99, Plaintiff filed

First Amended Action
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) FIRST AMENDED ACTION
) OF TRESPASS, AND
v. ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
)
ROBERT SMITH; ) VERIFIED
MARY SMITH, a minor; )
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA; )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
1. This First Amended Action amends by entire substitution the action filed October 7, 1998, in
the above entitled court.
CAUSE OF ACTION
2. William Jones (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is one of the people of California, and in this court of
record complains of Mary Smith (hereinafter "Defendant-A"), Robert Smith (hereinafter
"Defendant-B"), and State of California (hereinafter "Defendant-C"), who are each summoned to
answer the said Plaintiff in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case, to wit:
3. Defendant-A is a minor, licensed by Defendant-C to drive a motor vehicle and to exercise all
powers and authority implied by that license. Defendant-A's license number is Z987654321.
Defendant-A is the driver in command of the motor vehicle (hereinafter "vehicle"), the license
number of which appears to be 9ZZZ999 granted by Defendant-C on Exhibit-1.
4. Defendant-B is parent of Defendant-A, and is jointly and severally liable with Defendant-A
for the damages proximately and legally resulting from Defendant-A's action. Defendant-B,
according to the official report (Exhibit-1), is the registered owner of the vehicle licensed by
Defendant-C.
5. Defendant-C (who is DOE 1 of the former action, and who's person, actions, and relationships
are now ascertained) is the owner of the vehicle. The nature of Defendant-C's ownership is
allodial. Defendant-C is the true holder of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO" or
"allodial title"). Defendant-C licenses and bails the vehicle for legal and registered ownership
and for use only by licensed drivers (bailees). Defendant-C is jointly and severally liable with
Defendant-A and Defendant-B for the damages proximately and legally resulting from
Defendant-A's actions. Defendant-C, according to Defendant-C's official report, is the licensor of
Defendant-A and of the vehicle.
6. As licensor, Defendant-C shows three significant characteristics which are admitted and
mandated in Defendant-C's secondary controlling rules, the California Vehicle Code: (a)
Defendant-C receives a direct financial benefit from Defendant-C's actions and from bringing
Defendant-C's and others' services, products, and actions into the stream of commerce. (b)
Defendant-C's role is integral to the Defendant-C's transportation business of bringing
Defendant-C's own and others' services, products, actions, and licensees into the stream of
commerce; and (c) Defendant-C has close operational non-discretionary control over, or a
substantial ability to influence, the production and distribution of said services, products, and
actions; and actively micromanages at great expense through several statewide and local agency
organizations such as California Highway Patrol. Defendant-C effects the licenses through its
various agencies such as the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of
Motor Vehicles, and local police to assure high quality standards and both voluntary and
involuntary participation in the stream of commerce. Defendant-C's services, products, and
actions include, but are not limited to, training programs, testing programs, licensed drivers,
certificates of competency, investigations, reports, analyses, and close monitoring for quality
assurance, all for the purpose of motor vehicle operation in the stream of commerce.
7. At all times mentioned in this action Defendant-A and Defendant-B are each the agent and
bailee of the other and of Defendant-C, and in doing the things alleged in this action, each is
acting within the course and scope of this agency and bailment.
8. Exhibit-1 (official report), Exhibit-2 (photographs), Exhibit-3 (medical records), Exhibit-4

(medical expenses), and Exhibit-5 (copies of x-rays of injuries) are included by reference as
though fully stated herein. The physical injuries, examinations, treatments, and surgeries are
reported in Exhibit-3. Exhibit-2 contains two photographs showing the external appearance of
some of the injuries that the doctors are unable to permanently correct. Exhibit-5 is the x-rays of
the injuries. Because of a Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents by Defendant-A
and Defendant-B, Exhibit-5 is in full possession and control by Defendant-A, Defendant-B, and
defendants' agents for examination by all defendants, and for presentation at trial.
9. On October 8, 1997, in the city of Disruption, County of Calamity, California, Plaintiff

William Jones duly travels on a bicycle eastward on Highland. By right, Plaintiff reasonably
expects to proceed without injury, secure in his capacities. Mary Smith (Defendant-A), drives the
vehicle northward on Oleander. Defendant-A turns eastward onto Highland. Defendant-A does
not yield the right of way to Plaintiff. Defendant-A, while controlling the vehicle, causes the
vehicle to violently collide with Plaintiff directly causing injuries to Plaintiff. The first points of
contact are the vehicle's left end of the front bumper at the left front quarter panel, and Plaintiff's
right foot and the bicycle rear wheel at a point behind the right pedal assembly. The initial
impact bent the rear wheel. The injuries itemized in Exhibit-3 require ongoing medical treatment,
surgery, and therapy. Defendant-A's action causes permanent diminishing of Plaintiff's capacity
to perform his primary trade of heavy construction work. Plaintiff's ability to perform his
secondary skills as a field architect are likewise diminished. Of necessity, Plaintiff is now
occasionally doing low-paying odd jobs and mechanical work on cars, despite the accompanying
pain.
10. Defendant-A had a duty to not act in such a way as to cause injuries to Plaintiff. The City of
Disruption Police Department official Traffic Collision Report (Local Report Number T999-
87654) (Exhibit-1) by peace officer Copper, and reviewed the following day by CPL Maninblu,
on State of California CHP forms, details the statements of the parties and the official
administrative opinion that, "the collision occurred when Smith failed to yield to traffic after
stopping at the stop sign, in violation of VC 21802(a)" (Exhibit-1, Page 5).
11. Fire department paramedics provide emergency help to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is transported by
Breakumore ambulance to Community Hospital of Calamity, Emergency Department. Plaintiff
incurred, is incurring, and continues to incur medical bills for treatments, surgeries, and
therapies. The bodily injuries, treatments, surgeries, and therapies are detailed in Exhibit-3. The
operative/procedure record of Surgeon I. Wuzza Barber, M.D., dated December 19, 1997,
particularly describes the extent of the shoulder injuries. The expenses for treatments, surgeries,
and therapies are detailed in Exhibit-4. As a direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A,
Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to his person, all of
which injuries cause Plaintiff great mental, emotional, and physical pain and suffering.
12. As a further direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A, Plaintiff incurs, and
continues to incur, medical and related expenses. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact
amount of medical expenses that are incurring. When Plaintiff has ascertained this amount,
Plaintiff will seek leave of court, orally or in writing, to amend this complaint to insert this
amount.
13. As a further direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A, Plaintiff's earning capacity
is greatly impaired. Plaintiff's quality of life is permanently decreased: no longer is there a very
active life style nor participation in such sports as Aikido, tennis and working out in a gym. This
is summarized in the report of Osteo Karacus, D.C. on March 28, 1999.
COUNT 1 OF CAUSE OF ACTION

TRESPASS
14. Paragraphs 2 through 13 of CAUSE OF ACTION are included by reference as though fully
stated herein.
15. By right, Plaintiff reasonably expects to proceed without injury, secure in his capacities.
16. Defendant-A, the driver in command, has a legal duty to use due care and not cause an injury
to Plaintiff.
17. Defendant-A breached that duty by proximately or legally, and directly, causing the injuries
to Plaintiff.
18. The damages claimed are all a result of the injuries.

TRESPASS ON THE CASE
NEGLIGENCE
stated herein.
21. Defendant-A, the driver in command, has a legal duty to use due care and yield the right of
way to Plaintiff.
22. Defendant-A breached that duty by not yielding the right of way, proximately or legally, and
directly, causing the injuries to Plaintiff.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY: MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP
stated herein.
25. Defendant-A and Defendant-B have a servant relationship with their master, Defendant-C.
Defendant-C requires that when driving a motor vehicle, the driver in command must strictly
follow the rules of the California Vehicle Code. Any breach of the rules may result in citation
and prosecution of the violator.
26. The master, by virtue of the relationship, necessarily maintains control (with plentiful
assistance from its agents known as peace officers), whether direct or indirect, over the subject
servant. For purposes of this count, the terms "licensor," "master," "bailor," "lessor," "employer",
"principal," "state," and "government agency" are analogous. For purposes of this count, the
terms "licensee," "servant," "bailee," "lessee," "employee," "agent," "citizen," and "subject" are
analogous. They are analogous because the chain of authority from master to servant creates a
vicarious liability for the master; i.e. he assumes the mantle of responsibility and risk for the
servant's actions while the servant is acting in the course of the master's normal expectations and
directions.
27. Defendant-C has provided the rules, the California Vehicle Code for Defendant-A to obey.
That alone is not sufficient for vicarious liability. However, Defendant-C has chosen to be
involved beyond the mere level of policy making. Defendant-C is intimately, operationally
involved, with no discretionary authority, with every level of its licensee's actions as it relates to
the operation of a motor vehicle. And, because it is in commerce, it is all the more liable: by its
own choice, every action by the Vehicle Code enforcement agents and Defendant-C is described
in micro detail in the Vehicle Code with no opportunity for the free exercise of policy-level
discretion.
28. In summary, Defendant-C has a participatory connection for a personal profit or other
benefit; is involved with injury-producing services and products; is involved in the promotion
and creation of demand for, and reliance on, its services; is one or more interrelated and
dependent links in the chain from creation to execution of the products and services. It must
necessarily assume the cloak of responsibility for its direct, operational, non-discretionary
involvement.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY: PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
stated herein.
30. Defendant-B has custody of Defendant-A, a minor.
31. Defendant-A was operating the vehicle with the permission of Defendant-B.
LAW OF THE CASE

32. The law of this case is further decreed:
33. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid, such
decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action.
34. The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
35. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the past
the present.
36. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.
37. California Vehicle Code, Section 21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop
sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The
driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another
highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable
safety.
38. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the rules of the above entitled court. The rules shall
be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this
action.
SIMPLEX DICTUM
39. Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from Government's
thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some
respects, to its exercise by Government itself.
40. The purpose of imposing vicarious liability is to insure the costs of injuries resulting from
defective actions are placed on the source of the actions and others who make the actions
possible rather than on injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. For a defendant,
including a lessor, bailor or licensor, to be vicariously liable it must play an integral and vital
part in the overall production and promotion activity so that the actor is in a position to affect
others or, at the very least, it must provide a link in the chain of exposing the ultimate victim to
the actor. The vicariously liable Defendant must be in the business of controlling, leasing,
bailing, or licensing the actors.
For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
On all counts:
41. For general damages in the sum of $2,000,000;
42. For medical and related expenses according to proof;
43. For loss of earnings according to proof;
44. For interest as allowed by law;
45. For costs of suit incurred and attorney's fees; and
46. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
June 7, 1999, Calamity, California
______________________________
William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a "First Amended
Complaint." Then the clerk's supervisor refused to file it because there was no court order signed by a
magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the filing of a first amended
action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded the clerk that she could "file on
demand." She accepted the paper and marked it "FILED ON DEMAND".
06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a

"CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS
CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS

[Green lettering denotes information entered on pre-printed form]
I, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, for the
County of Calamity, do hereby certify:
That the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE
WHICH WAS "FILED ON DEMAND" was filed in the above-entitled action on JUNE 7, 1999,
that the document(s) was/were filed in error as The Court directed said Clerk to reject the above
document as there is no Leave of Court or Stipulation from the other parties to file a First
Amended Complaint.
Wherefore the said Clerk petitions this Court that a order be made vacating 1st Amended Action
of Trespass, and Trespass on the Case..
Dated 6-9-99 COUNTY CLERK
By s/Ihold Fylings
Deputy Clerk
ORDER
Pursuant to the Certificate of the Clerk and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the
1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE is hereby
vacated.
s/[illegible signature]
Dated Jun 09, 1999
Judge of the Superior Court
CASE CONTENTS

." The form lays out a simple procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon
the facts. Here the clerk certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her
certification, the court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly.
08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions.
Transcript #3
Transcript
DEPARTMENT 666
August 16, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Jones versus Smith.
1-10 Mr. Jones here, plaintiff. Defense here?
1-11 MR. SMITH: Lowe Sharknette for the
1-12 defendant.
1-13 MR. JONES: Very good.
1-14 THE COURT: I'll call my calendar, Mr. Jones.
1-15 MR. JONES: Very well - -
1-17 All right. This is here on. I don't know
1-18 what this is.
1-19 I just don't accept paperwork, Mr. Jones.

1-20 MR. JONES: It's pertinent, your Honor, in a
1-21 future issue.
1-22 THE COURT: Okay. It will be placed in the
1-23 file. Did you get a copy of it?
1-24 MR. JONES: Not yet, sir.
1-25 THE COURT: You're required to serve him
1-26 before I can accept it.
2-01 MR. JONES: We have it right here. It can be
2-02 served right now.
2-03 THE COURT: Well, serve him with it.
2-04 Thank you. Now we'll place it in the file.
2-05 MR. JONES: Thank you.
2-06 THE COURT: All right. What do you want to
2-07 do today? Do you want to set a trial date?
2-08 MR. JONES: Not at this point in time. There
2-09 is some administrative procedural issues that have
2-10 arisen that I need to do before proceeding. I'll do
2-11 forthcoming.
2-12 However, there are a couple of questions I'd
2-13 like to ask.
2-14 THE COURT: Let me remind you, again, I can't
2-15 give you legal advice. I indicated that the last
2-16 several occasions. That I -- some of the questions, I
2-17 may be able to answer. Some I can't.
2-18 MR. JONES: Okay, very well. Could you give
2-19 me your full name, your Honor?
2-20 THE COURT: My full name?
2-21 MR. JONES: Yes, please.
2-22 THE COURT: You can look it up. Roy

2-23 Stephen LeGumé.
2-24 MR. JONES: Roy Stephen LeGumé.
2-25 THE COURT: Steven with a, ph, thank you very
2-26 much. I use my middle initial, though.
3-01 MR. JONES: Do you or anyone you know of, at
3-02 this time, have a claim against me?
3-03 THE COURT: A claim against you, me, or
3-04 anybody? I know what are we doing here, playing
3-05 20-questions.
3-06 MR. JONES: These are questions I need to
3-07 proceed on with the procedural administration issue.
3-08 THE COURT: I have no claim against you,
3-09 Mr. Jones. I didn't know who you were until you walked
3-10 in this court as a plaintiff.
3-11 MR. JONES: Okay. Very well. Thank you.
3-12 And can you -- do you know whose name is signed on
3-13 this?
3-14 THE COURT: That's mine.
3-15 MR. JONES: That's your name? Very well.
3-16 Thank you very much.
3-17 THE COURT: That's where I vacated -- the
3-18 clerk, erroneously, filed your first-amended cause of
3-19 action. You did not ask for leave of Court to do that.
3-20 You have to do that, or get a stipulation with the
3-21 other side agreeing.
3-23 THE COURT: But maybe they'll agree. But I
3-24 vacated the order because the clerk, erroneously, did

3-25 that.
3-26 MR. JONES: Yes. For the record, I wish to
4-01 enter an objection. That's all I have to handle at
4-02 this time other than setting a new trial conference --
4-03 trial readiness conference day.
4-04 THE COURT: When would you like to do that,
4-05 sir?
4-06 MR. JONES: 60 days would be fine with me.
4-07 THE COURT: Let me hear from the other side.
4-08 MR. SMITH: As far as we're concerned, we
4-09 have a motion pending to compel a deposition on the
4-10 30th. After the deposition, we're ready to go with
4-11 trial or arbitration, as the Court sees fit.
4-12 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Jones wants another
4-13 case management conference. And he -- maybe the other
4-14 side will agree you can file your first-ammended
4-15 complaint.
4-16 MR. JONES: Sorry. I -- could you speak up a
4-17 little bit?
4-18 THE COURT: Sure. I said Mr. Jones wants a
4-19 continuance of the case management conference. And so
4-20 I'm going to do that because he may want to file a
4-21 motion to file his first-amended cause of action, or he
4-22 may want to see if you'll agree that he can file it. I
4-23 don't know. But that's the way these things are done
4-24 if you want to do that. I don't know if you still want
4-25 to do that.
4-26 But there are some other matters, apparently,
5-01 relating to the depositions and stuff. So, I don't

5-02 know what that's all about, but Judge Simmons will be
5-03 hearing that, I assume, on August -- what date did you
5-04 say, the 30th?
5-05 MR. JONES: Sorry. There's a date set for
5-06 another hearing?
5-07 THE COURT: I guess so.
5-08 MR. JONES: I have not been aware of that or
5-09 informed of that.
5-10 THE COURT: All I know right now is there's a
5-11 motion to compel, which is - - motion to compel
5-12 plaintiff to attend a deposition. That's probably what
5-13 your documents are here about - -
5-15 THE COURT: -- wait, wait, wait. Will you
5-16 listen to me a second? I'm going to give some
5-17 information. That's set for Monday, August the 30th at
5-18 1:30 in the department that handles those types of
5-19 disputes, department S7, Judge Simmons. That's where
5-20 it's set right now. I don't know if you've been served
5-21 or not.
5-22 MR. JONES: I haven't and I must object.
5-23 THE COURT: Well, they reserved the date for
5-24 it and I'll let the process takes it's course.
5-25 MR. JONES: Has -- has that document been
5-26 filed?
6-01 THE COURT: I don't know. You've asked --
6-02 it's not in my file yet.
6-03 MR. JONES: Okay. Therefore, it's --

6-04 THE COURT: Well, I don't know, sir.
6-05 Sometimes the paperwork does not make it to our file,
6-06 although, it may be in the clerks' office. I have no
6-07 idea. Why don't you get with the other side and ask
6-08 him if he's filed it yet.
6-09 MR. SMITH: It was filed on the 6th of this
6-10 month and served the same day by mail.
6-12 MR. JONES: I object. I have not been served
6-13 with that document --
6-14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
6-15 MR. JONES: -- and this is the not the forum
6-16 to discuss that at this time.
6-17 THE COURT: Fine. Fine. I'll set your case
6-18 management conference for about 60 days. Monday,
6-19 October 18th at 8: 30
6-20 MR. JONES: If that's 60 days.
6-21 THE COURT: I can't -- that's 60 days.
6-22 MR. JONES: October -- okay, October.
6-23 THE COURT: 18th, 8:30, right here.
6-24 One other thing, Mr. Jones, I will note on
6-25 the paperwork that you turned in today, you appear to
6-26 have listed a street address in Mount High Boulevard.
7-01 MR. JONES: That's a address by which I can be served process.
7-02 THE COURT: That is what you want the Court
7-03 now to have as your address to send you notices?
7-04 MR. JONES: That was the address since we had
7-05 this issue back on the first hearing date.
7-06 THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it is or

7-07 isn't, but that is the address by which you can receive
7-08 process?
7-09 MR. JONES: That's it.
7-10 THE COURT: I'll have defense give notice of
7-11 the next hearing, okay?
7-12 MR. JONES: This hearing is closed?
7-13 THE COURT: Yes, it is.
7-14 MR. JONES: Thank you very much.
is referenced in the plaintiff's affidavit used in the contempt proceeding.
09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion was
accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the papers to
protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows:
Order: Sealing of Papers

William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER
) SEALING OF PAPERS
v. )
) IN RE: MOTION FOR
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) CONTEMPT (CONFIDENTIAL
MARY SMITH, a minor ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
)
Defendants. ) DATE: October 12, 1999
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT COMES NOW to find that the matter before it is a personnel matter requiring the
court's protection of the privacy of the persons herein named.
The attached envelope containing papers pertaining to personnel matters is hereby ordered
sealed. It may be opened only by this court or by the following persons: Iholda Fylings, Roy
LeGumé, or William Jones. This order to seal may be countermanded either verbally or in
writing, temporarily or permanently, at any time in or out of court session by Iholda Fylings, and
Roy LeGumé acting in common agreement between themselves.
This envelope contains the following papers:
Notice of Motion
Motion for Contempt
Affidavit of William Jones
Affidavit of A. Witness
A copy of the caption page of each paper must be attached to the outside of the envelope.
THE COURT
WITNESS: the SEAL of the COURT this 27th day of September, 1999.

______________________________
William Jones
Private Attorney
CASE CONTENTS
and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers:
Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE
) OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
v. ) (CONFIDENTIAL
) PERSONNEL MATTER)
MARY SMITH, a minor ) DATE: October 12, 1999
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 12, 1999, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel
may be heard, in Dept. "666" of the above-entitled Court, located at 1313 Bastille St,
Megalopolis, California, plaintiff William Jones will move this court for an order of contempt.
______________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)

William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
) (CONFIDENTIAL
v. ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
)
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) DATE: October 12, 1999
MARY SMITH, a minor ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) DEPT: 666
)
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
COMES NOW William Jones and moves the above-entitled court
//////////
//////////
////////// [Remainder of this page is filled in order to force information onto next page]
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
to find Iholda Fylings (a deputy clerk of said court) and/or Roy LeGumé (a magistrate of said
court) to be in either civil contempt or criminal contempt or both, but not in misdemeanor
contempt, of the above-entitled court.
This motion involves a personnel matter relating to court personnel. For that reason as well as to
protect the privacy and personal community standing of the alleged contemnors, this motion is
presented to the court in confidence, known only to the alleged contemnors, witnesses, and the
court. However, if the alleged contemnors or the court wish to make this matter public, William
Jones has no objection.
This motion is made on the grounds that said subjects of the court willfully conspired to, and did
create and enter into the record of the above-entitled court a paper falsely purporting to be a duly
constituted order of said court. The consequence of said paper is to interfere with the conduct of
the business of the court, and subsequently the rights of the parties to orderly due process and the
authority and dignity of the court.
William Jones further moves the court to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the
rights of the parties and the authority and dignity of the court.
These motions are based on the pleadings, records and files of the court, and the attached
declarations of William Jones and Aye Sawit.
______________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
Affidavit of Witness
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) AFFIDAVIT OF
) AYE SAWIT
v. )
) IN SUPPORT OF
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
MARY SMITH, a minor ) (CONFIDENTIAL
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
)
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
I am Aye Sawit. 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.
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
On June 7, 1999, I saw William Jones present for filing the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF
TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE to a woman who identified herself as Iholda
Fylings. Iholda Fylings at first refused to file the 1ST AMENDED ACTION because, she said,
there is no order on file authorizing the filing.
Jones informed Fylings that there is an order on file. She looked further, appeared to find the
order and appeared to read portions of it. Fylings again refused to file the 1ST AMENDED
ACTION. Jones then requested that Fylings mark and file the paper as "FILED ON DEMAND".
Fylings again appeared to read portions of the order; she marked the 1ST AMENDED ACTION
"FILED ON DEMAND," and returned a conformed copy to Jones.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration
is executed in the county of Calamity, California on September 27, 1999.
__________________________________

Aye Sawit
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE CONTENTS
in support of motion
Affidavit of Plaintiff
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY
)
) WILLIAM JONES
v. )
) IN SUPPORT OF
)
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
I am William Jones. 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.
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
This affidavit is being presented to the court (and not to a judge) as described in 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 judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts
by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers."
On May 6, 1999, the above-entitled court (this court) entered findings of fact (Exhibit-16) that
William Jones is one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the California
Constitution, that this court is a court of record, and that all parties and court personnel have
been properly apprised of the foregoing.
Exhibits to which this paper refers are as follows:
Exhibit-12: Register of Actions, dated June 16, 1999

Exhibit-13: CERTIFICATE
Exhibit-14: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, August 16, 1999
Exhibit-15: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, May 7, 1999,
Exhibit-16: Findings of fact
Exhibit-17: Writ of Error
On May 6, 1999, a WRIT OF ERROR, in writing, was entered into the record of the above-
entitled court. The writ orders "that the action for trespass is dismissed with prejudice if the
plaintiff does not file a first amended action on or before June 8, 1999" (Exhibit-17, page 4, lines
7 through 9). In effect, the order said that a penalty of dismissal with prejudice would be
imposed unless the plaintiff filed a first amended action by a date certain; there were no other
options open to the plaintiff but to file a first amended action or suffer the penalty.
In accordance with the writ, plaintiff filed the first amended action on June 7, 1999 (Exhibit-12).
The writ contains a provision that the magistrate, the defendants, and the plaintiff may file a brief
no later than June 7, 1999, "to show cause to this court why the order should not take effect or
should be modified" (Exhibit-17, page 4, lines 17 through 22). The record (Exhibit-12) shows
that no such brief was filed and no objection to the writ was made, and there were no appeals or
motions for mandamus. All persons (magistrate and defendants), fully informed and served,
tacitly accepted the writ.
On May 7, 1999, a hearing was held (Exhibit-15, Exhibit-12). During the hearing the magistrate,
the defendant by attorney, and the plaintiff were duly apprised of the writ and voiced no
objection. The hearing itself was conducted without conflict of any of the provisions of the writ.
On June 7, 1999, plaintiff presented for filing the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS,
AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE to a person who identified herself as Iholda Fylings. Iholda
Fylings at first refused to accept the 1ST AMENDED ACTION because, she said, there was no
order on file authorizing the filing.
I informed Iholda Fylings that there was an order on file. She looked further, appeared to find the
order and appeared to read it. Iholda Fylings again refused to file the 1ST AMENDED ACTION.
I then requested that Fylings mark and file the paper as "FILED ON DEMAND". Iholda Fylings
appeared to reread the order; she marked the 1ST AMENDED ACTION "FILED ON
DEMAND," and returned a conformed copy to me.
For June 9, 1999, the record (Exhibit-13, Exhibit-12) shows that Deputy Clerk Iholda Fylings
certifies for the County Clerk that, "the document(s) was/were filed in error as The Court
directed said Clerk to reject the above document as there is no Leave of Court or Stipulation
from the other parties to file a First Amended Complaint." Then she goes on to petition "this
Court that a [sic] order be made vacating 1st Amended Action of Trespass and Trespass on the
Case" (Exhibit-13).
The court is invited to note that the 1ST AMENDED ACTION is an action and not a complaint.
The writ of error (Exhibit-17) does not make any mention of a complaint; instead it addresses the
filing of a first amended action. An action is distinct from a complaint, and one may not be
equated to the other.
According to the clerk's signed certificate (Exhibit-13), before the certificate was created the
clerk colluded with some entity which she identifies as the "Court". However there is no record
(Exhibit-12) that this court ever held any hearing regarding her certificate or regarding the
modification of the order (Exhibit-17). The court is invited to inquire as to, who is the bogus
"Court" or entity with whom the Clerk conferred before making the certificate.
For June 9, 1999, the record (Exhibit-12) shows that a paper (Exhibit-13) purporting to be a
"CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS" is filed. Without benefit of
hearing and presentation of all facts and witnesses (contrary to what I believe are the policies and
rules of this court), a purported order of some other court was entered into this court's record. On
August 16, 1999, in an unrelated hearing, Roy LeGumé admitted that the order was his. In his
admission he said, "That's where I vacated [the 1ST AMEND ACTION]" (Exhibit-14, page 3,
line 17. He confirmed (Exhibit-14 Page 3, lines 12 through 21) that it is his name on the paper
(Exhibit-13), the portion of which comprises the purported order. And he did this even though,
by his own admission, "I have no claim against you, Mr. Jones" (Exhibit-14, page 3, lines 8 and
9).
The record shows that Roy LeGumé is aware of the aforementioned writ (Exhibit-15, page 1,
lines 18 through 22; page 2, lines 14 through 15; page 3, lines 6 and 11, lines 25 and 26).
Further, in his other capacity as a court officer in the service of the State of California, I believe
that he understands or should understand the writ's full import and relevancy to this action, that
he understands or should understand his limits and lack of tribunal authority as a magistrate in
this court of record.
Absent from the record is any advance notice to any of the parties. In fact, I received no notice of
any pending motions or rulings. Also absent from the record is any indication that a hearing was
held (see Exhibit-12, page 3, entries in date sequence). I believe the alleged contemnors secretly
acted extempore on their own volition without any of the interested parties participating in the
process, and in so acting they exceed any authority they were granted by this court of record.
For the purpose of this motion only, the court is invited to adopt the rule system native to the
State of California. Roy LeGumé has expressed his preference for the State of California rule
system over the Federal rule system declared to be in effect by this court and the State of
California (see Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897; see Exhibit-15, page 4, lines 17 and 18;
page 5, lines 17 through 19). If he must suffer the pains of breaking the rules, let him be subject
to the rules of his own free will choosing. This courts attention is invited to the following
portions of the California Code of Civil Procedure:
Sec. 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings
therein, are contempts of the authority of the court:
3. Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel,
clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial
service;
4. Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under authority
of an order or process of the court;
5. Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court;
6. Rescuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of
such court;
7. Unlawfully detaining a witness, or party to an action while going to, remaining at, or returning
from the court where the action is on the calendar for trial;
Sec. 1897. The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other
written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its
Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States.
By association with Roy LeGumé, Iholda Fylings may have a concordant preference for
California Code of Civil Procedure over Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court is invited to
clarify that.
At all times herein mentioned, Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé had the ability to comply with
the writ and continue to have the ability to do so by withdrawing their certificate and order
(Exhibit-13).
At all times herein mentioned, the writ has remained in full force and effect.
Plaintiff alleges that Iholda Fylings's and Roy LeGumé's alleged contempt is willful and with
intent to frustrate the processes of this court of record and to deprive plaintiff of the benefits to
which he is entitled under the writ.
WHEREFORE, I, the affiant herein, pray that this court either issue an order requiring
respondents Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé herein, to show cause, if any they have, why the
court should not find each individually in contempt of court by reason of their violation of the
writ, as alleged above; or find Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé each individually in contempt of
court by reason of their violation of the writ, as alleged above; whichever the court deem proper.
Further, I invite the court to use its discretion to determine whether or not this court of record
should send, in accordance with Commission Rule 109(a), a written notification of its finding to
the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this affidavit
was executed in the county of Calamity, California on September 27, 1999.

__________________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
and exhibits in support of motion

An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the plaintiff,
or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two supporting affidavits
with exhibits.
Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are prohibited from
holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an employee's performance is
being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated the contempt accusation as if it
were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job performance of the clerk and the
magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public view. However, the court empowered the
accused themselves to make the matter public any time they wished.
10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See

Transcript #4.
Transcript
DEPARTMENT 666
October 14, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Number, I guess, the law and
1-09 motion, six.

1-10 Mr. Jones,. Jones versus Smith, et al.
1-12 THE COURT: How are you?
1-13 MR. JONES: Fine.
1-14 THE COURT: I don't see the other side. I
1-15 guess - -
1-16 MR. JONES: This side didn't -- this issue
1-17 doesn't concern the other side. -
1-18 THE COURT: Well, everything on a case
1-19 concerns the other side.
1-21 THE COURT: And they - - they should have been
1-22 noticed, really. But that's okay.
1-23 What other hearings - - this is on your motion
1-24 to have, I guess, myself and Iholda Fylings, who is
1-25 one of our supervising clerks, to be held in contempt.
1-26 MR. JONES: That's correct.
2-01 THE COURT: And the Court read -- you're
2-02 moving party -- moving papers and your statements, and
2-03 I have all these documents in the file. And I did some
2-04 research on this yesterday.
2-05 Do you have anything you wish to add,
2-06 Mr. Jones?
2-07 MR. JONES: The only question I have at this
2-08 point in time concerns Miss Fylings's certified
2-09 document where she states that she was directed to do
2-10 what she did. My question would be, who is the entity
2-11 that ordered her to do so? I do not know who that

2-12 would be at this time.
2-13 THE COURT: Well, if you looked in the file,
2-14 there's a certificate and order vacating documents
2-15 which says filed June the 9th that I signed on
2-16 June the 9th that bears my signature. And it's in the
2-17 file too, okay.
2-18 MR. JONES: You're the entity who directed
2-19 her to to what she did?
2-20 THE COURT: I said, "Pursuant to the
2-21 Certificate of the Clerk and good cause appearing, it
2-22 is hereby ordered that the first-amended action of
2-23 trespass on the case is hereby vacated."
2-24 MR. JONES: Okay. I understand that aspect
2-25 of the certification, but she states she was directed
2-26 to do so.
3-02 MR. JONES: I wish to know the entity that
3-03 directed her to do that.
3-04 THE COURT: I did. I just said I did. The
3-05 California Superior Court did, State of California.
3-06 MR. JONES: That's the only point I need to
3-07 clarify at this point in time.
3-08 THE COURT: In and for the County of Calamity
3-09 - - the Superior Court, by myself, in and for
3-10 the County of Calamity. It's right in the file.
3-11 MR. JONES: It's -- I didn't see that the way
3-12 it read. That's my inquiry.
3-13 THE COURT: Anything else you wish to add?

3-14 MR. JONES: No. If anybody else has anything
3-15 to say in matter - -
3-16 THE COURT: I do, in terms of ruling.
3-18 THE COURT: California -- and I've spoken to
3-19 you before about - - we may have a difference of legal
3-20 opinion here, but I've spoken to you before about the
3-21 fact that you brought the lawsuit in the State of
3-22 California, Superior Court. And that you would,
3-23 therefore, because nobody is compeling you to utilize
3-24 our facilities, but you have chosen to file the lawsuit
3-25 against the people who you had a traffic accident --
3-26 allegedly had a traffic accident with, some time ago
4-01 and--
4-02 MR. JONES: Excuse me, could you speak up a
4-03 bit?
4-04 THE COURT: Yes. You -- I hope you don't
4-05 have a tape recording going again, Mr. Jones.
4-06 MR. JONES: I no, I haven't.
4-07 THE COURT: I don't care. You have to ask.
4-08 MR. JONES: No, I'm asking because I cannot
4-09 hear you.
4-10 THE COURT: If you do, I'll consider your
4-11 question. I don't care, frankly, but you have to ask.
4-12 And the Rules of Court, and I told you
4-13 before, and that's what I'm trying to inform you of
4-14 now, you've chosen this as your forum to bring the
4-15 business dispute into.
4-16 And -- and when you're lawsuit you're

4-17 litigating is in the Superior Court, I notified you
4-18 previously, that I'm obligated because of my position.
4-19 And because you brought the lawsuit utilizing the
4-20 Superior Court of the State of California, and I'm --
4-21 and nothing - - nobody is compelling you to use this
4-22 forum, I am telling you that, and I've told you
4-23 previously, that the rules have to be followed as
4-24 established by the California Judicial Counsel and the
4-25 California State Legislature.
4-26 When they adopted the California Code of
5-01 Civil Procedure and those rules that govern our
5-02 proceedings in the Trial Court, California Code of
5-03 Civil Procedure section 1209, that's 1-2-0-9, provides
5-04 a list of acts or admissions which constitute contempt.
5-05 Section 1209, in, no manner, allows for a
5-06 Court to hold itself in contempt on the motion of a
5-07 party to a case being heard by the Court.
5-08 Additionally, you have failed to claim that
5-09 the clerk, Iholda Fylings, committed any of the acts
5-10 or admissions that constitute contempt under section
5-11 1209 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
5-12 Therefore, your motion is entirely devoid of
5-13 merit, and I so rule and deny the motion.
5-14 MR. JONES: Okay. Well, for the record, I
5-15 object.
5-16 THE COURT: I understand that.
5-18 THE COURT: All right. I don't know when the

5-19 next court hearing is, Mr. Jones.
5-20 MR. JONES: I -- at this point, there's a CMC
5-21 scheduled for Monday.
5-22 THE COURT: Monday. Okay, I'll see you on
5-23 Monday then.
5-24 MR. JONES: Okay. Have a good weekend.
5-25 I'm going to need a copy of that.
5-26 THE COURT: You need a transcript?
6-01 MR. JONES: Yes.
6-02 THE COURT: Okay. She will make arrangements
6-03 with you.
02-02-00 Ruling
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY
)
Plaintiff, ) RULING
) RE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
v. )
) (CONFIDENTIAL
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) DATE: October 12, 1999
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. ) DEPT: 666
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
COMES NOW THE COURT to review the law, the facts, and the record, and to rule
accordingly:
SUMMARY
Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, "I long have said there is no such thing as a hard case. I am
frightened weekly, but always when you walk up to the lion and lay hold, the hide comes off and
the same old donkey of a question of law is underneath."1
Through unplanned circumstance, duty falls upon this court of record to lay hold of the lion,
unhide the underlying question of law, and do what is necessary to preserve the rights of the
parties to orderly due process and the good conduct of the business of this court, and to vindicate
the authority and dignity of this court in the face of an apparent modern palace rebellion.
The question before this court is whether acts of the accused persons are contempts of the
authority of this court:
According to the moving party's affidavit, the accused understood, or should have understood
that the court expected that the plaintiff would file a first amended action. According to the
moving party's affidavit, the day following the filing of the first amended action the accused
conspired to remove the paper, and did remove the paper from the official court records.
The moving party requests that this court invoke its contempt powers to preserve the rights of the
the authority and dignity of this court.
No objection as to the sufficiency of the affidavit was presented to this court during the fact-
finding phase of the trial.2 During the conclusionary phase3 the magistrate did opine his own
personal view.4 However an objection was raised5, and the objection was not overruled6 but
sustained by implication.
SEALING OF RECORDS
Although the contempt hearing is held in open court, the papers of this personnel matter are
ordered sealed to protect the privacy of the subject persons. This ruling may be either verbally or
in writing ordered unsealed any time in or out of court session by Roy LeGume, William Jones,
or any court of record.
APPEARANCES
On October 14, 1999 the motion for contempt presented by William Jones came before the
above-entitled court of record. Present were Roy LeGume as respondent, and William Jones as
moving party. Roy LeGume also presided as magistrate. Iholda Fylings did not appear, though
she had been served notice.
This following is organized into four sections:
I. Judicial cognizance
II. Findings of fact
III. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
IV. Impeachment and Penalty
I. JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE
This court takes judicial cognizance and decrees as follows:
JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE. Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act
without having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 760.]
"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them." [California Government Code, Section 11120.]
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards
and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. [California Government Code Section 54950.]
Laws, whether organic or ordinary, are either written or unwritten. [California Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1895.]
A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a record is in existence.
[California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1896]
The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws
are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution
and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States. [California Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1897]
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or
judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in
respect to the proceedings. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1916]
...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of
the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves.....
[CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American
1047.]
The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.)
Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the
law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice.
(Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1
Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.
....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the
people." [California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]
The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110
U.S. 516.]
The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the
name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional
rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]
Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due

examination, is found to be republican in its form of government.... [Act [of Congress] for the
Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.]
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are
exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to
whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed.
219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, p. 626.]
The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United
States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. [California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1.]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the
United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]
COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his
regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and
determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times
and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92
S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may
have a fifth. They are:
A. 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]
B. 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]
C. 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]
D. 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]
E. 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]
The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts.... [California Penal
Code, Sec. 808.]
...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to
guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to
wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297"
"Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.]
"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.
CCP 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings
...

service;
...
8. Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court;
...
11. Disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer, of the lawful judgment, order, or
process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding contrary to law, after
such action or special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction of such inferior tribunal,
magistrate, or officer.
...
(c) Notwithstanding Section 1211 or any other provision of law, if an order of contempt is made
affecting an attorney, his agent, investigator, or any person acting under the attorney's direction,
in the preparation and conduct of any action or proceeding, the execution of any sentence shall
be stayed pending the filing within three judicial days of a petition for extraordinary relief testing
the lawfulness of the court's order, the violation of which is the basis of the contempt. . .
[California Code of Civil Procedure]
CCP 1211.
(a) When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the
judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily; for which an order must be made, reciting the
facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging that the person proceeded
against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be punished as therein prescribed.
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 judge of the facts constituting
the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.
(b) Filing of the Judicial Council form entitled "Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for
Contempt (Family Law)" shall constitute compliance with this section. [California Code of Civil
Procedure]
CCP 1211.5. At all stages of all proceedings, the affidavit or statement of facts, as the case may
be, required by Section 1211 shall be construed, amended, and reviewed according to the
followings rules:
(a) If no objection is made to the sufficiency of such affidavit or statement during the hearing on
the charges contained therein, jurisdiction of the subject matter shall not depend on the
averments of such affidavit or statement, but may be established by the facts found by the trial
court to have been proved at such hearing, and the court shall cause the affidavit or statement to
be amended to conform to proof.
(b) The court may order or permit amendment of such affidavit or statement for any defect or
insufficiency at any stage of the proceedings, and the trial of the person accused of contempt
shall continue as if the affidavit or statement had been originally filed as amended, unless
substantial rights of such person accused would be prejudiced thereby, in which event a
reasonable postponement, not longer than the ends of justice require, may be granted.
(c) No such affidavit or statement is insufficient, nor can the trial, order, judgment, or other
proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which
does not prejudice a substantial right of the person accused on the merits. No order or judgment
of conviction of contempt shall be set aside, nor new trial granted, for any error as to any matter
of pleading in such affidavit or statement, unless, after an examination of the entire cause,
including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted
in a miscarriage of justice.
Any question as to the adequacy of an order to show cause [see Code Civ. Proc. §
1212[Deering's] ] and of the adequacy of the affidavit or declaration on which the order to show
cause is based should be raised by an opposing affidavit or declaration [Morelli v. Superior Court
(1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 262, 266, 68 Cal. Rptr. 572 ] having the effect of a demurrer [see Taylor
v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal. 2d 244, 246, 125 P.2d 1].
1218. (a) Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge shall determine whether the
person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and if it be adjudged that he or she is
guilty of the contempt, a fine may be imposed on him or her not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or he or she may be imprisoned not exceeding five days, or both. In addition, a person
who is subject to a court order as a party to the action, or any agent of this person, who is
adjudged guilty of contempt for violating that court order may be ordered to pay to the party
initiating the contempt proceeding the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by this party
in connection with the contempt proceeding.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
THIS COURT FINDS the following facts to be certain:
Plaintiff had leave of court to file a first amended action.7 Failure to file a first amended action
by a date certain would result in forfeiture of plaintiff's right of recovery with prejudice .8
The magistrate and parties were duly notified of Plaintiff's leave of court and were given 33 days
in which to show cause why the order should not take effect or should be modified.9 The
magistrate and parties remained silent--by their lack of action and lack of objection they tacitly
agreed with the order.
A first amended action was filed in this court on June 7, 1999.10
The deputy clerk of this court, by her own certified admission, did not collude with the
magistrate. However, she did accept, via undue influence, the magistrate's unauthorized
redirection of her duties which resulted in the vacating of the plaintiff's first amended action.11
That is to say, her will was overpowered and she was induced to do an act which she would not
do if left to act freely: she was deprived of free agency so that her will was replaced by the will
of the magistrate. Specifically, she says that, "The Court directed said Clerk to reject the above
document..." and because of that, "...the said Clerk petitions this Court that a [sic] order be made
vacating...", which in turn leads to the "ORDER" that, "Pursuant to the Certificate of the Clerk
and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF
TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE is hereby vacated." Removing the clerk from
this anomaly of logic, we are asked to believe that because the court directed the rejecting of the
document, the court then ordered the document vacated. Because this court did not direct the
clerk to reject the document, and because there was no notice and no hearing on the matter, this
is an attempt to commit a fraud upon the court under color of law.
The magistrate of this court, by his own admission12, directed13 the clerk to reject the first
amended complaint. Then, when the clerk submitted her certificate, the magistrate, by his own
admission, without the benefit of notice to the parties or open court or hearing, signed the order,
under color of law14, vacating a first amended action previously authorized15 by order of this
court, though, also by his own admission, he has no claim against the plaintiff and knows of no-
one who does have a relevant claim against the plaintiff.16
The magistrate is a person appointed or elected to perform ministerial service in a court of

record17 because all judicial functions in a court of record are reserved to the tribunal which must
be independent of the magistrate.
The magistrate of this court has usurped the independent powers of the tribunal of this court of
record by making discretionary judgements which are reserved to and should have been made by
the tribunal independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it.18
The magistrate of this court, by his own admission19, antecedent to any hearing by the court or
notice to any of the parties, under color of law usurped the authority of the court and directed the
clerk of the court to reject the first amended action.
The magistrate of this court unduly used his position and influence to redirect the deputy clerk's
duties which resulted in the vacating of the plaintiff's first amended action.20
III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On October 7, 1998, William Jones filed an Action of Trespass for Damages. The opening
sentence decreed, "This is a court of record." In defendant's demurrer, and later his answer, there
was no objection to the court being a court of record. Nowhere in the record is there any
objection from magistrate or defendants regarding this court being a court of record.
On May 5, 1999 this court determined that William Jones is one of the people as contemplated in
the preambles of the constitutions, this court is a court of record, and all parties were properly so
apprised.21 Building on that, the court issued a show-cause writ of error.22 Throughout the writ
the concept of a court of record was asserted. The magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants were each
invited to file and serve on all other interested parties a brief no later than June 7, 1999 to show
cause why the order should not take effect or should be modified.23 No objections or briefs were
served or filed--the magistrate and parties, by their lack of action and lack of objection, tacitly
accepted the writ and its supporting papers.
It is the design of our systems of jurisprudence that courts have no jurisdiction until a party
comes forth and declares a cause needing resolution. The particular jurisdiction depends upon
how the cause is declared by the plaintiff. Jurisdiction may be administrative, at law, in equity, or
in any of many other formats. In this case the jurisdiction is at law in a court of record under the
sovereign authority of one of the people.
It is essential to understand what are a sovereign, a magistrate, a court, and a court of record.
A court is "The person and suit of the sovereign."24
Who is the sovereign? It is the people either in plural25 or in singular capacity.26 In singular
capacity, in this case, it is William Jones, one of the people as contemplated in the preambles of
the 1849 Constitution for California, the 1879 Constitution for the State of California, and the
1789 Constitution for the United States of America.
California, the State of California, and the United States of America have no general sovereignty.
Theirs is a clipped sovereignty. Whatever sovereignty they have is limited to their respective
constitutionally defined spheres of control. The general sovereignty is reserved to the people
without diminishment.27 Lest that be forgotten, the California Government Code twice
admonishes the public servants that, "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them."28 Further, when the State of California did attempt to diminish one's
rights, it was determined that the state cannot diminish rights of the people.29
It is by the prerogative of the sovereign30 whether and how a court is authorized to proceed. In
this case, the chosen form of the court is that of a court of record.
This court recognizes the good work of the legislative and judicial branches of the United States
of America and has adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as its own rules.31 This is
compatible with the choice of the California Legislature which expresses its will through the
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897 which states in part, "The written law of this
State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of
the United States." The State of California itself recognizes the validity of the laws of the United
States of American and adopts those laws as it own.
A qualifying feature of a court of record is that the tribunal is independent of the magistrate
appointed to conduct the proceedings.32

record33. His service is ministerial because all judicial functions in a court of record are reserved
to the tribunal, and, by definition of a court of record, that tribunal must be independent of the
magistrate. The non-judicial functions are "ministerial" because they are absolute, certain and
imperative, involving merely execution of specific duties arising from fixed and designated facts.
In this instant question the magistrate unduly chose to personally bypass all procedure, direct the
court deputy clerk to reject the first amended action, and then signed the accompanying
preprinted order without proper hearing or notice to any of the affected parties. That exceeds the
jurisdiction of a magistrate who only possesses ministerial authority separate from the authority
of an independent tribunal of a court of record.
On more than one occasion the magistrate has indicated his preference for California rules.34 So
be it for his cause. This court, for purposes of accommodating the accused's choice of law,
adopts the California Code of Civil Procedure as it relates to contempt of court. Let there be no
doubt as to the justness of this proceeding for the accused.
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1209 provides that acts in respect to a court's
proceedings are contempts of the authority of the court if a person who is appointed or elected to
perform a ministerial service misbehaves, neglects, or violates a duty; or if a person falsely
pretends to act under authority of an order or process of the court; or if a person disobeys any
lawful judgment, order or process of the court, engages in any other unlawful interference with
the process or proceedings of a court; or if an inferior magistrate interferes with the lawful
judgment, order, or process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding
contrary to law, after such action or special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction of such
inferior magistrate.
As the magistrate pointed out,35 "[CCP] Section 1209, in no manner, allows for a Court to hold
itself in contempt." That is true, but that is not the issue before this court. The issue is whether or
not the accused persons are to be held in contempt. The magistrate holds only ministerial
authority. He holds no tribunal authority and cannot in any way substitute himself as the total
equivalent of the court to thus exempt himself from jurisdiction. CCP 1209 provides that
contempt may be applied to "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty
by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a
judicial or ministerial service;" The magistrate, is an "other person, appointed or elected to
perform a ... ministerial service" as described in CCP Section 1209.36
Depriving anyone of the right to have his day in court is very serious. The magistrate has a duty
to the plaintiff to minister the opportunity to argue the petition put forth by the deputy clerk. "He
who decides a case with the other side unheard, though he decide justly, is himself unjust."37 To
summarily remove a first amended action that has been previously sanctioned38 by the court
constitutes a direct challenge to the court's authority, especially when the magistrate's judicial
jurisdiction is estopped and he tacitly declines a fair opportunity to show cause why he is should
not be subject to estoppel.39
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1211 provides that "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 judge of the facts constituting the contempt." In this
instance an affidavit of the facts constituting the contempt was presented to this court and not to
a judge.40
There was no opposing affidavit. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1211.5 (a)
provides, "If no objection is made to the sufficiency of such affidavit or statement during the
hearing on the charges contained therein, jurisdiction of the subject matter shall not depend on
the averments of such affidavit or statement, but may be established by the facts found by the
trial court to have been proved at such hearing, and the court shall cause the affidavit or
statement to be amended to conform to proof." In this instance no such objection was made to
the court, and this court finds that the unamended affidavits are sufficient to establish the
jurisdiction.
IV. IMPEACHMENT AND PENALTY
THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS AND THE RECORD, FINDS THAT
Iholda Fylings is adjudged not guilty of contempt of this court; and
Roy LeGume is adjudged guilty of contempt of this court; and
Roy LeGume shall pay a fine of one dollar ($1) within 60 days of entry of this ruling. If the fine
is not timely paid, or if this court in the future should otherwise see the need, this court shall
forward appropriate notice and a copy of all transcripts and papers in this matter to the California
Council on Judicial Performance; and
Attorney's fees and costs awarded to William Jones: None asked and non awarded.
Execution of this order shall be stayed pending the filing within six judicial days of a petition for
extraordinary relief testing the lawfulness of this court's order or a notice of intent to file within
30 days a motion for reconsideration.
WITNESS: the SEAL of the COURT this _____ day of January, 2000.
THE COURT
WILLIAM JONES
Private Attorney
=====================================================
NOTE-01
1 Holmes-Pottock Letters 156
NOTE-02
Transcript, October 14, 1999, page 2, lines 5 through page 3, line 15
NOTE-03
Ibid., page 3, line 16 through page 6, line 4
NOTE-04
Ibid., page 5, lines 3-14
NOTE-05
NOTE-06
Ibid., page 5, line 16
NOTE-07
Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, page 4, lines 5-12
NOTE-08
Ibid.
NOTE-09
Ibid., lines 17-20
NOTE-10
Plaintiff's Exhibit 13, Clerk's Certificate
NOTE-11
Ibid.
NOTE-12
NOTE-13
Plaintiff's Exhibit 13, body of order
NOTE-14
Plaintiff's Exhibit 13, ". . .good cause appearing. . ."
NOTE-15
NOTE-16
NOTE-17
Official's duty is "ministerial" when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving
merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts. [Long v. Seabrook,
260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E.2d 659, 662; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p 899
NOTE-18
One characteristic of a court of record: 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]
NOTE-19
Transcript, October 14, 1999, page 2, lines 7-26, page 3, lines 1-10:
MR. JONES: The only question I have at this point in time concerns Miss Fylings's certified
document where she states that she was directed to do what she did. My question would be, who
is the entity that ordered her to do so? I do not know who that would be at this time.
MAGISTRATE: Well, if you looked in the file, there's a certificate and order vacating
documents which says -- filed June the 9th -- that I signed on June the 9th that bears my
signature. And it's in the file too, okay.
MR. JONES: You're the entity who directed her to do what she did?
MAGISTRATE: I said, "Pursuant to the Certificate of the Clerk and good cause appearing, it is
hereby ordered that the first-amended action of trespass on the case is hereby vacated."
MR. JONES: Okay. I understand that aspect of the certification, but she states she was directed
to do so.
MAGISTRATE: Uh-huh.
MR. JONES: I wish to know the entity that directed her to do that.
MAGISTRATE: I did. I just said I did. The California Superior Court did, State of California.
MR. JONES: That's the only point I need to clarify at this point in time.
MAGISTRATE: In and for the County of Calamity -- the Superior Court, by myself, in and for
the County of Calamity. It's right in the file.
NOTE-20
Ibid.
NOTE-21
NOTE-22
Plaintiff's Exhibit 17
NOTE-23
NOTE-24
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
NOTE-25
PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or
nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this
sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered
as a collective body,… Webster's 1828 Dictionary
NOTE-26
PEOPLE…considered as….any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Ibid.
NOTE-27
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
themselves" CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793
pp471-472
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their
Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been
exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament;…" Lansing v.
Smith, 4 Wendell 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 American Decision 89; 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C
Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE-28
California Government Code, Sections 11120 and 54950
NOTE-29
Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516
NOTE-30
themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL
(1793) pp471-472.]
NOTE-31
Action of Trespass filed October 7, 1998, page 1, lines 19-20
First Amended Action, filed June 7, 1999, page 11, lines 4-5.
NOTE-32
Court of Record: 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]
NOTE-33
Long v. Seabrook, 260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E.2d 659, 662; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, p 899
NOTE-34
Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, page 4, lines 17-18; page 5, lines 17-19; and
Transcript, October 14, 1999, page 4, lines 23-25
NOTE-35
NOTE-36
CCP Section 1209 excerpt:

service;
...11. Disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer, of the lawful judgment, order,
or process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding contrary to law,
after such action or special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction of such inferior tribunal,
NOTE-37
SENECA, Medea.
NOTE-38
NOTE-39
Plaintiff's Exhibit17, page 4, lines 17-22
NOTE-40
Affidavit of William Jones, October 14, 1999, page 2, lines 1-2.
in re contempt of court.
This ruling brings together the complete picture of the relationship between the people and the
government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty, whereas
this paper is complete.
04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant's attorney, and plaintiff were all
present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed to understand
that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge.
Transcript #5
Transcript
DEPARTMENT 666
May 5, 2000
PAGE-LINE
01-08 THE COURT: Two. Jones versus Smith.
01-10 THE COURT: Hello, how are you?
01-12 MR. DUNNO: Good morning. That was number
01-13 two, Jones versus Smith? George Dunno for Robert
01-14 Smith.
01-15 THE COURT: What do you want me to do on this
01-16 case today?
01-17 MR. JONES: Well, at this time, I believe
01-18 we're ready to move forward. So it is my wish that the
01-19 first amended action be refiled, and that it be done so
01-20 in within the next 60 days.
01-21 THE COURT: You want to file an Amended
01-22 Complaint?
01-23 MR. JONES: A First-Amended Action, as
01-24 discussed earlier. Actually, in the first couple

01-25 hearings of this case.
01-26 THE COURT: Well,, whatever. You don't want
02-01 me to set a trial date yet?
02-02 MR. JONES: No. I have to file the
02-03 First-Amended Action before you can do that.
02-04 THE COURT: Okay. Make a motion. We'll set
02-05 another case management conference in this case, and
02-06 you can -- you'll have to file a motion to file a
02-07 First-Amended Complaint.
02-08 MR. JONES: Oh.
02-09 THE COURT: That's how it works, unless they
02-10 agree to it.
02-11 MR. DUNNO: I was looking -- we're just
02-12 representing Robert Smith. I'm not sure what the
02-13 First-Amended Action is going to be. Are you going to
02-14 name some new people?
02-15 MR. JONES: There are a couple of different
02-16 issues involved in that, yes. And as far as I
02-17 understand it, they acquiesced to it. We gave
02-18 everybody notice, and they had time to object to it,
02-19 and nobody objected to it. So, as far as I'm
02-20 concerned, it's ready to be -- it should be filed.
02-21 MR. DUNNO: Okay. I'm sorry. It's not my
02-22 file. I don't have all the details. I have that we
02-23 are -- we've -- we're defending Robert Smith only.
02-24 there's somebody else who is going to be brought in,
02-25 and there's been some discussion on that --
02-26 MR. JONES: Well, it would -- this whole

03-01 issue has been discussed over the last half dozen
03-02 months, on and off.
03-03 MR. DUNNO: I'm not unclear as to what it is
03-04 about. I'm -- I'm unclear --
03-05 MR. JONES: I guess I have to file the
03-06 First-Amended Action to make that clear.
03-07 THE COURT: They don't agree. You have to
03-08 file a motion.
03-09 MR. JONES: I don't know the exact date we
03-10 notified everybody that we intended to do so. Within
03-11 the time frame given, as far as I'm concerned.
03-12 Everybody acquiesced to the filing of the First-Amended
03-13 Action.
03-14 THE COURT: Well, I don't think -- I'll just
03-15 put it out another 60 days, or so, for case management,
03-16 and you'll have to file a noticed motion.
03-17 MR. JONES: Okay. I'm -- I'll do the
03-18 research on that and see what needs to be done then.
03-19 MR. DUNNO: Or if it's something we can agree
03-20 on by stipulation, call and let's talk about it.
03-21 MR. JONES: Okay. Evidently --
03-22 MR. DUNNO: If you're going to be naming
03-23 anybody else --
03-24 MR. JONES: Everybody ignored it, to date, by
03-25 what's been filed in the file. So, like I said, it was
03-26 notified up --
04-01 THE COURT: Wait. Contempt? That what

04-02 you're talking about?
04-03 MR. JONES: No. It goes way back farther
04-04 than that.
04-05 THE COURT: Farther than that?
04-06 MR. JONES: It was probably this -- oh, I
04-07 don't have my file with me, but it was -- sorry. But
04-08 it was at least six months ago that we gave notice of
04-09 filing of the First-Amended Action and gave everybody
04-10 30 or 60 days in which to respond and object if they so
04-11 wished to lodge such an objection. Nobody objected so
04-12 we moved forward, filed the First-Amended Action, which
04-13 was handled as it was.
04-14 THE COURT: It got sent -- yeah, that's the
04-15 one that got sent back to you.
04-16 MR. JONES: Right.
04-17 THE COURT: And which the --
04-18 MR. JONES: The administrator and procedural
04-19 issues we've been dealing with to this point --
04-20 THE COURT: The clerk sent it back. They
04-21 filed it, and then they realized, as I recall, that
04-22 they -- here it is. June 9th of '99, about that or --
04-23 on/or about that time.
04-24 MR. JONES: Maybe more than six months ago.
04-25 THE COURT: Filed on demand. Was filed --
04-26 First-Amended Action was filed on demand. This was -
05-01 this is what the clerk said.
05-02 MR. JONES: I believe, even before the
05-03 hearing, before that -- that you agreed that the

05-04 First-Amended Action should be filed.
05-05 THE COURT: Well, I said you should --
05-06 MR. JONES: I don't remember these --
05-07 THE COURT: The problem is, I can't remember
05-08 now.
05-09 MR. JONES: It's been a while.
05-10 THE COURT: Anyway, it got rejected by the
05-11 Court and sent back to MR. Jones, and then ensued a
05-12 series of debates over some issues.
05-14 THE COURT: But there was a First-Amended
05-15 Complaint that was attempted to be filed back June 9th
05-16 of '99 and I indicated that there was no leave of
05-17 court, or stipulation, or dully noticed motion. We can
05-18 disagree with that still, I suppose, but --
05-19 MR. JONES: I'll have to get to the
05-20 paperwork, and I'll --
05-21 THE COURT: -- but he did attempt to file
05-22 something.
05-23 MR. DUNNO: Okay.
05-24 THE COURT: So if you don't want me to set a
05-25 trial date, I won't, yet.
05-26 MR. JONES: Not yet. I think we need to
06-01 handle this issue since all the past issues have been
06-02 resolved.
06-03 THE COURT: You want to come in in 60 days?
06-04 MR. JONES: Think that should be fine.

06-05 THE COURT: Wednesday again?
06-06 MR. JONES: Sure, Wednesdays are great.
06-07 THE COURT: Wednesdays with -- if, you know,
06-08 June 7th at 8:30. You want official notice?
06-09 MR. JONES: No, I think I'll pass.
06-10 MR. DUNNO: Waive notice.
06-11 THE COURT: All right. We'll wait and see
06-12 what you file.
Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have been
removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have been changed
to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is handling challenges to his
personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other cases. However, if you decide to
copy the information, be certain you understand every word, and be certain that you personally check
every cite--don't trust anybody or anything; not even what you find at this web site.
02-02-00 Ruling
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) RULING
v. )
) (CONFIDENTIAL
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
accordingly:
SUMMARY
SEALING OF RECORDS
APPEARANCES
1047.]
U.S. 516.]

Edition, p. 626.]
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
425, 426]
Code, Sec. 808.]
...

service;
...
...
...
CCP 1211.
Procedure]
followings rules:


a judge.40
jurisdiction.

THE COURT
WILLIAM JONES
Private Attorney
=====================================================
NOTE-01
NOTE-02
NOTE-03
NOTE-04
NOTE-05
NOTE-06
NOTE-07
NOTE-08
Ibid.
NOTE-09
Ibid., lines 17-20
NOTE-10
NOTE-11
Ibid.
NOTE-12
NOTE-13
NOTE-14
NOTE-15
NOTE-16
NOTE-17
NOTE-18
4th Ed., 425, 426]
NOTE-19
to do so.
MAGISTRATE: Uh-huh.
NOTE-20
Ibid.
NOTE-21
NOTE-22
NOTE-23
NOTE-24
NOTE-25
NOTE-26
NOTE-27
pp471-472
NOTE-28
NOTE-29
NOTE-30
(1793) pp471-472.]
NOTE-31
NOTE-32
425, 426]
NOTE-33
Edition, p 899
NOTE-34
NOTE-35
NOTE-36

service;
NOTE-37
SENECA, Medea.
NOTE-38
NOTE-39
NOTE-40
CASE CONTENTS

in re contempt of court.
government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty,
whereas this paper is complete.
04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant's attorney, and plaintiff
were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed
to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge.
Transcript #5
Transcript
DEPARTMENT 666
May 5, 2000
PAGE-LINE
01-14 Smith.
01-16 case today?

01-22 Complaint?
02-10 agree to it.

03-13 Action.

04-04 than that.

05-08 now.

05-22 something.
06-02 resolved.

Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have
been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have
been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is
handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other
cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word,
and be certain that you personally check every cite--don't trust anybody or anything; not even
what you find at this web site.
below). Once these jurisdictional issues are settled we expect the remainder of the case to be
rather mundane.
The contempt ruling is complete. Everything is in that ruling to establish the jurisdiction of the
people over the judge.
CASE LOG
[music]
10-07-98
Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court.
02-18-99
Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite authoritative, tense, and
quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted. Defendant's demurrer was denied.
Transcript #1 tells the story.
One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely
that of "judge," his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a
ministerial capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to "judge" something, or to
exercise any discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of the
court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as a writ of error coram
nobus.
05-06-99 Plaintiff filed

Judicial Notice,
Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff's status., and a
Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part. Defined
05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and
asked the plaintiff "What are we doing at this point?" The plaintiff simply said, "The only
business before the Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork
that was served yesterday. As far as -- barring that, there's no business before the Court today."
The hearing was terminated.
When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant's attorney was heard to ask, "Okay. Am I correct
in that the Court's made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?" The
magistrate replied, "I've made no rulings. I've made -- what I've done -- the record speaks for
itself."
Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it.
Transcript #2 reports the day's proceeding.
06-07-99, Plaintiff filed

First Amended Action
Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a "First
Amended Complaint." Then the clerk's supervisor refused to file it because there was no court
order signed by a magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the
filing of a first amended action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded
the clerk that she could "file on demand." She accepted the paper and marked it "FILED ON
DEMAND".
06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a

"CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS." The form lays out a simple
procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon the facts. Here the clerk
certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her certification, the
court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly.
08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions.
Transcript #3 is referenced in the plaintiff's affidavit used in the contempt proceeding.
09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion
was accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the
papers to protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows:
Order: Sealing of Papers and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers:
Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)
Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)
Affidavit of Witness in support of motion
Affidavit of Plaintiff and exhibits in support of motion
An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the
plaintiff, or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two
supporting affidavits with exhibits.
Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are
prohibited from holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an
employee's performance is being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated
the contempt accusation as if it were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job
performance of the clerk and the magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public
view. However, the court empowered the accused themselves to make the matter public any time
they wished.
10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See

Transcript #4.
02-02-00 Ruling in re contempt of court.

government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty,
whereas this paper is complete.
04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant's attorney, and plaintiff
were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed
to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge.
Transcript #5
Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have
been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have
been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is
handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other
cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word,
and be certain that you personally check every cite--don't trust anybody or anything; not even
what you find at this web site.
BACK
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
WARNING--DO NOT USE THIS PAGE AS A MODEL

It has errors! It is shown here only so that you can see
how this case got started. The First Amended Action
replaces this Action of Trespass. The rest of the papers
in this example are ok.
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) ACTION OF TRESPASS FOR
) DAMAGES; VERIFICATION
v. )
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
This is a court of record.
The rules adopted by this court are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as amended to May 1,
1995 (West Publishing Co.), and the guidelines applicable therein.
William Jones, plaintiff, accuses Mary Smith, a minor and defendant, of a plea of trespass: For
that the said defendant, on October 8, 1997, was licensed to operate, and did operate a 1994 Ford
Tempo registered to co-defendant ROBERT SMITH, her father, and failed to yield the right-of-
way on Main Street northbound in the county aforesaid, and contrary to the laws of this state,
thus striking the said plaintiff while he was riding his bicycle on Highland eastbound, thus
injuring him severely and causing him to be transported by ambulance to hospital and treated for
his injuries, being released the following day. On December 19, 1997 surgery was performed on
plaintiff's shoulder. For the next several months plaintiff underwent physical therapy that was
most excruciating. The surgery performed on plaintiff has failed to remedy his condition, is still
painful, and the subject left shoulder has begun to migrate down from its normal position.
Defendant, by her wrongful acts against the peace of the people of this state, has permanently
damaged plaintiff in the amount of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, and $2,000,000.00 in
special damages, thus affecting his ability to earn a living and live a normal life, and therefore he
brings his suit.
I hereby declare that I have accurately stated the above facts as I know them, and understand that
if I have knowingly provided false facts, charges may be brought against me for perjury.
William Jones
LAW OFFICES OF LOWE SHARKNETTE & ASSOC.

1913 Banker Lane, Suite 4201
Anywhere, CA 99999
Attorney for Defendant
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) Demurrer of Defendant,
) Robert Smith, father of
v. ) Mary Smith, A Minor to
) Plaintiff's Complaint;
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) Memorandum of Points
MARY SMITH, a minor ) and Authority's
) DATE: February 18, 1999
Defendants. ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 1999, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in department 666 of the above entitled court, located at 1313 Bastille St.,
Megalopolis, CA., the court will hear the demurrer of Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary
Smith, a minor to plaintiff’s complaint.
Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, demurs to the following complaint of
Plaintiff, William Jones, as follows:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant,
Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor.
2. The complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
OBJECTION TO A PLEADING MAY BE TAKEN BY DEMURRER
IF DEFECTS APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE PLEADING
"The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer
or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following
grounds:
(e) "The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."
The complaint clearly fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, for trespass. The essence of a cause of
action for trespass is an unauthorized or wrongful entry or intrusion onto land owned or occupied
by another that disrupts the other’s right to exclusive possession of the land. Civic Western Corp.
V Zila Industries, INC. (1977, 2nd Dist.) 66 Cal App. 3d 1, 135 Cal Rptr 915. Clearly plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state facts supporting such cause of action.
II.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS UNCERTAIN,
AMBIGUOUS AND UNINTELLIGIBLE
"Plaintiffs’ complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible."
(f) "The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, uncertain includes ambiguous and
unintelligible."
The complaint of William Jones is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.
III.
AN ATTORNEY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COURT AND

COUNSEL WITH A STREET ADDRESS AT WHICH HE MAY BE SERVED
California Rule of Court 201(e) provides that an attorney must provide, with respect to any
pleading, "the name, office address, or if none, the residence address, and telephone number, and
State Bar membership number of the attorney for the party.
The failure of Mr. Jones to provide his street address, or if he had none, his residence address is a
blatant violation of Rule 201 (e)
CONCLUSION
Defendant, Robert Smith, father of Mary Smith, a minor, requests that the court sustain his
demur without leave to amend.
DATED: January 5, 1999 LAW OFFICES OF LOWE

SHARKNETTE & ASSOC.
Attorney for Defendant
ROBERT SMITH, father of
MARY SMITH, a minor
CASE CONTENTS
Transcript
Style of the judge: Aggressive, authoritative, not particularly concerned about what the parties
want.
DEPARTMENT 666
February 18, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Mr. Jones versus Smith.
1-09 MR. SMITH: Good morning. Lowe Sharknette on
1-10 behalf of the defendant.

1-11 THE COURT: Mr. Jones you're --
1-12 MR. JONES: Good morning, sir,
1-13 THE COURT: You're to turn off that recording
1-14 device or leave the courtroom, one of the two. That's
1-15 the order of the Court.
1-16 MR. JONES: Excuse me, your Honor. This
1-17 is --
1-18 THE COURT: That's a standing Rule of Court.
1-19 MR. JONES: I have a problem hearing and I
1-20 cannot hear very well.
1-21 THE COURT: Well, we have a court reporter.
1-22 I do not allow tape-recordings in this court. That's a
1-23 California Rule of Court, period.
1-24 MR. JONES: Well, your Honor, I -- I can't
1-25 afford her services.
1-26 THE COURT: Mr. Jones, there are ways to take
2-01 care of that, also
2-02 MR. JONES: And how would that be?
2-03 THE COURT: I -- well, I'm going to explain
2-04 some procedures to you. You may leave the recording on
2-05 as I explain the proceedings to you, then you're going
2-06 to turn it off, okay?
2-08 THE COURT: Are you an attorney at law, sir?
2-09 MR. JONES: No .
2-10 THE COURT: You filed a lawsuit in this
2-11 court. I have to hold you to the same rules. Are you
2-12 hearing me?
2-13 MR. JONES: I -- yes.

2-14 THE COURT: Tell me if you don't hear me,
2-15 okay?
2-16 MR. JONES: Yeah. If you could speak up a
2-17 little bit, please.
2-18 THE COURT: All right. I have to hold you to
2-19 the same rules that I do everybody else that practices
2-20 law in my courtroom, okay? Those are the Rules of
2-21 Court.
2-22 In other words --
2-23 MR. JONES: Which rules?
2-24 THE COURT: -- in other words, I have to hold
2-25 you to the same standard as anybody else who comes into
2-26 my courtroom, including the attorneys who have
3-01 knowledge of all of the Rules of Court.
3-02 MR. JONES: Which Rules of Court are we
3-03 talking about?
3-04 THE COURT: California Rules of Court,
3-05 period. It's called, California Rules of Court.
3-06 MR. JONES: Well, then with all due respect,
3-07 sir, then I must object for the record.
3-09 MR. JONES: I have -- this is a court of
3-10 record, and we have chosen those rules that govern the
3-11 procedures of this court.
3-12 THE COURT: That's right. I have California
3-13 Rules of Court. I don't know what you're talking about
3-14 now .
3-15 MR. JONES: Well, do you have my action --

3-16 THE COURT: Yes.
3-17 MR. JONES: -- in front of you.
3-19 MR. JONES: Well, the second paragraph --
3-20 THE COURT: I'm trying to explain to you,
3-21 sir, that you will comply with the California Rules of
3-22 Court, and you will be held to the same standards as
3-23 any attorney who practices in this court because those
3-24 are the Rules of Court.
3-25 And so, one of the Rules of Court is, we do
3-26 not allow electronic devices.
4-01 MR. JONES: Well, that's a little unusual
4-02 because, I had --
4-03 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. You -- now, okay.
4-04 I've tried to explain this to you.
4-05 First of all, you're going to turn the
4-06 tape-recorder off.
4-07 MR. JONES: Very well. As long as, for the
4-08 record, my objection is put on the record.
4-09 THE COURT: You got it. Turn the
4-10 tape-recorder off, please. Thank you.
4-11 Now, there are ways to go about getting
4-12 transcripts and other things if you are not able to
4-13 afford them. The Legal Aid Society -- there may be
4-14 some services available to you. I cannot give you
4-15 legal advise on how to proceed on the case. I want to
4-16 make that clear. I don't give the other side legal
4-17 advise --
4-18 MR. JONES: I understand.
4-19 THE COURT: -- and I cannot give you legal
4-20 advice .
4-22 THE COURT: Okay. I'm telling you, you have
4-23 to comport yourselves to the California Rules of Court,
4-24 okay.
4-25 So, do we have that understanding?
4-26 MR. JONES: Well, I understand. But as I
5-01 said before, this --
5-02 THE COURT: Sir, you brought a lawsuit in
5-03 the -- from the Superior Court in the State of
5-04 California in the County of Calamity. If you do
5-05 not like the rules of the Superior Court in the State
5-06 of California, then file your lawsuit in some other
5-07 jurisdiction that you feel would accommodate you
5-08 better, okay?
5-09 MR. JONES: Well, as I said, just for the
5-10 record, I object.
5-11 THE COURT: Sure.
5-12 MR. JONES: This is court of record and this
5-13 court has chosen its rules that will govern this
5-14 proceedings.
5-15 THE COURT: I didn't pick them. They're
5-16 imposed on us. But I follow them, and so are you, and
5-17 so is the other side.
5-18 Counsel, state your appearance.

5-19 MR. SMITH: Lowe Sharknette for the defendant.
5-20 THE COURT: All right. Now, we're here today
5-21 because of they have filed a demurrer on -- your
5-22 demurrer on your complaint. And I'm going to resolve
5-23 that because I don't think simply because he named the
5-24 cause of action incorrectly that this is grounds to
5-25 sustain a general demurrer.
5-26 Because in the body of his action, he states
6-01 out -- states, basically, what would be an auto
6-02 accident, personal-injury lawsuit. So I'm going to
6-03 overrule the demurrer.
6-04 Because it says, 'Action of trespass for
6-05 damages,' on the caption is not sufficient to sustain a
6-06 general demurrer. He states facts sufficient, in my
6-07 opinion, to sustain a cause of action.
6-08 But there is another alleged violation of
6-09 rule 201(e) and that might be the cause of a motion to
6-10 strike on a demurrer. And that is -- I'm going to ask
6-11 that the plaintiff interlineate his complaint to
6-12 provide his residence address and phone number, because
6-13 that is required by the California Rules of Court on
6-14 your complaint.
6-15 MR. JONES: First -- again, I must object,
6-16 for the record. This is a court of record. The --
6-17 THE COURT: Okay. You've objected. If you
6-18 do not do that, I'm going to dismiss your lawsuit at
6-19 some point.
6-20 MR. JONES: I have served them with a --

6-21 THE COURT: I --
6-22 MR. JONES: -- a address to serve me at.
6-23 They have been served with that.
6-24 THE COURT: Sir, I'm directing you on the
6-25 documents, under the California Rule of Court 201(e),
6-26 and that you are to provide us with a residence address
7-01 and a phone number. It's very simple to do that. So
7-02 that the Court --
7-04 THE COURT: -- so that the Court can
7-05 communicate with you if we have problems
7-06 MR. JONES: Excuse me. That is not simple as
7-07 a -- it seems. I do not have a residence. Therefore,
7-08 I have given them a source where they can communicate
7-09 to -- with me. And that's the best I can do. I do not
7-10 have a residence. I could not do anything else.
7-12 MR. JONES: -- I live in this area, but I do
7-13 not have a residence. That's that.
7-14 THE COURT: Okay, well --
7-15 MR. JONES: I've done the best I can.
7-16 THE COURT: Do you have a phone number?
7-17 MR. JONES: I do not.
7-18 THE COURT: Fine. You miss any
7-19 proceedings -- we'll note that on the record. If we
7-20 have a problem noticing you, your case will get thrown
7-21 out at some point. We're going to use the P.O. box
7-22 and that's your problem.

7-23 MR. JONES: I have been served with a
7-24 address --
7-25 THE COURT: I don't care. I want the Court
7-26 to be served with something.
8-01 MR. JONES: Which we did.
8-02 THE COURT: P.O. box 2277. Okay. Not --
8-03 it's not in the file.
8-04 MR. JONES: Well, it should. It was filed on
8-05 February 9th. Notice of Change of Address.
8-06 THE COURT: Well, we'll see. It's not in my
8-07 file. It may be in the computer somewhere.
8-08 THE CLERK: Yeah, there was one filed on the
8-09 9th.
8-10 THE COURT: Okay. Will it make it to the
8-11 file? All right.
8-12 I'm telling you, you need to communicate with
8-13 us. And if you don't have a phone, that's fine.
8-14 You're telling me you do not have a phone?
8-15 MR. JONES: No, I do not.
8-16 THE COURT: I have to advise you to make sure
8-17 that you check your mail and keep up on this lawsuit.
8-18 MR. JONES: I will.
8-19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'm going to
8-20 give -- the demurrer is overruled. You have 20 days to
8-21 answer. Please -- and the next hearing, unless they
8-22 notice you of further motions, is May the 7th. May the
8-23 7th, 1999. That's a Friday, at the hour of 8:30 a.m.
8-24 MR. JONES: Again?
8-25 THE COURT: That's stamped right on your

8-26 complaint, sir. By the way --
9-01 MR. JONES: Again, I -- with the way this
9-02 proceedings are going, I must enter an objection for
9-03 the record.
9-04 THE COURT: What don't you like about the way
9-05 the proceedings are going? Tell me what your objection
9-06 is.
9-07 MR. JONES: Quite frankly, this is a court of
9-08 record
9-09 THE COURT: So what.
9-11 THE COURT: It's a court of record. We're
9-12 making a record. Thank you.
9-13 MR. JONES: And that's very defined in -- in
9-14 any law dictionary as to how it will be run.
9-15 THE COURT: Well, I'm telling you the
9-16 California Rules of Court regulate the way we run.
9-17 Thank you.
9-20 THE COURT: Would you, please, give notice?
9-21 MR. SMITH: I will.
CASE CONTENTS

William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) JUDICIAL NOTICE
) (Calif. Ev. Code Sec. 451, 452)
v. )
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the following:
1. All items mentioned in California Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452, [among which is
included the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].
2. The records of this court in general, and the Reporter's Transcript of the proceeding of
February 18, 1999 in particular.
3. "It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them." California Government Code, Section 11120.
4. "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions,
boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them." California Government Code Section 54950.
5. "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns
of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....".
CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.
6. "The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American
1047.
7. "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.)
Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others
retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.
9. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California,
110 U.S. 516.
10. "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.
11. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
12. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
13. "Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due
examination, is found to be republican in its form of government...." Act [of Congress] for the
Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.
14. "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people
and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people,
to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary,
Fifth Edition, p. 626.
15. "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the
United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." California Constitution, Article 3,
Sec. 1.
16. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Constitution for
the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.
17. Americans with disabilities act, (Title II) Public services, which include state and local
government instrumentalities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in
programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. For existing facilities,
barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Miscellaneous (Title V) Includes a
provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or
those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.
18. "A 'court of record' is 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.
19. "The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts...." California
Penal Code, Sec. 808.
20. "'...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our
land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points,
that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....' Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5,
1297" "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.
21. "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.
22. "We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we
hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him
to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D 774
(CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
23. An act of the court shall prejudice no man. Jenkins' Eight Centuries of Reports, 118; Brooms
Legal Maxims, Lond. ed. 115; 1 Strange's Reports, 126; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 245-255; 12
English Common Bench Reports by Manning, Granger, & Scott, 415
DATED: May 5, 1999
THE COURT
By

______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS OF FACT
)
v. )
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT, on its own motion, makes the following findings of fact based upon the court
record and upon the contents of the judicial notice dated May 5, 1999:
1. William Jones is one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the California
Constitution.
2. This court is a court of record.
3. All parties and court personnel have been properly apprised of the foregoing.
DATED: May 5, 1999
THE COURT
By
______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) WRIT OF ERROR
) QUAE CORAM
v. ) NOBIS RESIDANT
)
and DOES 1-20, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT COMES NOW to review the facts, record, and process resulting in the rulings
dated February 18, 1999:
The record shows that this court of record held a hearing on February 18, 1999 for the purpose of
considering defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's personal action of trespass for damages.
Plaintiff was present in personam, and defendant, though absent, was represented by counsel.
The record shows (Transcript, Pages 1-9) that the magistrate did not conduct the hearing in
accordance with either the stated rules of court (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specified in
Action of Trespass, Page 1:Line 19) or the foundation rules of a court of record (Judicial Notice,
Page 5, Lines 4-8). Instead, the magistrate conducted his own court, without notice or
concurrance of the parties, and without due process. In fact, at one point the magistrate made it
clear that he believed he was the owner of the courtroom (Transcript, Page 2, Line 20). Not
satisfied with the lawful rules of court, he became a loose cannon and at some points imposed his
own rules (Transcript, Page 1, Lines 13-15, 18; Page 2, Lines 4-6, 19-21, 24-26; Page 3, Lines 4-
5, 12-13, 21-22, 25--26; Page 4, Lines 24-24; etc.), and at other points rules of another
jurisdiction foreign to this court (Transcript, Page 1, Line 23; Page 2, Lines 4-5, 12-13, 21-22,
23-24; Page 4, Line 23; Page 5, Lines 15-17; Page 6, Lines 13, 25; Page 9, Line 16).
In the exchange between plaintiff and magistrate, the magistrate made it perfectly clear that the
fact that this is a court of record was of no consequence to him; in two words: "So what"
(Transcript, Page 9, Lines 7-9).
Further, without proper authority, the magistrate stepped out of his function as a magistrate and,
by his actions and statements, figuratively assumed the cloak of a tribunal (Page 5, Lines 22-25;
Page 6, Lines 2-3, Page 8, Line 20).
The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every American to
settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses.
Throughout the transcript, the record shows that the rules of the court were not followed, that the
magistrate attempted to function as a tribunal, and that the court was ineffective in furthering the
goal of justice for all. These failures to follow the prescribed procedures are sufficiently
disruptive to the goal of providing fair justice that the court finds it necessary to issue a writ of
error quae coram nobis residant as follows:
THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND THE PROCESS BY
WHICH THE RULING WAS ISSUED, and finding that the magistrate rendered a ruling by
applying rules from several jurisdictions foreign to this court without leave of court; and finding
that the orderly decorum of the court was replaced by defective impromptu process and
usurpation of legislative and court powers without leave of court,
And, finding that there is partial merit in the defendant's demurrer, namely that the action,
though barely sufficient, should contain a complete statement of facts upon which to grant relief,
And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendant as well as plaintiff,
NOW THEREFORE, THE COURT issues this WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS
RESIDANT, to wit:
The court rescinds all rulings entered February 18, 1999.

Further, the court orders that in the interest of justice and fair play to all parties, plaintiff and
defendants, and with the concurrence of plaintiff, that the action for trespass is dismissed with
prejudice if the plaintiff does not file a first amended action on or before June 8, 1999.
Further, the court orders that if the defendant chooses to file an answer to the first amended
action, then the filing fees paid for the answer filed under the rescinded court order are applied to
that answer to the first amended action; for the court wills not the pains of its error on the
defendants.
Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other
interested parties a brief no later than June 7, 1999 to show cause to this court why this order
should not take effect or should be modified. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and
the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented.
Further, the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 7, 1999, will be reset to a date
determined by the clerk, no later than September 6, 1999 unless for good cause.
THE COURT
WITNESS: the SEAL of the
COURT this fifth day of May,
1999

______________________________
William Jones
Attornatus Privatus
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
Transcript

DEPARTMENT 666
May 7, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Mr. Jones and Smith.
1-10 William Jones, plaintiff.
1-11 MR. SMITH: Jerry Thompson for defendant,
1-12 Robert Smith.
1-13 THE COURT: Father of Mary Smith, a minor.
1-14 Okay. All right, in this matter it looks like, to me,
1-15 that Mr. Jones filed -- I think we resolved the
1-16 difficulties from last -- the last proceeding.
1-17 An answer has been filed. And Mr. Jones
1-18 filed some paperwork yesterday which was complaining
1-19 about the proceedings that I conducted on February
1-20 18th, what I had to say. And I don't feel there was
1-21 any error. I respectfully disagree, but your paperwork
1-22 is on file.
1-23 MR. JONES: Very well. I'll take note of
1-24 that for the record.
1-25 THE COURT: The big question is -- the big
1-26 question is, what are we doing at this point? I read
2-01 in there at some point -- are you asking -- are you
2-02 going to want to amend your complaint at some time?
2-03 MR. JONES: No. The only business before the

2-04 Court, at this point today, is making sure the
2-05 defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday.
2-06 As far as -- barring that, there's no business before
2-07 the Court today.
2-08 THE COURT: Well, there's business in the
2-09 sense that we need to push the matter towards a trial,
2-10 or whatever is going to happen on it. That's why today
2-11 is a case management.
2-12 MR. JONES: That's taken care of in my
2-13 paperwork. It's addressed and we're to move forward.
2-14 THE COURT: You want a continuance? I saw a
2-15 date of September in there.
2-16 MR. JONES: There's nothing I could add to
2-17 the paperwork to make it any more clearer. It's pretty
2-18 much all there.
2-20 MR. JONES: Barring that, as I said, all the
2-21 business before the Court is completed as of now.
2-22 THE COURT: Well, you do want this case, I
2-23 assume, Mr. Jones, and we've talked previously, but I
2-24 assume you want this case to go to trial at some point;
2-25 is that correct?
2-26 MR. JONES: Yeah, absolutely.
3-01 THE COURT: Do you want me to -- do you want
3-02 me to set a trial at this time?
3-03 MR. JONES: No, I'm not asking for anything
3-04 at this point in time. It's -- the paperwork itself is
3-05 explanatory.
3-06 THE COURT: Okay. Self-explanatory.
3-07 MR. JONES: It says everything I needed to
3-08 say at this point in time. There's nothing that I
3-09 could say to clarify it any more than what it is.
3-10 There's nothing I have to add at this point in time --
3-12 MR. JONES: -- and that's where --
3-13 THE COURT: If --
3-14 MR. JONES: -- at this point in time, we are
3-15 done. And --
3-16 THE COURT: You're done? Okay.
3-17 MR. JONES: Yeah.
3-18 THE COURT: You want -- a case management
3-19 conference scheduled for May 7th, '99, will be reset to
3-20 a date determined by the clerk no later than September
3-21 6th unless for good cause.
3-22 So, I'll give you another case management
3-23 conference date.
3-24 MR. SMITH: Is there some reason for that?
3-25 THE COURT: I -- it's all explained in his
3-26 paperwork.
4-01 MR. SMITH: Well, I couldn't make heads or
4-02 tails of it either, your Honor.
4-03 THE COURT: Well, I've talked to Mr. Jones
4-04 before, and I told Mr. Jones that we have rules. That
4-05 he -- let me explain it this way. Nobody is forcing
4-06 Mr. Jones to be here. He has voluntarily chosen this
4-07 forum to litigate, or bring this dispute for resolution
4-08 to the courts of the State of California.

4-09 He is not a defendant. Nobody is trying to
4-10 take property from him. He's not charged with a
4-11 criminal offense. He is here of his own free will to
4-12 process his dispute, which is set forth in his
4-13 complaint.
4-14 I have advised him, I will continue to advise
4-15 him, that he has selected and elected to be here. And
4-16 therefore, he will have to follow the rules because he
4-17 chose to be in this forum. He will have to follow the
4-18 rules of the forum of the State of California, which
4-19 includes the Fast-Track Rules and the California Rules
4-20 of Court. And, so, I've tried to make him aware of
4-21 that.
4-22 Previously, we had a little dispute about
4-23 that, I guess, but there is no dispute as far as I'm
4-24 concerned. We have -- we have a case -- I'm willing to
4-25 set the matter for a trial, Mr. Jones, because that's
4-26 what you want. I mean, you want somebody --
5-01 MR. JONES: Eventually we will get there,
5-02 yes, sir.
5-03 THE COURT: You want me to set a trial date
5-04 today, or put this matter -- you wanted a further case
5-05 manage --
5-06 MR. JONES: There are other matters in the
5-07 paperwork that have to be accomplish before the --
5-08 THE COURT: He wants to file, maybe, an
5-09 amended complaint or something and there are rules that
5-10 govern that. So, you'll have to follow the properly

5-11 notice -- the notice procedures and things likes that.
5-12 MR. SMITH: I want to clarify, it's not the
5-13 order?
5-14 THE COURT: No. No, you know -- and I'm
5-15 going to allow him to do this. And I'm going to, you
5-16 know -- if he wants -- you know, we had a dispute about
5-17 the tape recording. If you properly come to me under
5-18 rule 980 of the California Rules of Court, and there's
5-19 a procedure set forth in there that you can request to
5-20 do that, but --
5-21 MR. JONES: I was under -- at that point in
5-22 time, I was under previous interpretation of that rule.
5-23 However --
5-24 THE COURT: I'll direct you to that. And if
5-25 there's a problem, I don't want to have -- you know, I
5-26 just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. I know
6-01 where you're coming from. I've dealt with these
6-02 problems and this type of, you know -- I understand a
6-03 bit where you're coming from. I respectfully disagree
6-04 to some extent, but that's okay.
6-05 But nobody is forcing you to be here. And so
6-06 you're kind of -- you're in the driver's chair as far
6-07 as processing the lawsuit.
6-09 THE COURT: Do you -- you want to come back
6-10 for a further case management? How about on a Friday
6-11 in August, or any day of the week in August?
6-12 MR. JONES: There's other things I wish to
6-13 accomplish that are listed in the paperwork and, at

6-14 that point in time, I'll move forward.
6-15 THE COURT: All right. You want to come
6-16 back -- you pick a day in August.
6-17 MR. JONES: I have no date in mind at this
6-18 time.
6-19 THE COURT: Okay. Can I pick one? I'm going
6-20 to pick a date where you have to come back.
6-22 THE COURT: That's the way it runs,
6-23 Mr. Jones.
6-25 THE COURT: That's the way it runs.
6-26 MR. JONES: However, I will object for the
7-01 record. I wish that to be on the record.
7-02 THE COURT: Okay. And that will be in
7-03 compliance with the Fast-Track Rules. And I will set
7-04 it for dismissal. And when you don't show up for that,
7-05 your case gets dismissed.
7-06 MR. JONES: As I said --
7-07 THE COURT: That's the rules. You -- well,
7-08 now you know. You volunteered to be here so the system
7-09 can voluntarily, on its own, throw you out of here.
7-10 It's your choice.
7-11 I mean, I'm not here to argue with you today.
7-12 MR. JONES: I'm not here to argue today,
7-13 either. The paperwork explained my process, the
7-14 direction I'm going, and there's nothing else I can
7-15 say.
7-16 THE COURT: Further case management Monday,
7-17 August 16th, 8:30, this department, 666.
7-18 I ask that the defendant give notice.
7-19 Written notice, okay?
7-20 MR. JONES: The only -- could you process a
7-21 transcript for me and I will get in contact with you?
7-22 THE REPORTER: Yes.
7-23 MR. JONES: Thank you, very much.
7-24 MR. SMITH: That date again?
7-25 THE COURT: August the 16th at 8:30 of 1999.
7-26 8:30 a.m., this department.
8-01 MR. SMITH: Okay. Am I correct in that the
8-02 Court's made no ruling on this apparent request to
8-03 amend the complaint today?
8-04 THE COURT: I've made no rulings. I've
8-05 made -- what I've done -- the record speaks for itself.
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY
)
Plaintiff, ) FIRST AMENDED ACTION
) OF TRESPASS, AND
v. ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
)
ROBERT SMITH; ) VERIFIED
MARY SMITH, a minor; )
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA; )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)_____________________________________________
1. This First Amended Action amends by entire substitution the action filed October 7, 1998, in
the above entitled court.
CAUSE OF ACTION
2. William Jones (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is one of the people of California, and in this court of
record complains of Mary Smith (hereinafter "Defendant-A"), Robert Smith (hereinafter
"Defendant-B"), and State of California (hereinafter "Defendant-C"), who are each summoned to
answer the said Plaintiff in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case, to wit:
3. Defendant-A is a minor, licensed by Defendant-C to drive a motor vehicle and to exercise all
powers and authority implied by that license. Defendant-A's license number is Z987654321.
Defendant-A is the driver in command of the motor vehicle (hereinafter "vehicle"), the license
number of which appears to be 9ZZZ999 granted by Defendant-C on Exhibit-1.
4. Defendant-B is parent of Defendant-A, and is jointly and severally liable with Defendant-A
for the damages proximately and legally resulting from Defendant-A's action. Defendant-B,
according to the official report (Exhibit-1), is the registered owner of the vehicle licensed by
Defendant-C.
5. Defendant-C (who is DOE 1 of the former action, and who's person, actions, and relationships
are now ascertained) is the owner of the vehicle. The nature of Defendant-C's ownership is
allodial. Defendant-C is the true holder of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO" or
"allodial title"). Defendant-C licenses and bails the vehicle for legal and registered ownership
and for use only by licensed drivers (bailees). Defendant-C is jointly and severally liable with
Defendant-A and Defendant-B for the damages proximately and legally resulting from
Defendant-A's actions. Defendant-C, according to Defendant-C's official report, is the licensor of
Defendant-A and of the vehicle.
6. As licensor, Defendant-C shows three significant characteristics which are admitted and
mandated in Defendant-C's secondary controlling rules, the California Vehicle Code: (a)
Defendant-C receives a direct financial benefit from Defendant-C's actions and from bringing
Defendant-C's and others' services, products, and actions into the stream of commerce. (b)
Defendant-C's role is integral to the Defendant-C's transportation business of bringing
Defendant-C's own and others' services, products, actions, and licensees into the stream of
commerce; and (c) Defendant-C has close operational non-discretionary control over, or a
substantial ability to influence, the production and distribution of said services, products, and
actions; and actively micromanages at great expense through several statewide and local agency
organizations such as California Highway Patrol. Defendant-C effects the licenses through its
various agencies such as the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of
Motor Vehicles, and local police to assure high quality standards and both voluntary and
involuntary participation in the stream of commerce. Defendant-C's services, products, and
actions include, but are not limited to, training programs, testing programs, licensed drivers,
certificates of competency, investigations, reports, analyses, and close monitoring for quality
assurance, all for the purpose of motor vehicle operation in the stream of commerce.
7. At all times mentioned in this action Defendant-A and Defendant-B are each the agent and
bailee of the other and of Defendant-C, and in doing the things alleged in this action, each is
acting within the course and scope of this agency and bailment.
8. Exhibit-1 (official report), Exhibit-2 (photographs), Exhibit-3 (medical records), Exhibit-4

(medical expenses), and Exhibit-5 (copies of x-rays of injuries) are included by reference as
though fully stated herein. The physical injuries, examinations, treatments, and surgeries are
reported in Exhibit-3. Exhibit-2 contains two photographs showing the external appearance of
some of the injuries that the doctors are unable to permanently correct. Exhibit-5 is the x-rays of
the injuries. Because of a Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents by Defendant-A
and Defendant-B, Exhibit-5 is in full possession and control by Defendant-A, Defendant-B, and
defendants' agents for examination by all defendants, and for presentation at trial.
9. On October 8, 1997, in the city of Disruption, County of Calamity, California, Plaintiff

William Jones duly travels on a bicycle eastward on Highland. By right, Plaintiff reasonably
expects to proceed without injury, secure in his capacities. Mary Smith (Defendant-A), drives the
vehicle northward on Oleander. Defendant-A turns eastward onto Highland. Defendant-A does
not yield the right of way to Plaintiff. Defendant-A, while controlling the vehicle, causes the
vehicle to violently collide with Plaintiff directly causing injuries to Plaintiff. The first points of
contact are the vehicle's left end of the front bumper at the left front quarter panel, and Plaintiff's
right foot and the bicycle rear wheel at a point behind the right pedal assembly. The initial
impact bent the rear wheel. The injuries itemized in Exhibit-3 require ongoing medical treatment,
surgery, and therapy. Defendant-A's action causes permanent diminishing of Plaintiff's capacity
to perform his primary trade of heavy construction work. Plaintiff's ability to perform his
secondary skills as a field architect are likewise diminished. Of necessity, Plaintiff is now
occasionally doing low-paying odd jobs and mechanical work on cars, despite the accompanying
pain.
10. Defendant-A had a duty to not act in such a way as to cause injuries to Plaintiff. The City of
Disruption Police Department official Traffic Collision Report (Local Report Number T999-
87654) (Exhibit-1) by peace officer Copper, and reviewed the following day by CPL Maninblu,
on State of California CHP forms, details the statements of the parties and the official
administrative opinion that, "the collision occurred when Smith failed to yield to traffic after
stopping at the stop sign, in violation of VC 21802(a)" (Exhibit-1, Page 5).
11. Fire department paramedics provide emergency help to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is transported by
Breakumore ambulance to Community Hospital of Calamity, Emergency Department. Plaintiff
incurred, is incurring, and continues to incur medical bills for treatments, surgeries, and
therapies. The bodily injuries, treatments, surgeries, and therapies are detailed in Exhibit-3. The
operative/procedure record of Surgeon I. Wuzza Barber, M.D., dated December 19, 1997,
particularly describes the extent of the shoulder injuries. The expenses for treatments, surgeries,
and therapies are detailed in Exhibit-4. As a direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A,
Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to his person, all of
which injuries cause Plaintiff great mental, emotional, and physical pain and suffering.
12. As a further direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A, Plaintiff incurs, and
continues to incur, medical and related expenses. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact
amount of medical expenses that are incurring. When Plaintiff has ascertained this amount,
Plaintiff will seek leave of court, orally or in writing, to amend this complaint to insert this
amount.
13. As a further direct and legal result of the actions of Defendant-A, Plaintiff's earning capacity
is greatly impaired. Plaintiff's quality of life is permanently decreased: no longer is there a very
active life style nor participation in such sports as Aikido, tennis and working out in a gym. This
is summarized in the report of Osteo Karacus, D.C. on March 28, 1999.

TRESPASS
stated herein.
16. Defendant-A, the driver in command, has a legal duty to use due care and not cause an injury
to Plaintiff.
17. Defendant-A breached that duty by proximately or legally, and directly, causing the injuries
to Plaintiff.

NEGLIGENCE
stated herein.
21. Defendant-A, the driver in command, has a legal duty to use due care and yield the right of
way to Plaintiff.
22. Defendant-A breached that duty by not yielding the right of way, proximately or legally, and
directly, causing the injuries to Plaintiff.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY: MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP
stated herein.
25. Defendant-A and Defendant-B have a servant relationship with their master, Defendant-C.
Defendant-C requires that when driving a motor vehicle, the driver in command must strictly
follow the rules of the California Vehicle Code. Any breach of the rules may result in citation
and prosecution of the violator.
26. The master, by virtue of the relationship, necessarily maintains control (with plentiful
assistance from its agents known as peace officers), whether direct or indirect, over the subject
servant. For purposes of this count, the terms "licensor," "master," "bailor," "lessor," "employer",
"principal," "state," and "government agency" are analogous. For purposes of this count, the
terms "licensee," "servant," "bailee," "lessee," "employee," "agent," "citizen," and "subject" are
analogous. They are analogous because the chain of authority from master to servant creates a
vicarious liability for the master; i.e. he assumes the mantle of responsibility and risk for the
servant's actions while the servant is acting in the course of the master's normal expectations and
directions.
27. Defendant-C has provided the rules, the California Vehicle Code for Defendant-A to obey.
That alone is not sufficient for vicarious liability. However, Defendant-C has chosen to be
involved beyond the mere level of policy making. Defendant-C is intimately, operationally
involved, with no discretionary authority, with every level of its licensee's actions as it relates to
the operation of a motor vehicle. And, because it is in commerce, it is all the more liable: by its
own choice, every action by the Vehicle Code enforcement agents and Defendant-C is described
in micro detail in the Vehicle Code with no opportunity for the free exercise of policy-level
discretion.
28. In summary, Defendant-C has a participatory connection for a personal profit or other
benefit; is involved with injury-producing services and products; is involved in the promotion
and creation of demand for, and reliance on, its services; is one or more interrelated and
dependent links in the chain from creation to execution of the products and services. It must
necessarily assume the cloak of responsibility for its direct, operational, non-discretionary
involvement.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY: PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
stated herein.
30. Defendant-B has custody of Defendant-A, a minor.
31. Defendant-A was operating the vehicle with the permission of Defendant-B.
LAW OF THE CASE

32. The law of this case is further decreed:
33. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid, such
decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action.
34. The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
35. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the past
the present.
36. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.
37. California Vehicle Code, Section 21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop
sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The
driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another
highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable
safety.
38. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the rules of the above entitled court. The rules shall
be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this
action.
SIMPLEX DICTUM
39. Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from Government's
thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some
respects, to its exercise by Government itself.
40. The purpose of imposing vicarious liability is to insure the costs of injuries resulting from
defective actions are placed on the source of the actions and others who make the actions
possible rather than on injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. For a defendant,
including a lessor, bailor or licensor, to be vicariously liable it must play an integral and vital
part in the overall production and promotion activity so that the actor is in a position to affect
others or, at the very least, it must provide a link in the chain of exposing the ultimate victim to
the actor. The vicariously liable Defendant must be in the business of controlling, leasing,
bailing, or licensing the actors.
For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
On all counts:
41. For general damages in the sum of $2,000,000;
42. For medical and related expenses according to proof;
43. For loss of earnings according to proof;
44. For interest as allowed by law;
45. For costs of suit incurred and attorney's fees; and
46. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
June 7, 1999, Calamity, California
______________________________
William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS

[Green lettering denotes information entered on pre-printed form]
I, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, for the
County of Calamity, do hereby certify:
That the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE
WHICH WAS "FILED ON DEMAND" was filed in the above-entitled action on JUNE 7, 1999,
that the document(s) was/were filed in error as The Court directed said Clerk to reject the above
document as there is no Leave of Court or Stipulation from the other parties to file a First
Amended Complaint.
Wherefore the said Clerk petitions this Court that a order be made vacating 1st Amended Action
of Trespass, and Trespass on the Case..
Dated 6-9-99 COUNTY CLERK
By s/Ihold Fylings
Deputy Clerk
ORDER
Pursuant to the Certificate of the Clerk and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the
1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE is hereby
vacated.
s/[illegible signature]
Dated Jun 09, 1999
Judge of the Superior Court
CASE CONTENTS
Court of Record
COMMENTARY
This writer concludes, from the definitions below, that a

court of record is a court which must meet the following
criteria:
1. power to fine or imprison for contempt

2. keeps a record of the proceedings
3. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
4. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)
5. generally has a seal (optional)
Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal.

The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully
empowered jury (not paid by the government)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COURT. ...
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several

methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being

those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 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.
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes

and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. 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.
....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See 7 Cal Jur 571 for more info

about courts of record
7 California Jurisprudence, Bancroft Whitney (1922), Page 580-581

Courts of Record.--Courts are divided generally into courts of
record and those that are not of record. A court of record is a
judidical tribunal having attributes and exercising functions
independently of the person designated generally to hold it, and
proceeding according to the course of the common law.4 In a court
of record the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, whereas,
in courts not of record, the proceedings are not enrolled. The
privilege of having these enrolled memorials constitutes the great
leading distinction between courts of record and courts not of
record.5
4. Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal. 220. As to what are "courts of

common-law jurisdiction" within the meaning of the federal
naturalization act, see Alienage and Citizenship, Vol. 1, p. 911.
5. Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 94 Am. Dec. 742, per Sawyer, J.,
concurring. See infra, §§ 26-28, as to records.
Under the constitutional revision of 1863, the district, county

and probate courts were also courts of record. Caulfield v.
stevens, 28 Cal. 118.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 386 (1953)

G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.
MAGISTRATE
A person holding official power in a government; as: a The

official of highest rank in a government (chief, or first,
magistrate). b An official of a class having summary, often
criminal, jurisdiction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary
MAGISTRATE
an official entrusted with administration of the laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103
MAGISTRATE
Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State

ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630.
A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the

state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either
judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly
used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person
intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one
of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of
the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex
parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla.
655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W.
32, 34.
....
The word "magistrate" does not necessarily imply an officer

exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to
embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds. Schultz v.
Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California Penal Code
7. Words and phrases....The following words have in this

code the signification attached to them in this section, unless
otherwise apparent from the context:....
9. The word "magistrate" signifies any one of the

officers mentioned in Section 808. ....
807. Magistrate defined. A magistrate is an officer having

power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with
a public offense. (Enacted 1872.)
808. Persons designated as magistrates The following

persons are magistrates:
1. The judges of the Supreme Court
2. The judges of the courts of appeal.
3. The judges of the superior courts.
4. The judges of the municipal courts.
5. The judges of the justice courts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUIT
Old English Law
The witnesses or followers of the plaintiff. 3 Bl. Comm.

295. See Secta.
Modern Law
A generic term, of comprehensive signification, and applies
to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues, in
such court, the remedy which the law affords him for the redress
of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in
equity. See Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v.
Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L.Ed. 481; Syracuse Plaster Co. v.
Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corporation, 169 Misc. 564 7 N.Y.S.2d 897.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1677
TRIBUNAL
The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice.

The whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial
court; the jurisdiction which the judges exercise. See Foster v.
Worcester, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 81.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 707 (1953)

G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.
TRIBUNE
1. In ancient Rome, a magistrate whose special function was
to protect the interests of plebeian citizens from the patricians.
2. Any defender of the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary

COURT
1. the residence of a sovereign or similar dignitary

2: a sovereign and his officials and advisers as a
governing power
3: an assembly of the retinue of a sovereign
4: an open space enclosed by a building or buildings
5: a space walled or marked off for playing a game (as
tennis or basketball)
6: the place where justice is administered; also: a judicial
body or a meeting of a judicial body
Transcript
DEPARTMENT 666
August 16, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Jones versus Smith.
1-10 Mr. Jones here, plaintiff. Defense here?
1-11 MR. SMITH: Lowe Sharknette for the
1-12 defendant.
1-13 MR. JONES: Very good.
1-14 THE COURT: I'll call my calendar, Mr. Jones.
1-15 MR. JONES: Very well - -
1-17 All right. This is here on. I don't know

1-18 what this is.
1-19 I just don't accept paperwork, Mr. Jones.
1-20 MR. JONES: It's pertinent, your Honor, in a
1-21 future issue.
1-22 THE COURT: Okay. It will be placed in the
1-23 file. Did you get a copy of it?
1-24 MR. JONES: Not yet, sir.
1-25 THE COURT: You're required to serve him
1-26 before I can accept it.
2-01 MR. JONES: We have it right here. It can be
2-02 served right now.
2-03 THE COURT: Well, serve him with it.
2-04 Thank you. Now we'll place it in the file.
2-06 THE COURT: All right. What do you want to
2-07 do today? Do you want to set a trial date?
2-08 MR. JONES: Not at this point in time. There
2-09 is some administrative procedural issues that have
2-10 arisen that I need to do before proceeding. I'll do
2-11 forthcoming.
2-12 However, there are a couple of questions I'd
2-13 like to ask.
2-14 THE COURT: Let me remind you, again, I can't
2-15 give you legal advice. I indicated that the last
2-16 several occasions. That I -- some of the questions, I
2-17 may be able to answer. Some I can't.
2-18 MR. JONES: Okay, very well. Could you give
2-19 me your full name, your Honor?

2-20 THE COURT: My full name?
2-21 MR. JONES: Yes, please.
2-22 THE COURT: You can look it up. Roy
2-23 Stephen LeGumé.
2-24 MR. JONES: Roy Stephen LeGumé.
2-25 THE COURT: Steven with a, ph, thank you very
2-26 much. I use my middle initial, though.
3-01 MR. JONES: Do you or anyone you know of, at
3-02 this time, have a claim against me?
3-03 THE COURT: A claim against you, me, or
3-04 anybody? I know what are we doing here, playing
3-05 20-questions.
3-06 MR. JONES: These are questions I need to
3-07 proceed on with the procedural administration issue.
3-08 THE COURT: I have no claim against you,
3-09 Mr. Jones. I didn't know who you were until you walked
3-10 in this court as a plaintiff.
3-11 MR. JONES: Okay. Very well. Thank you.
3-12 And can you -- do you know whose name is signed on
3-13 this?
3-14 THE COURT: That's mine.
3-15 MR. JONES: That's your name? Very well.
3-16 Thank you very much.
3-17 THE COURT: That's where I vacated -- the
3-18 clerk, erroneously, filed your first-amended cause of
3-19 action. You did not ask for leave of Court to do that.
3-20 You have to do that, or get a stipulation with the
3-21 other side agreeing.

3-23 THE COURT: But maybe they'll agree. But I
3-24 vacated the order because the clerk, erroneously, did
3-25 that.
3-26 MR. JONES: Yes. For the record, I wish to
4-01 enter an objection. That's all I have to handle at
4-02 this time other than setting a new trial conference --
4-03 trial readiness conference day.
4-04 THE COURT: When would you like to do that,
4-05 sir?
4-06 MR. JONES: 60 days would be fine with me.
4-07 THE COURT: Let me hear from the other side.
4-08 MR. SMITH: As far as we're concerned, we
4-09 have a motion pending to compel a deposition on the
4-10 30th. After the deposition, we're ready to go with
4-11 trial or arbitration, as the Court sees fit.
4-12 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Jones wants another
4-13 case management conference. And he -- maybe the other
4-14 side will agree you can file your first-ammended
4-15 complaint.
4-16 MR. JONES: Sorry. I -- could you speak up a
4-17 little bit?
4-18 THE COURT: Sure. I said Mr. Jones wants a
4-19 continuance of the case management conference. And so
4-20 I'm going to do that because he may want to file a
4-21 motion to file his first-amended cause of action, or he
4-22 may want to see if you'll agree that he can file it. I
4-23 don't know. But that's the way these things are done
4-24 if you want to do that. I don't know if you still want

4-25 to do that.
4-26 But there are some other matters, apparently,
5-01 relating to the depositions and stuff. So, I don't
5-02 know what that's all about, but Judge Simmons will be
5-03 hearing that, I assume, on August -- what date did you
5-04 say, the 30th?
5-05 MR. JONES: Sorry. There's a date set for
5-06 another hearing?
5-07 THE COURT: I guess so.
5-08 MR. JONES: I have not been aware of that or
5-09 informed of that.
5-10 THE COURT: All I know right now is there's a
5-11 motion to compel, which is - - motion to compel
5-12 plaintiff to attend a deposition. That's probably what
5-13 your documents are here about - -
5-15 THE COURT: -- wait, wait, wait. Will you
5-16 listen to me a second? I'm going to give some
5-17 information. That's set for Monday, August the 30th at
5-18 1:30 in the department that handles those types of
5-19 disputes, department S7, Judge Simmons. That's where
5-20 it's set right now. I don't know if you've been served
5-21 or not.
5-22 MR. JONES: I haven't and I must object.
5-23 THE COURT: Well, they reserved the date for
5-24 it and I'll let the process takes it's course.
5-25 MR. JONES: Has -- has that document been
5-26 filed?
6-01 THE COURT: I don't know. You've asked --

6-02 it's not in my file yet.
6-03 MR. JONES: Okay. Therefore, it's --
6-04 THE COURT: Well, I don't know, sir.
6-05 Sometimes the paperwork does not make it to our file,
6-06 although, it may be in the clerks' office. I have no
6-07 idea. Why don't you get with the other side and ask
6-08 him if he's filed it yet.
6-09 MR. SMITH: It was filed on the 6th of this
6-10 month and served the same day by mail.
6-12 MR. JONES: I object. I have not been served
6-13 with that document --
6-14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
6-15 MR. JONES: -- and this is the not the forum
6-16 to discuss that at this time.
6-17 THE COURT: Fine. Fine. I'll set your case
6-18 management conference for about 60 days. Monday,
6-19 October 18th at 8: 30
6-20 MR. JONES: If that's 60 days.
6-21 THE COURT: I can't -- that's 60 days.
6-22 MR. JONES: October -- okay, October.
6-23 THE COURT: 18th, 8:30, right here.
6-24 One other thing, Mr. Jones, I will note on
6-25 the paperwork that you turned in today, you appear to
6-26 have listed a street address in Mount High Boulevard.
7-01 MR. JONES: That's a address by which I can be served process.
7-02 THE COURT: That is what you want the Court
7-03 now to have as your address to send you notices?

7-04 MR. JONES: That was the address since we had
7-05 this issue back on the first hearing date.
7-06 THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it is or
7-07 isn't, but that is the address by which you can receive
7-08 process?
7-09 MR. JONES: That's it.
7-10 THE COURT: I'll have defense give notice of
7-11 the next hearing, okay?
7-12 MR. JONES: This hearing is closed?
7-13 THE COURT: Yes, it is.
7-14 MR. JONES: Thank you very much.
William Jones
Nowhere, California
Attornatus Privatus
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER
) SEALING OF PAPERS
v. )
) IN RE: MOTION FOR
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) CONTEMPT (CONFIDENTIAL
MARY SMITH, a minor ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
)
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
THE COURT COMES NOW to find that the matter before it is a personnel matter requiring the
court's protection of the privacy of the persons herein named.
The attached envelope containing papers pertaining to personnel matters is hereby ordered
sealed. It may be opened only by this court or by the following persons: Iholda Fylings, Roy
LeGumé, or William Jones. This order to seal may be countermanded either verbally or in
writing, temporarily or permanently, at any time in or out of court session by Iholda Fylings, and
Roy LeGumé acting in common agreement between themselves.
This envelope contains the following papers:
Notice of Motion
Motion for Contempt
Affidavit of William Jones
Affidavit of A. Witness
A copy of the caption page of each paper must be attached to the outside of the envelope.
THE COURT
WITNESS: the SEAL of the COURT this 27th day of September, 1999.

______________________________
William Jones
Private Attorney
CASE
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE
) OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
v. ) (CONFIDENTIAL
) PERSONNEL MATTER)
MARY SMITH, a minor ) DATE: October 12, 1999
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 12, 1999, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel
may be heard, in Dept. "666" of the above-entitled Court, located at 1313 Bastille St,
Megalopolis, California, plaintiff William Jones will move this court for an order of contempt.
______________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
) (CONFIDENTIAL
v. ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
)
ROBERT SMITH, father of ) DATE: October 12, 1999
MARY SMITH, a minor ) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) DEPT: 666
)
Defendants. )
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
COMES NOW William Jones and moves the above-entitled court
//////////
//////////
////////// [Remainder of this page is filled in order to force information onto next page]
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
to find Iholda Fylings (a deputy clerk of said court) and/or Roy LeGumé (a magistrate of said
court) to be in either civil contempt or criminal contempt or both, but not in misdemeanor
contempt, of the above-entitled court.
This motion involves a personnel matter relating to court personnel. For that reason as well as to
protect the privacy and personal community standing of the alleged contemnors, this motion is
presented to the court in confidence, known only to the alleged contemnors, witnesses, and the
court. However, if the alleged contemnors or the court wish to make this matter public, William
Jones has no objection.
This motion is made on the grounds that said subjects of the court willfully conspired to, and did
create and enter into the record of the above-entitled court a paper falsely purporting to be a duly
constituted order of said court. The consequence of said paper is to interfere with the conduct of
the business of the court, and subsequently the rights of the parties to orderly due process and the
authority and dignity of the court.
William Jones further moves the court to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the
rights of the parties and the authority and dignity of the court.
These motions are based on the pleadings, records and files of the court, and the attached
declarations of William Jones and Aye Sawit.
______________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
) AYE SAWIT
v. )
) IN SUPPORT OF
)
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
I am Aye Sawit. 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.
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
On June 7, 1999, I saw William Jones present for filing the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF
TRESPASS, AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE to a woman who identified herself as Iholda
Fylings. Iholda Fylings at first refused to file the 1ST AMENDED ACTION because, she said,
there is no order on file authorizing the filing.
Jones informed Fylings that there is an order on file. She looked further, appeared to find the
order and appeared to read portions of it. Fylings again refused to file the 1ST AMENDED
ACTION. Jones then requested that Fylings mark and file the paper as "FILED ON DEMAND".
Fylings again appeared to read portions of the order; she marked the 1ST AMENDED ACTION
"FILED ON DEMAND," and returned a conformed copy to Jones.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration
is executed in the county of Calamity, California on September 27, 1999.
__________________________________

Aye Sawit
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
) WILLIAM JONES
v. )
) IN SUPPORT OF
)
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
) DEPT: 666
________________________________)_____________________________________________
I am William Jones. 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.
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
//////////
This affidavit is being presented to the court (and not to a judge) as described in 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 judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts
by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers."
On May 6, 1999, the above-entitled court (this court) entered findings of fact (Exhibit-16) that
William Jones is one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the California
Constitution, that this court is a court of record, and that all parties and court personnel have
been properly apprised of the foregoing.
Exhibits to which this paper refers are as follows:
Exhibit-12: Register of Actions, dated June 16, 1999

Exhibit-13: CERTIFICATE
Exhibit-14: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, August 16, 1999
Exhibit-15: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, May 7, 1999,
Exhibit-16: Findings of fact
Exhibit-17: Writ of Error
On May 6, 1999, a WRIT OF ERROR, in writing, was entered into the record of the above-
entitled court. The writ orders "that the action for trespass is dismissed with prejudice if the
plaintiff does not file a first amended action on or before June 8, 1999" (Exhibit-17, page 4, lines
7 through 9). In effect, the order said that a penalty of dismissal with prejudice would be
imposed unless the plaintiff filed a first amended action by a date certain; there were no other
options open to the plaintiff but to file a first amended action or suffer the penalty.
In accordance with the writ, plaintiff filed the first amended action on June 7, 1999 (Exhibit-12).
The writ contains a provision that the magistrate, the defendants, and the plaintiff may file a brief
no later than June 7, 1999, "to show cause to this court why the order should not take effect or
should be modified" (Exhibit-17, page 4, lines 17 through 22). The record (Exhibit-12) shows
that no such brief was filed and no objection to the writ was made, and there were no appeals or
motions for mandamus. All persons (magistrate and defendants), fully informed and served,
tacitly accepted the writ.
On May 7, 1999, a hearing was held (Exhibit-15, Exhibit-12). During the hearing the magistrate,
the defendant by attorney, and the plaintiff were duly apprised of the writ and voiced no
objection. The hearing itself was conducted without conflict of any of the provisions of the writ.
On June 7, 1999, plaintiff presented for filing the 1ST AMENDED ACTION OF TRESPASS,
AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE to a person who identified herself as Iholda Fylings. Iholda
Fylings at first refused to accept the 1ST AMENDED ACTION because, she said, there was no
order on file authorizing the filing.
I informed Iholda Fylings that there was an order on file. She looked further, appeared to find the
order and appeared to read it. Iholda Fylings again refused to file the 1ST AMENDED ACTION.
I then requested that Fylings mark and file the paper as "FILED ON DEMAND". Iholda Fylings
appeared to reread the order; she marked the 1ST AMENDED ACTION "FILED ON
DEMAND," and returned a conformed copy to me.
For June 9, 1999, the record (Exhibit-13, Exhibit-12) shows that Deputy Clerk Iholda Fylings
certifies for the County Clerk that, "the document(s) was/were filed in error as The Court
directed said Clerk to reject the above document as there is no Leave of Court or Stipulation
from the other parties to file a First Amended Complaint." Then she goes on to petition "this
Court that a [sic] order be made vacating 1st Amended Action of Trespass and Trespass on the
Case" (Exhibit-13).
The court is invited to note that the 1ST AMENDED ACTION is an action and not a complaint.
The writ of error (Exhibit-17) does not make any mention of a complaint; instead it addresses the
filing of a first amended action. An action is distinct from a complaint, and one may not be
equated to the other.
According to the clerk's signed certificate (Exhibit-13), before the certificate was created the
clerk colluded with some entity which she identifies as the "Court". However there is no record
(Exhibit-12) that this court ever held any hearing regarding her certificate or regarding the
modification of the order (Exhibit-17). The court is invited to inquire as to, who is the bogus
"Court" or entity with whom the Clerk conferred before making the certificate.
For June 9, 1999, the record (Exhibit-12) shows that a paper (Exhibit-13) purporting to be a
"CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS" is filed. Without benefit of
hearing and presentation of all facts and witnesses (contrary to what I believe are the policies and
rules of this court), a purported order of some other court was entered into this court's record. On
August 16, 1999, in an unrelated hearing, Roy LeGumé admitted that the order was his. In his
admission he said, "That's where I vacated [the 1ST AMEND ACTION]" (Exhibit-14, page 3,
line 17. He confirmed (Exhibit-14 Page 3, lines 12 through 21) that it is his name on the paper
(Exhibit-13), the portion of which comprises the purported order. And he did this even though,
by his own admission, "I have no claim against you, Mr. Jones" (Exhibit-14, page 3, lines 8 and
9).
The record shows that Roy LeGumé is aware of the aforementioned writ (Exhibit-15, page 1,
lines 18 through 22; page 2, lines 14 through 15; page 3, lines 6 and 11, lines 25 and 26).
Further, in his other capacity as a court officer in the service of the State of California, I believe
that he understands or should understand the writ's full import and relevancy to this action, that
he understands or should understand his limits and lack of tribunal authority as a magistrate in
this court of record.
Absent from the record is any advance notice to any of the parties. In fact, I received no notice of
any pending motions or rulings. Also absent from the record is any indication that a hearing was
held (see Exhibit-12, page 3, entries in date sequence). I believe the alleged contemnors secretly
acted extempore on their own volition without any of the interested parties participating in the
process, and in so acting they exceed any authority they were granted by this court of record.
For the purpose of this motion only, the court is invited to adopt the rule system native to the
State of California. Roy LeGumé has expressed his preference for the State of California rule
system over the Federal rule system declared to be in effect by this court and the State of
California (see Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897; see Exhibit-15, page 4, lines 17 and 18;
page 5, lines 17 through 19). If he must suffer the pains of breaking the rules, let him be subject
to the rules of his own free will choosing. This courts attention is invited to the following
portions of the California Code of Civil Procedure:
Sec. 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings

service;
6. Rescuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of
such court;
7. Unlawfully detaining a witness, or party to an action while going to, remaining at, or returning
from the court where the action is on the calendar for trial;
Sec. 1897. The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other
written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its
Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States.
By association with Roy LeGumé, Iholda Fylings may have a concordant preference for
California Code of Civil Procedure over Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court is invited to
clarify that.
At all times herein mentioned, Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé had the ability to comply with
the writ and continue to have the ability to do so by withdrawing their certificate and order
(Exhibit-13).
At all times herein mentioned, the writ has remained in full force and effect.
Plaintiff alleges that Iholda Fylings's and Roy LeGumé's alleged contempt is willful and with
intent to frustrate the processes of this court of record and to deprive plaintiff of the benefits to
which he is entitled under the writ.
WHEREFORE, I, the affiant herein, pray that this court either issue an order requiring
respondents Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé herein, to show cause, if any they have, why the
court should not find each individually in contempt of court by reason of their violation of the
writ, as alleged above; or find Iholda Fylings and Roy LeGumé each individually in contempt of
court by reason of their violation of the writ, as alleged above; whichever the court deem proper.
Further, I invite the court to use its discretion to determine whether or not this court of record
should send, in accordance with Commission Rule 109(a), a written notification of its finding to
the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this affidavit
was executed in the county of Calamity, California on September 27, 1999.
__________________________________

William Jones
CASE CONTENTS
Transcript

DEPARTMENT 666
October 14, 1999
PAGE-LINE
1-08 THE COURT: Number, I guess, the law and
1-09 motion, six.
1-10 Mr. Jones,. Jones versus Smith, et al.
1-12 THE COURT: How are you?
1-14 THE COURT: I don't see the other side. I
1-15 guess - -
1-16 MR. JONES: This side didn't -- this issue
1-17 doesn't concern the other side. -
1-18 THE COURT: Well, everything on a case
1-19 concerns the other side.
1-21 THE COURT: And they - - they should have been
1-22 noticed, really. But that's okay.
1-23 What other hearings - - this is on your motion
1-24 to have, I guess, myself and Iholda Fylings, who is
1-25 one of our supervising clerks, to be held in contempt.
1-26 MR. JONES: That's correct.
2-01 THE COURT: And the Court read -- you're
2-02 moving party -- moving papers and your statements, and
2-03 I have all these documents in the file. And I did some
2-04 research on this yesterday.
2-05 Do you have anything you wish to add,
2-06 Mr. Jones?
2-07 MR. JONES: The only question I have at this
2-08 point in time concerns Miss Fylings's certified
2-09 document where she states that she was directed to do
2-10 what she did. My question would be, who is the entity
2-11 that ordered her to do so? I do not know who that
2-12 would be at this time.
2-13 THE COURT: Well, if you looked in the file,
2-14 there's a certificate and order vacating documents
2-15 which says filed June the 9th that I signed on
2-16 June the 9th that bears my signature. And it's in the
2-17 file too, okay.
2-18 MR. JONES: You're the entity who directed
2-19 her to to what she did?
2-20 THE COURT: I said, "Pursuant to the
2-21 Certificate of the Clerk and good cause appearing, it
2-22 is hereby ordered that the first-amended action of
2-23 trespass on the case is hereby vacated."
2-24 MR. JONES: Okay. I understand that aspect
2-25 of the certification, but she states she was directed
2-26 to do so.
3-02 MR. JONES: I wish to know the entity that
3-03 directed her to do that.
3-04 THE COURT: I did. I just said I did. The
3-05 California Superior Court did, State of California.
3-06 MR. JONES: That's the only point I need to

3-07 clarify at this point in time.
3-08 THE COURT: In and for the County of Calamity
3-09 - - the Superior Court, by myself, in and for
3-10 the County of Calamity. It's right in the file.
3-11 MR. JONES: It's -- I didn't see that the way
3-12 it read. That's my inquiry.
3-13 THE COURT: Anything else you wish to add?
3-14 MR. JONES: No. If anybody else has anything
3-15 to say in matter - -
3-16 THE COURT: I do, in terms of ruling.
3-18 THE COURT: California -- and I've spoken to
3-19 you before about - - we may have a difference of legal
3-20 opinion here, but I've spoken to you before about the
3-21 fact that you brought the lawsuit in the State of
3-22 California, Superior Court. And that you would,
3-23 therefore, because nobody is compeling you to utilize
3-24 our facilities, but you have chosen to file the lawsuit
3-25 against the people who you had a traffic accident --
3-26 allegedly had a traffic accident with, some time ago
4-01 and--
4-02 MR. JONES: Excuse me, could you speak up a
4-03 bit?
4-04 THE COURT: Yes. You -- I hope you don't
4-05 have a tape recording going again, Mr. Jones.
4-06 MR. JONES: I no, I haven't.
4-07 THE COURT: I don't care. You have to ask.
4-08 MR. JONES: No, I'm asking because I cannot

4-09 hear you.
4-10 THE COURT: If you do, I'll consider your
4-11 question. I don't care, frankly, but you have to ask.
4-12 And the Rules of Court, and I told you
4-13 before, and that's what I'm trying to inform you of
4-14 now, you've chosen this as your forum to bring the
4-15 business dispute into.
4-16 And -- and when you're lawsuit you're
4-17 litigating is in the Superior Court, I notified you
4-18 previously, that I'm obligated because of my position.
4-19 And because you brought the lawsuit utilizing the
4-20 Superior Court of the State of California, and I'm --
4-21 and nothing - - nobody is compelling you to use this
4-22 forum, I am telling you that, and I've told you
4-23 previously, that the rules have to be followed as
4-24 established by the California Judicial Counsel and the
4-25 California State Legislature.
4-26 When they adopted the California Code of
5-01 Civil Procedure and those rules that govern our
5-02 proceedings in the Trial Court, California Code of
5-03 Civil Procedure section 1209, that's 1-2-0-9, provides
5-04 a list of acts or admissions which constitute contempt.
5-05 Section 1209, in, no manner, allows for a
5-06 Court to hold itself in contempt on the motion of a
5-07 party to a case being heard by the Court.
5-08 Additionally, you have failed to claim that
5-09 the clerk, Iholda Fylings, committed any of the acts
5-10 or admissions that constitute contempt under section
5-11 1209 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

5-12 Therefore, your motion is entirely devoid of
5-13 merit, and I so rule and deny the motion.
5-14 MR. JONES: Okay. Well, for the record, I
5-15 object.
5-16 THE COURT: I understand that.
5-18 THE COURT: All right. I don't know when the
5-19 next court hearing is, Mr. Jones.
5-20 MR. JONES: I -- at this point, there's a CMC
5-21 scheduled for Monday.
5-22 THE COURT: Monday. Okay, I'll see you on
5-23 Monday then.
5-24 MR. JONES: Okay. Have a good weekend.
5-25 I'm going to need a copy of that.
5-26 THE COURT: You need a transcript?
6-02 THE COURT: Okay. She will make arrangements
6-03 with you.
CASE CONTENTS
William Jones
Nowhere, California
COUNTY OF CALAMITY

)
Plaintiff, ) RULING
v. )
) (CONFIDENTIAL
) TIME: 8:30 a.m.
)
)
________________________________)_____________________________________________
accordingly:
SUMMARY
SEALING OF RECORDS
APPEARANCES
1047.]
U.S. 516.]

Edition, p. 626.]
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
425, 426]
Code, Sec. 808.]
...

service;
...
...
...
CCP 1211.
Procedure]
followings rules:

a judge.40
jurisdiction.
THE COURT
WILLIAM JONES
Private Attorney
=====================================================
NOTE-01
NOTE-02
NOTE-03
NOTE-04
NOTE-05
NOTE-06
NOTE-07
NOTE-08
Ibid.
NOTE-09
Ibid., lines 17-20
NOTE-10
NOTE-11
Ibid.
NOTE-12
NOTE-13
NOTE-14
NOTE-15
NOTE-16
NOTE-17
NOTE-18
4th Ed., 425, 426]
NOTE-19
to do so.
MAGISTRATE: Uh-huh.
NOTE-20
Ibid.
NOTE-21
NOTE-22
NOTE-23
NOTE-24
NOTE-25
NOTE-26
NOTE-27
pp471-472
NOTE-28
NOTE-29
NOTE-30
(1793) pp471-472.]
NOTE-31
NOTE-32
425, 426]
NOTE-33
Edition, p 899
NOTE-34
NOTE-35
NOTE-36

service;
NOTE-37
SENECA, Medea.
NOTE-38
NOTE-39
NOTE-40
CASE CONTENTS
Transcript

DEPARTMENT 666
May 5, 2000
PAGE-LINE
01-14 Smith.
01-16 case today?
01-22 Complaint?

02-10 agree to it.

03-13 Action.
04-04 than that.


05-08 now.
05-22 something.
06-02 resolved.

CASE CONTENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A "minute order" issued by a judge is not part of the record.
RECORD
The proceedings of the courts of common law are records. But every minute made by a clerk of a
court for his own future guidance in making up his record is not a record. 4 Wash. C.C. 698. See
10 Penn. St. 157; 2 Pick. Mass. 448; 4 N. II. 450; 6 id. 567; 5 Ohio St. 545; 3 Wend. N.Y. 267; 2
Vt. 573; 6 id. 580; 5 Day, Conn. 363; 3 T. B. Monr. Ky. 63.
"The Common-Law Record consists of the Process, the Pleadings, the Verdict and the
Judgment. After Judgment, such Errors were Reviewable by Writ of Error. Errors which
occurred at the Trial were not part of the Common-Law Record, and could be Reviewed by a
Motion for a New Trial, after Verdict and before Judgment; by Statute, such Errors could be
Reviewed after judgment by incorporating them into the Record by means of a Bill of
Exceptions. It was therefore essential to keep clearly in mind the distinction between Matter of
Record and Matter of Exception.
"UNDER the ancient practice, the Proceedings in a litigated case were Entered upon the
Parchment Roll, and when this was completed, the end product became known as the Common-
Law Record. It consisted of Four Parts, the Process, which included the Original Writ and the
Return of the Sheriff, by which the Court acquired Jurisdiction over the defendant; the Pleadings,
presented by the Parties in the prescribed order to develop an Issue of Law or of Fact, and which
included the Declaration and all subsequent Pleadings, together with the Demurrers, if any; the
Verdict; and the Judgment. These Four Elements formed the Common-Law Record, but it should
be observed that at the point where the Retrospective Motions come into play, the Record has not
been developed beyond the Stage of Entering the Verdict upon the Roll. At this point it should
also be recalled that between the time when the Pleadings Terminated in an Issue, which Joinder
in Issue was duly Recorded on the Parchment Roll, and the time when an Entry of the Verdict
was made, nothing was Recorded on the Parchment Roll. The reason for this was that between
the Joinder of Issue and the Rendition of the Verdict, the Trial takes place, and what occurs
during this Trial does not Appear upon the Face of the Common-Law Record. Thus, Offers and
Rejection of Evidence, the Court’s Instruction of the Jury, or its Refusal to Instruct as requested
by Counsel, or any Misconduct Connected with the Trial, such as Prejudicial Remarks on the
Part of the Court, and the like—that is—any Error that occurs at the Trial—cannot be corrected
by resort to the Common-Law Record because not Apparent Upon its Face. Such Errors were
preserved only in the notes made by the Presiding Judge, or in his memory, and were reviewable,
after Verdict and before Final Judgment, by a Motion for New Trial made before the Court En
Banc at Westminster, within four days after the Commencement of the Next Term following the
Rendition of the Verdict. As each of the Judges of the Court had Motions of a similar character
coming up for decision from the Trials over which they had presided, the natural inclination of
each Judge was to support the Rulings of his brother Jurists, and thus Overrule the Motion for a
New Trial. Furthermore, Errors that occurred at the Trial were not Reviewable after Judgment on
Writ of Error, because Not Apparent on any one of the Four Parts of the Common-Law Record.
To remedy this Defect, Parliament enacted Chapter 31 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285,6
which provided for Review of such Errors through the use of what came to be known as a Bill of
Exceptions.
"Thus, it appears that in four out of five Retrospective Motions, the Court is permitted to
consider only Defects Apparent Upon the Face of Part of the Common-Law Record—the
Process, the Pleadings, and the Verdict—and Errors Occurring at the Trial were regarded as
extraneous and not to be considered in rendering Judgment upon the Motions. Matters
extraneous to or outside of the Record could be tested after Verdict and before Judgment only by
a Motion for a New Trial. A distinction is made between Matter of Record and Matter of
Exception, Matter of Record referring to those Errors Apparent upon the Face of the Common-
Law Record and hence Reviewable after Final Judgment upon a Writ of Error, and Matter of
Exception referring to those Errors which Occurred at the Trial, and were Not Apparent on the
Face of the Common-Law Record, hence Reviewable after Final Judgment only by incorporating
such Errors into the Record by means of a Bill of Exceptions, as authorized by Chapter 31 of the
Statute of Westminster II in 1285."
Koffler: Common Law Pleading 567-568
Proceedings in courts of chancery are said not to be, strictly speaking, records; but they are so
considered. Gresley, Ev. 101. And see 8 Mart. La. N. S. 303; 1 Rawle, Penn. 381; 8 Yorg. Tenn.
142; 1 Pet. C. C. 352.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)
MINUTE
In practice. A memorandum of what takes place in court, made by authority of the court. From
these minutes the record is afterwards made up.
Toulier says they are so called because the writing in which they were originally was small; that
the word is derived from the Latin minuta (scriptura), in opposition to copies which were
delivered to the parties, and which were always written in a larger hand. 8 Toullier, n. 413.
Minutes are not considered as any part of the record. 1 Ohio, 268. See 23 Pick. Mass. 184.
MINUTE BOOK
A book kept by the clerk or prothonotary of a court, in which minutes of its proceedings are
entered.
MORE LAWNOTES
CASE CONTENTS
Definition
Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobis Residant
Quae = What
Coram Vobis = Before you,
Coram Nobis = Before us, ourselves, the king
Residant = resident, i.e. in this place
Writ of Error Coram Nobis.

Order of error, before us [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct our own error.
Order issued from a court to itself or its own personnel to correct an error in procedure or
judgment.
Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobis Residant.

Order of error, what before us in this place [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct what is our own error in this place.
Order issued from a court to itself or its own personnel to correct an error in procedure or
judgment.
Writ of Error Coram Vobis

Order of error, before you [to correct].
Modern English: Order to correct your error.
Order issued from a higher court to a lower court to correct an error in judgment.
BACK
Nitty Gritty Law Library

presents
Sovereignty
MORE DETAILED INFORMATION SOVEREIGN:
Wise men are instructed by reason; "The person or
Men of less understanding, by body having
experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity; independent and
The beasts by nature. supreme
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius
Cicero authority."
Serenity Prayer Websters New
Health Without good health, nothing else
is important. International
Attitude A positive attitude is absolutely Dictionary,
necessary for winning.
Introduction to Common Law Lecture (4 Second Edition
hours) (1953), Page 2406
Language and Dictionaries Which
English language do you speak? In other words,
Honor & Dishonor a sovereign is not
People or citizen? Which one are you?
Bill of Rights All rights are available to accountable to
the People of the U.S. higher authority.
But, only some privileges (not rights)
are granted to U.S. citizens.
Sovereignty -- notes and case law. The Constitution
sovereignty lecture (8 hours)
for the United
States of America,
Preamble,
acknowledges the
people as the
creators of the
United States of
America. A
"people" is
"sovereign"
PREAMBLE.
"We the People of
the United States,
in Order to form a
more perfect
Union, establish
Justice, insure
domestic
Tranquility,
provide for the
common defence,
promote the
general Welfare,
and secure the
Blessings of
Liberty to
ourselves and our
Posterity, do
ordain and
establish this
Constitution for
the United States
of America."
There is nothing
in the Constitution
that authorizes the
created entity to
commandeer its
creator. The USA
is specifically
restricted:
AMENDMENT
IX. "The
enumeration in the
Constitution, of
certain rights,
shall not be
construed to deny
or disparage
others retained by
the people."
AMENDMENT
X. "The powers
not delegated to
the United States
by the
Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to
the States, are
reserved to the
States
respectively, or to
the people."
NOTE WELL!
In legal
proceedings, only
identify yourself
as a people. Never
identify yourself
as a citizen or as a
"sovereign-
citizen". A people,
i.e. a sovereign, is
the "independent
and supreme
authority". A
citizen is a
subject, i.e. a
slave to higher
authority.
AMENDMENT
XIV. "Sect. 1. All
persons born or
naturalized in the
United States, and
subject to the
jurisdiction
thereof, are
citizens of the
United States and
of the State
wherein they
reside. ..."
Remember, you
are foremost a
people, but you
can be a citizen
for some
purposes, and a
not a citizen for
other purposes.
The choice is
yours to decide
anytime,
whenever you
wish.
As one of the

people you have
all natural rights.
You are entitled to
all the rights
which formerly
belonged to the
King by his
prerogative (so
long as you do not
encroach on the
sovereignty of
another). You are
outside and above
the Constitution.
Not all of the Bill
of Rights [First 10
Amendments of
Constitution]
apply to citizens.
"Civil Rights" are
actually "Roman
Civil Law / Civil
Privileges"
defined by statute
for the citizens.
PREVIOUS HOME NEXT FOUNDATION

presents
Republic
Republic vs. democracy A Republic is best
Do you know the difference?
The Army knows! explained by first
California Admission to Union explaining a Democracy.
a Republic, not a democracy.
In a pure Democracy

the people argue among
themselves. The
argument is resolved by
voting. 51 beats 49.
Whatever the majority
says is imposed upon the
minority. The minority
has no rights. The
majority doesn't need
rights. In other words,
the sovereignty is placed
in the group. It is the
group that is not
accountable to higher
authority. The members
of the group are the
citizens, and they must
obey the dictates of the
group. In the long run, a
Democracy becomes a
dictatorship of the
majority.
Except for two points,

a Republic is identical in
all aspects to a
Democracy. In a
Republic the people
argue among themselves,
just as is done in a
Democracy. The
argument is resolved by
voting. However,
because each individual
People is sovereign, the
decision of the majority
can only be advice to the
individual. The logic is
simple: If the group can
impose its will upon the
individual, the individual
would no longer be
sovereign, and you
would no longer have a
Republic; it would be
converted into a
Democracy. At best, the
group is limited to
advising the individual.
If a group is
unreasonable, the
individual sovereign is
free to ignore the advice.
In the long run, a
republic ensures the
freedom of the
individual.
The other feature of a

republic is that the
individual may act
directly, or he can
delegate a task to his
representatives. In a
Republic, that is why you
can use the governent
courts, or you can create
your own court.
presents
Court
Court -- the substantive COURT. a stage upon
definition.
Court of Record -- 4 1/2 which the sovereign
substantive requirements conducts his show so as to
to qualify.
Also, see Nisi Prius satisfy the rest of the world
Court -- a court of no that his decision is a good
record, by prior
agreement. one. That's the practical
Superior Court vs definition. The legal
Inferior Court and Tax
Court. definition is: The person and
Common Law -- the
suit of the sovereign.
concept.
Magna Carta -- COURT OF RECORD. A
Foundation of liberty.
Confirmatio Cartarum, court of record must
Requires officials to conform to the first four (4)
accept Magna Carta as
common law. requirements:
Interpretation of Magna
Carta and Confirmatio
Cartarum. 1. power to fine or
Court etiquette -- some imprison for contempt
unwritten rules.
Habeas Corpus -- What it 2. keeps a record of the
really is. proceedings
Procedure 3. proceeding according
A prudent person foresees to the common law (not
danger and takes precautions.
The simpleton goes blindly on
statutes or codes)
and suffers the consequences. 4. the tribunal is
Proverbs 22:3, NLT
independent of the
magistrate (judge)
5. generally has a seal
(optional) (example)
You will only find all the

above Items in Black's Law
Dictionary, First, Second,
Third, and Fourth Editions.
The Fifth and later editions
only show items 1 & 2. The
powers-that-be could not
eliminate items 3 & 4 from
the law, so they eliminated
them from the reference
books.
As a general rule-of-thumb,
older dictionaries are law
oriented; modern ones are
more policy oriented.
Courts have definite

procedures. 1215.org
provides law concepts, but
JURISDICTIONARY.COM
does a better job teaching
procedure. Consider
purchasing their course
subscription.
New to this site? Before you begin you should have a general knowledge of how this strategy
works.
IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, please understand that herein is a completely different
perspective on the law. This is not business as usual. Your education was primarily geared to
equity law. This site is primarily about common law, which is similar, but sufficiently different
that to benefit from it you must be prepared to revamp your perspective.
IF YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY and you are uncomfortable about your knowledge of
the law, consider purchasing the compact 2-day law course from Jurisdictionary. Though based
on equity procedures, it will be a major help for you to understand the common law procedures.
Don't be part of the pro se problem! After absorbing that information you should be ready to
learn the advance information here.
DISCLAIMER: Jurisdictionary pays referral commissions. We do not accept any. Our referral
is genuine, not influenced by $$$.
READ EVERYTHING IN THIS WEB PAGE. As you progress, click on each underlined link
and read the linked page. The linked page may have more links, but ignore them. Don't chase
the links! Just click on the BACK button to return to this page, then click on the next underlined
link. It is not important that you immediately understand everything you read. What is important
is that you get "eyeball exposure" to all the information . The understanding will come later
because you will recall the information as you work with it and discuss it with others. NOTE:
The lectures are optional. Skip the lectures if you don't have time.
THEN, look at the examples. They are from actual cases in Southern California. Once
you have been thus exposed to the information, we will be much more effective in our
conversation. If you send e-mail, be certain to mention something about the law or this website
in the subject area.
WARNING: It is impossible for you to learn that which you think you already know.
Wise men are instructed by Sovereignty -- notes and case law. Upon
reason; sovereignty lecture (8 hours) completion
Men of less understanding, by Republic vs. democracy -- Do you of the
experience; know the difference? The Army instructions,
The most ignorant, by knows! study the
necessity; California Admission to Union -- a example and
The beasts by nature. Republic, not a democracy. 1215.org/q
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Common Law -- the concept.
Tullius Cicero Court -- the substantive definition. then continue
Serenity Prayer Court of Record -- 4 1/2 substantive
Health Without good health, requirements to qualify. to next page.
nothing else is important. Also, see Nisi Prius Court -- a court
Attitude A positive attitude is of no record, by prior agreement.
absolutely necessary for winning. Superior Court vs Inferior Court
Introduction to Common Law and Tax Court.
Lecture (4 hours) Court etiquette -- some unwritten rules.
Language and Dictionaries Which Habeas Corpus -- What it really is.
English language do you speak? Confirmatio Cartarum, Requires
Honor & Dishonor officials to accept Magna Carta as
People or citizen? Which one are common law.
you? Magna Carta -- Foundation of liberty.
Bill of Rights All rights are Interpretation of Magna Carta and
available to the People of the U.S. Confirmatio Cartarum.
But, only some privileges (not A prudent person foresees danger and takes
rights) are granted to U.S. citizens. precautions.
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the
consequences. Proverbs 22:3, NLT

William Jones The Foundation For This Case Is A Traffic Accident (2018 - 11 - 13 20 - 41 - 07 UTC) (2019 - 04 - 02 18 - 57 - 51 UTC) - 000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

William Jones The Foundation For This Case Is A Traffic Accident (2018 - 11 - 13 20 - 41 - 07 UTC) (2019 - 04 - 02 18 - 57 - 51 UTC) - 000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIS CASE IS THE MOTHER EXAMPLE AND TRAINING FOR ALL

PROCEDURES TO DEFENSE ON ANY CASE

William Jones ) CASE NO. ________

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2. The complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

OBJECTION TO A PLEADING MAY BE TAKEN BY DEMURRER

IF DEFECTS APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE PLEADING

Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10 states in pertinent part:

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS UNCERTAIN,

Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10 states in pertinent part:

"Plaintiffs’ complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible."

The complaint of William Jones is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.

AN ATTORNEY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COURT AND

COUNSEL WITH A STREET ADDRESS AT WHICH HE MAY BE SERVED

DATED: January 5, 1999 Transcript LAW OFFICES OF LOWE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

HONORABLE ROY LeGUMÉ PRESIDING

1-09 MR. SMITH: Good

1-10 behalf of the defendant.

1-11 THE COURT: Mr. Jones

1-12 MR. JONES: Good

1-13 THE COURT: You're to

1-14 device or leave the courtroom,

1-15 the order of the Court.

1-16 MR. JONES: Excuse me,

1-18 THE COURT: That's a

1-19 MR. JONES: I have a

1-20 cannot hear very well.

1-21 THE COURT: Well, we

1-22 I do not allow tape-recordings

1-23 California Rule of Court,

1-24 MR. JONES: Well, your

1-25 afford her services.

2-01 care of that, also

2-02 MR. JONES: And how

2-03 THE COURT: I -- well,

2-04 some procedures to you. You

2-05 as I explain the proceedings

2-06 to turn it off, okay?

2-07 MR. JONES: Very well.

2-08 THE COURT: Are you an

2-09 MR. JONES: No .

2-10 THE COURT: You filed a

2-11 court. I have to hold you to

2-12 hearing me?

2-13 MR. JONES: I -- yes.

2-14 THE COURT: Tell me if

2-16 MR. JONES: Yeah. If

2-17 little bit, please.

2-18 THE COURT: All right.

2-19 the same rules that I do

2-20 law in my courtroom, okay?

2-23 MR. JONES: Which

2-24 THE COURT: -- in other

2-25 you to the same standard as

2-26 my courtroom, including the

3-01 knowledge of all of the Rules

3-02 MR. JONES: Which Rules

3-03 talking about?

3-04 THE COURT: California

3-05 period. It's called,