Aurora Bautista Quicho
207 Albatross Lane
Fountain Valley, California

Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION __

Aurora Bautista Quicho,          )  CASE NO.  ___________
                                 )
     Petitioner,                 )  PETITION FOR
                                 )  PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
  vs.                            )  (VERIFIED)
                                 )  
Mark S. Arnold, and              )  POINTS & AUTHORITIES
The Superior Court of California,)  
  Case No. YA058902,             )  CCP §§1084 et seq.
  People vs. Quicho              )  
                                 )  In re:
     Respondents.                )  
                                 )  Los Angeles Superior Court,
                                 )  People vs. Quicho,
                                 )  Case No. YA058902 (Criminal)
                                 )  
                                 )  Los Angeles Superior Court,
                                 )  Quicho vs. People, et al.,
                                 )  Case No. BC324176 (At Law)
                                 )  
---------------------------------)-----------------------------

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

2.  The appellate court may issue a writ of mandate to an inferior tribunal.  Further, a writ of mandate is enforceable by the appellate court.

3.  My interest in the writ of mandate is presently existing.  A writ of mandate would be beneficial to me, real and actual, direct and tangible.  A writ of mandate would result in my incarceration being terminated and my liberty being fully restored.  

SUMMARY

4.  The judge of an inferior court not of record has a duty 
(A)	to order the dismissal, with prejudice, of a criminal 
          case against me, 
(B)	to order my release from incarceration, and 
(C)	to order full restoration of my liberty.  

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

BACKGROUND

6.  On June 29, 2004 I was negotiating an agreement for the purchase of automobiles from an automobile dealership.  It was understood by all parties that I was paying for the automobiles with a private check which required special procedures in order to provide the funds.  It was understood that I would not accept delivery of the automobiles until the company received the funds.  No one was injured:  no one lost any property; no one lost any money.  No one was at risk of losing any property or money.

7.  While the negotiation was in progress, the police appeared and under color of law carried me away and imprisoned me against my will.  

8.  In an inferior court known as The Superior Court of the State of California, Case Number YA058902 (hereinafter “Inferior Court”), styled “People vs Quicho, in Torrance, California, under color of law (code) I was burdened with four charges:

COUNT 1:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459, 
          SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; 

COUNT 2:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §476a(a),
          NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK MULTIPLE CHECKS; 

COUNT 3:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459
          SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; and 

COUNT 4:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 476a(a) 
          NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK SINGLE CHECK, and 
          CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §186.11 
          PATTERN OF RELATED FELONY CONDUCT.

9.  Throughout all proceedings I objected to the jurisdiction.  I demanded proof of jurisdiction.  The judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders, all refused to respond or show any proof of jurisdiction.  (However, one judge did say, “You are under my jurisdiction, whether you like it or not.”  That was the closest any Inferior Court personnel came to justifying their de facto jurisdiction.)  For them it was enough that they had physical dominion over me; they also felt no need to legitimize their de facto jurisdiction.

10.  In November of 2004 in the capacity as one of the people of California, I filed in a court of record a counterclaim against the several judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders:  The Superior Court of the State of California, Case Number BC324176 (hereinafter “Constitutional Court” ), styled “Quicho vs People, et al., in Los Angeles, California,

11.  All of the defending judges, prosecutors, and uninvited public defenders demurred to the counterclaim.  None objected to my status as one of the people of California.  None object to the Constitutional Court being a court of record.  They each admitted the fact that they acted without jurisdiction, but claimed that they carried judicial immunity.  The Constitutional Court found that they did not have judicial immunity because, by their own admissions in their demurrers, they acted without lawful jurisdiction.  

12.  The Constitutional Court awarded judgment in my favor.  None objected.  Though in the judgment the defendants were invited to file their post-judgment objections, none moved for reconsideration of the judgment.  None filed a notice of appeal.  None appealed the judgment.  The judgment now stands without any legitimate sign of objection.  Exhibit “A” is the Constitutional Court’s judgment that accompanies this petition.

13.  Subsequently, the Constitutional Court ordered defendant (and respondent herein) Mark S. Arnold, who is the judge of the Inferior Court; and the Inferior Court to discharge with prejudice all charges nunc pro tunc, to order my release from incarceration, and to restore my full lawful liberty.  

14.  The order was an alternative order.  Though invited, neither Mark S. Arnold nor the Inferior Court filed any paper to show cause why the Constitutional Court order should not be obeyed.  Nevertheless, they continue to repeatedly disobey the order.  Twice Mark S. Arnold was found in direct contempt of the Constitutional Court and fined (once for $1, once for $100).  To date Mark S. Arnold has simply ignored all orders of the Constitutional Court.  To my knowledge he has not yet paid any of the fines to the County of Los Angeles.

15.  It appears to me that the Inferior Court is a judicial island respecting no law but its own, committed to causing me to lose my liberty and my common law substantive right to my own court:  jurisdiction is something to be taken for themselves, and they are answerable to no one but themselves.

16.  In the most recent finding of contempt (see Exhibit “C” that accompanies this petition) the Constitutional Court also issued a bench warrant to the sheriff to attach the body of the Mark S. Arnold if the sheriff cannot secure Mark S. Arnold’s performance of duties enumerated above.  I believe the order is not yet executed, and it will not be executed.

17.  After the Constitutional Court issued the bench warrant, I was visited in the Los Angeles County jail by three large intimidating male visitors, two well dressed and the other casually dressed.  They said that I would be punished for threatening a judge (something I would never do).  I asked for their business cards.  They refused.  I asked for their names.  They refused.  They told me that I was a “minority citizen of California.”  They implied that I was a lesser being, not entitled to all the natural rights of one of the people of California.  It appears to me that their sole purpose was to discriminate, harass and intimidate me into not asserting my rights as one of the people of California, and to cause me to give up or lose my Constitutional Court.  As of this date I still do not know who those persons are who imposed upon me in the jail.

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

19.  I, Aurora Bautista Quicho, as one of the people of California petition the above-entitled appellate court of record to issue a writ of mandate commanding respondent Inferior Court, Mark S. Arnold, and its judges to obey the lawful judgment and alternative [now final] order served upon it by the Superior Court of the State of California, Case Number BC324176, (hereinafter “Constitutional Court”) styled “Quicho vs. the People of the State of California, et al.”, in Los Angeles, California, and proceeding as a court of record.  

20.  The Constitutional Court issued a final judgment finding that the Inferior Court does not have jurisdiction over Aurora Bautista Quicho.  Subsequently the Constitutional Court issued the alternative order to the Inferior Court.  The alternative order was violated within direct view of the Constitutional Court, so the Constitutional Court then issued a summary finding of direct contempt.  A copy of the Constitutional Court judgment (EXHIBIT “A”), the alternative order (EXHIBIT “B”) and the contempt order (EXHIBIT “C”) are incorporated by reference as though fully stated herein.

21.  The said alternative order of the Constitutional Court commands as follows:

TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 
YA058902 -- SCILICET: JUDGES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPUTY 
PUBLIC DEFENDER (ALL OFFICERS OF THE COURT), CLERKS, 
SHERIFFS, BAILIFFS, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT 
WITH YOU:

COMES NOW THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT OF RECORD OF AURORA 
BAUTISTA QUICHO ON ITS OWN MOTION AND ORDERS AS 
FOLLOWS: That all barratry shall cease, and all of 
the following charges be DISCHARGED NUNC PRO TUNC, 
IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT DELAY, IN THE INTEREST OF 
JUSTICE, and WITH PREJUDICE:

COUNT 1:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459, 
          SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; 

COUNT 2:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §476a(a), 
          NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK MULTIPLE CHECKS; 

COUNT 3:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §459 
          SECOND DEGREE COMMERCIAL BURGLARY; and 

COUNT 4:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 476a(a) 
          NON-SUFFICIENT FUND CHECK SINGLE CHECK, and
          CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §186.11 PATTERN OF
          RELATED FELONY CONDUCT.

Further, it is ordered that the defendant be released immediately, without delay and with full restoration of lawful liberty.

Further, if the above order is not obeyed, then no later than Wednesday, June 1, 2005 you shall show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified, or why you should not be held in contempt of court.

22.  The alternative order of the Constitutional Court was timely served upon the Inferior Court, its judges, its officers, and interested parties.  Though given the opportunity, no opposing response was filed by the Inferior Court or any of the officers or parties.

23.  This verified petition for peremptory writ of mandate is presented to the above-entitled court of record (and not to a judge or justice) as described in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1085.

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

25.  Further grounds are that said subjects of this court willfully conspired to, and did contemptuously subvert this court’s order to restore my liberties.  For example, the officers of the Inferior Court have physically beaten, Tasered, injured, and jailed the 73-year-old female arthritic process server of the Constitutional Court after she served a Constitutional Court order upon the Inferior Court.  The consequence of said contemptuous behavior is to unlawfully interfere with the conduct of the business, dignity, and authority of the Constitutional Court, and consequently the natural rights of this petitioner to orderly due process and liberty.

26.  It should be noted that during all proceedings in the Inferior Court, at all times I, Aurora Bautista Quicho, maintained my position:  I always objected (when allowed) to every exercise of false jurisdiction that was asserted under color of law.  I never voluntarily agreed to be represented by any defender public or private, and I always objected to such forced representation.  All entries in the Inferior Court’s Case Summary which lead one to believe that I voluntarily participated in the proceedings, or that I voluntarily accepted the forced representation are false.

27.  WHEREFORE, I, the affiant herein, pray that this court issue a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the respondents and all persons acting in concert with them to obey the order of the Constitutional Court.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct, and that this was executed in the county of Los Angeles, California on August 22, 2005.

	Aurora Bautista Quicho