William Jones 10000 Mount High Blvd. Nowhere, California Attornatus Privatus SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CALAMITY William Jones ) CASE NO. ________ ) Plaintiff, ) WRIT OF ERROR ) QUAE CORAM v. ) NOBIS RESIDANT ) ROBERT SMITH, father of ) MARY SMITH, a minor ) 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.