William Jones
10000 Mount High Blvd.
Nowhere, California











                  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

                       COUNTY OF CALAMITY



William Jones                   ) CASE NO.  ________
                                )
    Plaintiff,                  ) AFFIDAVIT OF
                                ) WILLIAM JONES
v.                              ) 
                                ) IN SUPPORT OF
ROBERT SMITH, father of         ) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
MARY SMITH, a minor             ) (CONFIDENTIAL
and STATE OF CALIFORNIA         ) PERSONNEL MATTER)
                                ) 
     Defendants.                ) DATE:  October 12, 1999
                                ) 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:

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