Aurora Bautista Quicho
207 Albatross Ln.
Fountain Valley, California
Attornatus Privatus

SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SOUTH BAY DIVISION 3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF      )  Case No. BC324176
CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,             )
                                )  ORDER TO DISCHARGE
		Plaintiff,            )  ALL CHARGES IN THE INTEREST
                                )  OF JUSTICE, WITH PREJUDICE;
	vs.                        )  ORDER TO CEASE BARRATRY;
                                )  ORDER TO RELEASE PRISONER;
Aurora Bautista Quicho, One     )  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
of the people of California     )  
(the sovereignty) jus soli,     )  [SERVED UPON THE SUPERIOR 
nunc pro tunc.                  )  COURT OF LOS ANGELES,
                                )  CASE NUMBER YA058902, ET AL.]
		Defendant.            )
________________________________)_______________________________

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:

I

ORDER

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. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented.

THIS ORDER IS NOT A MOTION OR MOVING PAPER, but an order from the court of record Case Number BC324176 of Aurora Bautista Quicho, a people of California, to the Los Angeles Superior Court, the District Attorney, and the Deputy District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, California, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and all persons acting in concert with them.

II

BACKGROUND

Aurora Bautista Quicho has the status of "one of the people of California, nunc pro tunc."  The people of California have the prerogative of claiming Sovereign Immunity in cases such as this one.  This extraordinary attack by the State of California and others against one of the people of California, Aurora Bautista Quicho, requires this atypical method of dealing with the charges.  Aurora Bautista Quicho is SUI JURIS and not represented by attorney as imposed and assumed (over the objections of Aurora Bautista Quicho) by the judges and others of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Case No. YA058902.

THE STATUS OF THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE SOVEREIGNS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IS A NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION UPON WHICH THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MAY NOT TRESPASS.

No disrespect is intended toward the judges of the Superior Court of California, for they are the mirror of the sovereign people of California: the people's agents.  As long as they are on the bench, the people of California can never be nonsuited or fail to appear in court. 

In the past, Aurora Bautista Quicho successfully asserted her status, as a people of California, and expects that her wish and will, as one of the people of California, be respected and acknowledged. This is our system of justice:  it must be respected though you may not personally agree.

The judges and officers of the Superior Court, and the District Attorneys Office do not have the same status as enjoyed by the people of California:  they are persons as defined in the Penal Code and subject to Penal Code § 37 and §38: they both owe allegiance to the state (the people of California).  There is no qualified immunity for those persons who misbehave in this case.  Everyone is aware of the status of Aurora Bautista Quicho as one "of the people of California."  The people of California are the state. 

If a "person," (not one of the people) as defined in the Penal Code, comes before the an inferior Superior Court which is neither acting as a “court of record” nor proceeding according to the common law, the judge has two primary functions: Magistrate and Tribunal.  

When a sovereign people of California is in her court of record, as is this case, she assumes the mantle of the tribunal, independent of the Magistrate.  The judge's role in the 
proceedings is limited to that of a Magistrate, authorized only to dismiss the case with prejudice. 

The people of California expect judicial integrity from those who sit on the bench as their mirror image: it is the judge's duty, obligation, and responsibility to do the wish and will of the people of California.  

Likewise, the District Attorney has no constitutional authority to charge those with the status of the "people of California," with Penal Code offenses in a court not of record and not nisi prius.

In the above-entitled court, all of the served counterdefendants either demurred or defaulted.  No facts are in controversy.  This case turned on a single question of law:  Did the defendant actors have jurisdiction?  The facts presented to the court show that none of the defendants was injured; there is no corpus delicti.  Further, the subsequent courts involved were shown to lack jurisdiction, thus they were courts of inferior jurisdiction, even though they were otherwise courts of general jurisdiction.  Further, defendants acknowledge that when jurisdiction was challenged, they ignored the challenge and assumed the jurisdiction without proof.  This court of record proceeded to judgment on the demurrers and judgment on the defaults.

Aurora Bautista Quicho's ORDER TO DISCHARGE is rooted in the history and philosophy of our system of constitutional law and justice in California.

All California constitutional courts are courts of record.   All courts of record proceed according to the common law.  Without sovereign decree, statutes and codes have no standing in a court of record.  If a Superior Court proceeds outside the Constitutional requirement to be a court of record, then the Superior Court becomes a Superior Court in name only and is in law fact an inferior or special court that is inferior to any court of record.

“The law disregards trifles.”  Civil Code Section 3533.
This order to dismiss is not a trifle, and any OBJECTION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE TO DEFENDANT'S ORDER TO DISMISS THIS CASE AND HER PROCLAMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY SHALL BE OVERRULED.

California has two distinct legal systems: common law of England and Roman Civil Law.  The common law is the superior law of the people.  And the civil law is the special or inferior law of the government agency.  Because the United States Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government (not a democracy), Article IV, section 4, of the United States Constitution, the law of the people outranks the law of the government.  Access to the common law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  However, for lack of knowledge, most never have their "day in [common law] court" despite the constitutional guarantees.

In California there operates two constitutions: first, the de jure, constitution of “We the people of California,” 1849, passed by the people, for their republican form of government (the republic).  This 1849 constitution was submitted to the Congress of the United States of America, and California was “found to be republican in its form of government.”  

The second constitution is the de facto constitution of 1879, for, "We, the people of the State of California," the democracy.  There is no legislation relating to passage of this constitution by the people, and it has never been submitted to the Congress of the United States of America for review, as a "republican form of government." It was passed by "We, the people of the State of California".  This State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory.  As this one civil person consists of all the citizens, so its property consists of all the individual property of the citizens. It is una persona, unicum patrimonium.  

The District Attorney, through his Deputy District Attorney, has Charged Aurora Bautista Quicho with felonious acts.  Amazingly, despite the fact not one person has been injured or suffered any loss attributable to Aurora Bautista Quicho’s actions, under color of law she was forcibly carried away and imprisoned against her will.

At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment Aurora was duly engaged in good faith in a negotiation and purchase of a chose, and exercising her substantive right to contract with another at arms length.  Police officers, without good cause, interrupted the negotiations, then imprisoned Aurora Bautista Quicho.  During imprisonment the Kidnappers took further casual ill-considered actions to further imprison Aurora Bautista Quicho for up to three years without trial or due process.

From the moment she was taken away till the present, Aurora, under color of law, is kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.  Although she objected to the assumed jurisdiction, those who kept her imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of her demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of her liberty.  They continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction.  She was denied counsel of her choice.  She was forced to accept counsel not of her choice against her wishes.  Aurora Bautista Quicho continues to be subject, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of various persons.  

Under color of law Aurora was twice subjected to pseudo-psychological evaluation.  The first pseudo-psychological evaluation failed to satisfy her custodians.  The second pseudo-psychological-evaluation resulted in a star-chamber-court-ordered incarceration of up to three years...without any trial, and with the concurrence of the uninvited Judge-imposed Public Defender, and without opportunity for her to object.

What is that all about?  First, it is about exceeding jurisdiction against a people of California.  Behind that it is about assuming there is a crime committed, without checking the facts.  It is about presumption of guilt, until proven innocent. It is about refusing to hear the facts.  It is about raw power in rebellion against the sovereignty of the state.  By all appearances, the government has declared its independence from the people, so much so that it now appears to regard itself as the guardian, and the people as its ward. 

There is no cause to usurp jurisdiction under color of law.

Aurora Bautista Quicho was engaged in a normal business negotiation, except for one point:  she would not accept title or possession of the chose until the financial transaction was complete.  The chose would be paid for via a private check instead of a public check.  Private checks involve procedures unknown to the public check system and many so-called financial experts.  Although she informed the other party of the special procedures, and she informed the other party that she would not accept title or possession until the financial transactions were perfected, apparently, for reasons unknown, the other party or parties enlisted the willing aid of governmental agents to incarcerate her under color of law.

Again, what makes this all peculiar is that Aurora Bautista Quicho did not harm anyone, nor did she intend to harm anyone.  It raises a strange rhetorical question:  Is it now unlawful to negotiate a contract without prior state approval?  That appears incredulous on its face.

What we have is a people of California negotiating a contract without harming anyone or causing unjustifiable mental suffering.  No criminal liability can attach to Aurora Bautista Quicho for this act.  

On the other hand, the act of the agents from the State of California, namely that of interfering with a proper contract negotiation, kidnapping Aurora Bautista Quicho, and incarcerating her for several months, did cause "unjustifiable physical and mental suffering" to her. 

The defendant, Aurora Bautista Quicho May not be held to answer in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles for an alleged violation of the penal code.

There have been no common law crimes enforceable by the state for PERSONS, in California since the enactment of the Penal Code, which took effect on January 1, 1873.  People v. Whipple (1929) 100 CA 261.

“No act or omission, commenced after twelve o'clock noon of the day on which this Code takes effect as a law, is criminal or
punishable, except as prescribed or authorized by this Code, or by some of the statutes which it specifies as continuing in force and as not affected by its provisions, or by some ordinance, municipal, county, or township regulation, passed or adopted, under such statutes and in force when this Code takes effect.  Any act or omission commenced prior to that time may be inquired of, prosecuted, and punished in the same manner as if this Code had not been passed.” [California Penal Code §6]
 
The court of Aurora Bautista Quicho takes judicial notice of the enabling act of the California Penal Code: 
"The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:" 

In the name of the people of California, the Penal Code was enacted for "persons."  The word person does not include the people of California, the sovereignty. The Penal Code was enacted by the people for those with the status of "persons."

“(a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all writs and processes shall issue in their name.
(b) The style of all process shall be "The people of the State of California," and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.”  [California Government Code, §100]

Sovereignty is individual, not collective: those who wish to exercise their plenary power, for their own defense do so individually not in relationship to other people with the same status.  The people's message to their public servants comes through the Constitution.  That, which does not come through the Constitution, does not come at all.  The people of California have never expressed or stipulated to being tried and punished in their own courts, by their public servants. 

Neither the District Attorney nor his Deputy District Attorney may use the authority of the people of California against the people.  Those with the status of "people of California, are the sovereignty of California.

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own.  The sources below will show that sovereignty is a respected and valid concept that may be used, when needed, by the people of California.

II

LAW OF THE CASE

The law of the case is decreed as follows:

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 Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 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.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. 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. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 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 [1849] 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.]

Conspiracy against rights:  If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.  [18, USC 241]

Deprivation of rights under color of law:  Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.  [18, USC 242]

Property rights of citizens:  All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.  [42 USC 1982]

Civil action for deprivation of rights:  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.  For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [42 USC 1983]

Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:  Depriving persons of rights or privileges:  If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.  [42 USC 1985(3)]
 
Action for neglect to prevent:  Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased.  But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.  [42 USC 1986]

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].

The words "sovereign state" are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

FEDERALIST PAPERS, Federalist No. 49, Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison.  “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular. 

The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the past the present. 

The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. 

In the good name of the people of California,

So ordered, this ___ day of May, 2005.

WITNESS:  the SEAL of the COURT

THE COURT

by ____________________________
   Aurora Bautista Quicho
   Attornatus Privatus