1 Your Name

Address
2 City, State
In Propria Persona
3 BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE ONLY

8 AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME], [COURT NAME]

10 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Docket No. XXXXXXXXXXXX

CALIFORNIA,
11 COMMON LAW WRIT OF ERROR
Plaintiff; CORAM VOBIS
12
v.
13
Your Name,
14
Defendant.
15

16

17 TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY AND

18 HIS COMMISSIONERS IN THE INFERIOR COURT OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED

19 MATTER:

20 I submit to you this Writ of Error Coram Vobis by way of special appearance to bring to

21 your Honor's attention an error and open contempt committed in a superior court of California in

22 the County of [County Name].

23

24

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 1 of 7
 1 INTRODUCTION

2 1. On [DATE], the Defendant in the above-captioned matter did in fact appear specially

3 and not generally for the purposes of challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The court did not

4 properly enter the appearance on the record, and in fact lacking personal jurisdiction proceeded

5 to enter a “not guilty” plea on behalf of the Defendant and set a date for a trial.

6 2. It is well established that a court initially acquires no personal jurisdiction over a

7 party appearing specially for the purposes of testing the jurisdiction of a court.

8 3. Notwithstanding the above, at the time the commissioner entered a “not guilty” plea,

9 no criminal charges were preferred by the District Attorney. As examined infra, a “not guilty”

10 plea can only be entered against a criminal complaint preferred by the District Attorney, and in a

11 court having proper jurisdiction over a defendant. Absent a criminal complaint, the court lacked

12 jurisdiction to proceed on the matter and the commissioner had no authority to accept a plea from

13 the Defendant nor enter one on his behalf, and doing so constituted a contempt of court.

14 4. All California courts are subject to the findings in Auto Equity Sales Inc. v. Superior

15 Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, establishing the doctrine of stare decisis in all California courts.

16 The California Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals

17 exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior

18 jurisdiction. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of

19 superior jurisdiction as it is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court.

20 BASIS OF THE COURT'S ERROR

21 5. This action was initiated by a California Highway Patrol officer arresting a motorist

22 (Defendant) without warrant for having allegedly committed a crime in his presence.

23 6. The instant matter concerns a violation of Cal. Veh. Code §4000(a)(1), an infraction.

24 7. A crime is defined in Cal. Pen. Code §16 as a felony, misdemeanor and infraction.

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 2 of 7
 1 8. The Legislature at Cal. Pen. Code §19.7 has mandated that, except as otherwise

2 provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions.

3 9. As a prerequisite to formally arraigning Defendant under the criminal procedure

4 specified by the Legislature, the court was required to have a complaint filed into the record in

5 order to proceed with a lawful arraignment. “The filing of a complaint is essential to invoke the

6 jurisdiction of the court." City of San Diego v. Municipal Court (1980) 102 Cal. App. 3d. 775;

7 Rupley v. Johnson (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 548, 552; Cal. Pen. Code §949.

8 10. A notice to appear is not a complaint. “Vehicle Code section 40513 does not mean

9 that any notice is in lieu of the complaint but, rather, that it is a notice to which a plea of guilty

10 (or nolo contendere) can be entered, and until then it is simply a notice to which a fine may be

11 paid.” Board of Trustees v. Municipal Court (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 322. “This does not mean

12 any notice given is the equivalent of a complaint; rather, it is a notice to which a plea of guilty

13 (or nolo contendere) may be entered after it is filed with the magistrate, and until then it is

14 simply a notice that a sum is due for the offense and may be paid to avoid further proceedings.”

15 City of San Diego v. Municipal Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 775.

16 11. Jurisdiction in any proceeding is conferred by law. Ex parte Kearny (1880) 55 Cal.

17 212; Harrington v. Superior Court of County of Placer (1924) 194 Cal. 185) and is derived from

18 constitutional or statutory provision (De La Montanya v. De La Montanya (1896) 112 Cal. 101;

19 Harrington v. Superior Court of County of Placer (1924) 194 Cal. 185.

20 12. In courts of limited and special jurisdiction every fact essential to confer jurisdiction

21 must be alleged. Doll v. Feller (1860) 16 Cal. 432; Adolph M. Schwartz, Inc. v. Burnett

22 Pharmacy (1931) 112 Cal.App.Supp. 781. “A complaint must be filed in the proper court to

23 confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court.” Harrington v. Superior Court (1924) 194 Cal.

24 185; Bayle-Lacoste & Co. v. Superior Court (1941) 46 Cal.App.2d 636.

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 3 of 7
 1 13. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the mere act of the parties, by any omission on the

2 part of counsel (Lewis v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (1937) 21 Cal.App.2d 340),

3 or by any decision, either implied or direct, that a court may itself make. Rogers v. Cady (1894)

4 104 Cal. 288. No court or tribunal can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it. Mulligan

5 v. Smith (1881) 59 Cal. 206; Re Bonds of Madera Irrig. Dist. (1891) 92 Cal. 296, rehearing

6 denied 92 Cal. 341. Jurisdiction in any proceeding is conferred by the constitution or by statute,

7 and any mode thereby prescribed for the acquisition of jurisdiction must be strictly complied

8 with. Pinon v. Pollard (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 129.

9 14. Lack of jurisdiction exists where, “though the court has jurisdiction over the subject

10 matter and the parties in the fundamental sense, it has no "jurisdiction" (or power) to

11 act...without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites.” Abelleira v. District Court of

12 Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280.

13 15. Furthermore, traffic court is an inferior nisi prius court, whereby the court proceeds

14 unless a party first objects. The record shows Defendant appeared at the “arraignment” specially

15 and not generally for the specific purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court over his

16 person.

17 16. A special appearance is determined by the nature of the relief sought. Milstein v.

18 Ogden (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 229; In re Clarke (1899) 125 Cal. 388; Brown v. Douglas Aircraft

19 Co. (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 232; Michaels v. Superior Court (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 820. Where

20 a defendant appears and objects only to the consideration of the case, or to any procedure in it,

21 because the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person, the appearance is special. In re

22 Clarke (1899) 125 Cal. 388.

23 17. Defendant specifically declined to enter a plea because none was required of him, as

24 he declined to plea to the Notice to Appear and was otherwise not presented with a valid criminal

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 4 of 7
 1 complaint against which a plea could be entered. The record also shows that Defendant qualified

2 his promise on the Notice to Appear with, “NON-ASSUMPSIT—ALL RIGHTS RESERVED”,

3 expressing his absolute, unlimited and unalienable right of refusal to contract under duress with

4 the arresting officer. Defendant constructively if not actually rejected the nisi prius court from

5 the inception of this matter.

6 18. The Legislature has not made provision for a peace officer to prefer charges, but

7 rather has delegated that function exclusively to the District Attorney of a county. “The charging

8 decision is the heart of the prosecution function.” People v. Smith (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 655.

9 “[O]nly the People may file an accusatory pleading.” Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69

10 Cal.App.3d 228; People v. Smith (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 655; People v. Municipal Court

11 (Pellegrino) (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 193. “The investigation and prosecution of public offenses is,

12 of course, the responsibility and prerogative of the Attorney General and the several district

13 attorneys (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov. Code, § 26500), and no one may intrude upon these

14 activities without the concurrence, approval, or authorization of such officers. (Dix v. Superior

15 Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 451 [279 Cal.Rptr. 834, 807 P.2d 1063]; People ex rel. Kottmeier v.

16 Municipal Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 602, 609 [269 Cal.Rptr. 542]; People v. Shults (1978)

17 87 Cal.App.3d 101, 106 [150 Cal.Rptr. 747]; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69

18 Cal.App.3d 228, 240-241 [138 Cal.Rptr. 101].)” Los Angeles City Ethics Com. v. Superior Court

19 (Fuentes) (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1287.

20 19. Defendant retains his unalienable right to due process as protected by both the

21 California Constitution at Article 1, §7 and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, and requires that the

22 court proceed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and the California Legislature.

23 20. Defendant's unalienable due process rights are secured by the Constitution. A statute

24 does not trump the Constitution. People v. Ortiz (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 286; Conway v.

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 5 of 7
 1 Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163. If there is any difference in meaning

2 between the constitution and a statute, the constitution must of course prevail (Lake Tahoe R. &

3 Transp. Co. v. Roberts (1914) 168 Cal. 551; Noce v. Department of Finance (1941) 45

4 Cal.App.2d 5), for statutes that are inconsistent with and contrary to constitutional provisions

5 cannot stand. Hatfield v. Peoples Water Co. (1914) 25 Cal.App. 502. The constitution

6 contemplates that the legislature shall enact all laws necessary to give effect to its commands, but

7 that no law shall contravene its provisions. People v. Stephens (1882) 62 Cal 209. It is

8 fundamental that in passing laws the legislature is governed by the provisions of the constitution

9 (Tout v. Blair (1906) 3 Cal.App. 180), and all statutes enacted must be subordinate thereto.

10 Hughes Bros. V Hoover (1906) 3 Cal.App. 145; Goldtree v. San Diego (1908) 8 Cal.App. 505;

11 Los Angeles Pressed Brick Co. v. Higgins (1908) 8 Cal.App. 514. Statutes passed under a

12 constitution are subject to and must be controlled by it, and can neither enlarge nor diminish its

13 scope. People v. Bagley (1890) 85 Cal. 343.

14 21. It is elementary that public officials must themselves obey the law. Wirin v. Parker

15 (1957) 48 Cal.2d 890; In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1314.

16 22. This court shall take mandatory judicial notice that the Legislature took measures to

17 preserve the natural rights of the Defendant in the statutes themselves:

18 “When a statute or instrument is equally susceptible of two

interpretations, one in favor of natural right, and the other against
19 it, the former is to be adopted.” Code Civ. Proc. §1866.

20 “No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect,

and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code,
21 but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the
provisions of this code so far as possible.” Cal. Veh. Code §4.
22

23 CONCLUSION

24

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 6 of 7
 1 19. The inferior nisi prius traffic court can only assume jurisdiction over the Defendant and

2 this matter if either the Defendant enters a plea, or a proper criminal complaint has been brought

3 before the court. No complaint was in front of the court at the time of “arraignment”, merely a

4 notice to appear filed with the magistrate by a peace officer, to which a plea may be entered, but

5 was not required to be made, by the Defendant. And Defendant, appearing specially to test the

6 jurisdiction of the court, declined to enter a plea, and the commissioner had no authority to enter

7 one on his behalf. The commissioner nonetheless entering a plea is a contempt of court under

8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1209(a) subsections (3), (4) and (5).

9 20. This honorable court should quash this matter for lack of jurisdiction so that a formal suit

10 brought to bring remediation for Defendant naming the [County name] County Superior Court as

11 a defendant shall not be required.

12

13 DATE: [DATE] BY: ________________________________

Your Name, Sui Juris
14 In Propria Persona

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS Page 7 of 7
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, the undersigned, am over the age of 18, am domiciled in [County Name] County, and hereby
certify that the document titled “WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS” was served on [DATE] by
3 hand delivering a copy to the following recipients:

4 THE HONORABLE [JUDGE]

PRESIDING JUDGE
5 COURTHOUSE NAME
[COUNTY NAME] COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
6 ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
7
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
8 DEPARTMENT XXX
[TRAFFIC COUNRT NAME]
9 [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
ADDRESS
10 CITY, STATE ZIP

11 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statement is true and correct.

12 EXECUTED in [County name] County:

13
___________________________ [DATE]
14 Your Name, Sui Juris Date

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26