Alberta Rose Jones

P. O. Box 95144
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
408-449-3041
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, Ca 95113

ALBERTA ROSE JONES, ) CASE NO. 1-10-CH-003171

)
Petitioner ) SWORN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
V. ) CORPUS ICO ALBERTA ROSE JONES
) VERIFICATION
Superior Court of California, County of Santa )
Clara ) California Rules of the Court Rule 201
Respondent ) (Procedure for filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus)
) California Penal Code 1474

SWORN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ICO ALBERTA ROSE JONES
VERIFICATION

I, Alberta Rose Jones, declare as follows:

1. I have verified my writ of habeas corpus filed on May 10, 2011. I took the extra step
to have my verification “notarized.”
2. I am afraid for my life and my family’s well being. Jamie Harley, Theodore Stalcup
and Jamie Harley’s legal staff harmed my son, Ryan Garrett Jones, and caused his
health to deteriorate.
3. I am afraid of Jamie Harley, Theodore Stalcup, Janet Barrett, Mark Harley and the
Harley’s children who are not minors as the “Harleys have alleged.”
4. Jamie Harley is known to hang around with a “rough” crowd.
5. Jamie Harley and Theodore Stalcup are capable of severe harm to my family most
importantly my son, Ryan Garrett Jones.
6. Jamie Harley and Mark Harley are known substance abusers.
7. Jamie Harley hires individuals who have a sorted background to run her law firm.
Many individuals who “run” her law firm are ex-cons.
8. The court has brought it to my attention that I am required to establish a “prima facie”
case. Yet, Jamie Harley is not required to establish a “prima facie” case.
9. I have sworn under oath that Judge Franklin Bondonno is biased against me.
10. Judge Bondonno’s bias goes to such extreme; he has signed legal documents that
were false.
11. In an order Judge Bondonno stated that a litigant cannot file more than one 170.3
against a judge in a matter. That is false. A litigant is required by law to file a 170.3
if they believe the Judge is so biased they cannot get a fair trial. A judge can only
strike a Rule 170.3 motion under the following conditions under California Code of
Civil Procedure 170.4 : Notwithstanding paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section
170.3, if a statement of disqualification is untimely filed or if on its face it discloses
no legal grounds for disqualification, the trial judge against whom it was filed may
order it stricken.
12. 170.3 (c)(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his
or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the
statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of
disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all
the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five
days of notification of the judge's answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of
the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The
clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge
pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected
to decide the question of disqualification.
13. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fine v.
Baca, et. al. Case No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW), United States Magistrate Judge Carla
Woegrle made the following statement regarding “real party” in interest when in
custody of the Los Angeles Sheriff i.e. Judge Yaffe and the “Superior Court for the
State of California”:

On April 21, 2009, Respondent Sheriff Baca filed a motion to dismiss (docket no. 12),
simply arguing that the Sheriff, although Petitioner’s actual custodian, has acted under
order of the superior court, and is not the real party in interest. An answer, addressing the
merits of Petitioner’s claims, was filed on May1, 2009 (docket no. 15), on behalf of
Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, as Respondents and Real
Parties in Interest. (Exhibit 1)

14. I have attached the definition of “prima facie” to this sworn declaration as proof
that Judge Franklin Bondonno is biased.
15. Jamie Harley cannot establish a “prima facie” case by having her law partner say
“Jamie Harley fears for her well-being” on something that might happen.
16. Lots of people fear things. I fear Judge Franklin Bondonno because he is not
“honest” and sign’s false orders.
17. I definitely “fear” Jamie Harley, Theodore Stalcup and Mark Harley. These
individuals are known “liars.” I have filed a complaint with the California State Bar
regarding Theodore Stalcup representing Jamie Harley in these proceedings.
18. Judge Bondonno has done everything he possibly can to not mention the fact that
Jamie Harley now works for Theodore Stalcup as his “research assistant.” Previously
Theodore Stalcup worked for Jamie Harley.
 19. It is very disturbing that Judge Bondonno uses legal terms he does not wish use in
reference to Jamie Harley. “Prima facie denotes evidence”.
20. Jamie Harley has not produced any evidence to date as required by California Code
of Civil Procedure 527.6. Her statement initiating these proceedings was false and
the Court knew them to be false. Judge Bondonno knows this. On May 6, 2011,
Jamie Harley was required to at the Civil Harassment Hearing with Judge Bondonno.
Ted Stalcup could not “speak” in Jamie Harley’s behalf on May 6, 2011.

"Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a

series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a
continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual,
making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending
harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including,
but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice
mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is
not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
(2) "Credible threat of violence" is a knowing and willful
statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person
in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate
family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.
(3) "Harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of
violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a
specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the
person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct
must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial
emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional
distress to the petitioner.

I, Alberta Rose Jones, declare under penalty of perjury the above statements are true
and correct under the laws of the United States of America. I am not in California so
I cannot swear to the laws of the State of California. I can swear under oath to the
Laws of the United States of America.

Dated: May 22, 2011 Executed in North Little Rock Arkansas,

(copy for internet posting)
Alberta Rose Jones
 Prima facie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up prima
facie inWiktionary,
the free dictionary.

Prima facie ( /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃɪ.iː/;[1] from Latin: prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its
first appearance, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", from the
feminine form of primus ("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. It is used in
modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident
from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted
– would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in
academic philosophy.

Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may
then commence to test it, and create a ruling.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Burden of proof
 2 Res ipsa loquitur
 3 Criticism of subjective prima facie interpretation
 4 Other uses and references
 5 See also
 6 References

[edit]Burden of proof

Main article: Legal burden of proof

In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima
facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed
without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its
own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only
be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally
called making a case or building a case.
For example, in a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima
facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against thedefendant. In a murder case, this
would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant's act caused the death,
and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new
evidence the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence.

Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the
case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.

In some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the prosecution in a criminal trial must
disclose all evidence to the defence. This includes the prima facieevidence.

An aim of the doctrine of prima facie is to prevent litigants bringing spurious charges which
simply waste all other parties' time.