Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

It is Time to Close Down the Courts

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    It is Time to Close Down the Courts The Courts are Bringing Anarchy to Our Country Ron Branson When the City can use law enforcement officials to nab victims
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2011
    It is Time to Close Down the Courts
    The Courts are Bringing Anarchy to Our Country
    Ron Branson

    When the City can use law enforcement officials to nab victims off the streets, shove them through a criminal process without neither notice to appear, nor allowing their mark to appear and answer to the charges, and such conduct is upheld on appeal under the alleged theory that they were noticed and did appear, and plead not guilty, when such is neither the truth, and is contrary to abundant evidence to the contrary, then it is time to close down the courts, for they are a grave danger to society. Such evidence is set forth by actual pleading charging the Appellant Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court of criminal insanity!


    February 25, 2011

    William A. MacLaughlin
    Presiding Judge, Los Angeles County
    Superior Court
    111 No. Hill St.
    Los Angeles, CA. 90012


    Dear Judge MacLaughlin:

    What can be done to enforce my impeachment of the record?

    My declaration re Oral Argument, attached as Exhibit B to the enclosed Motion for Reconsideration, describes my impeachment of the fraudulent minute order dated 4/20/10 that took place before the appellate division of this court, a copy which I sent to your office on February 17th inquiring if the appellate court is a court of record. The appellate court submitted that matter of impeachment of the record and yet ignored it when rendering its Opinion, maliciously relying on that false record nevertheless.

    A fraudulent scheme was commenced in the trial court of my criminal proceeding in Van Nuys with the creation of a false minute order describing a bogus arraignment on 11/24/09, fraudulently stating that I appeared on that date and plead Not Guilty to both charges, in order to create a scenario paving the way to jurisdiction to proceed to a valid trial and ultimately conviction and imprisonment. That minute order didn’t even exist until more than two months after I filed Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2010.  That’s when the fraud began, created by that false minute order of 4/20/10..

    A reading of the Opinion of the appellate court shows the reliance on that fraud, even after I attempted to impeach that record six days before that Opinion was filed. CCP Section 1916 provides that any judicial record may be impeached if obtained by fraud. The appellate division has ignored that statutory right and instead continued to rely on that fraudulent record in rendering its Opinion. Reliance on that fraudulent minute order printed 4/20/10 even after my impeachment of that order, makes the appellate court’s reliance thereon an act of criminal malicious conduct.

    On October 7, 2010, the appellate court found that the City (respondent) failed to file a respondent’s brief after more than sixty days, and therefore did not have more time. However, in violation of its own order, the appellate court accepted the City’s brief twenty days later, on October 27, 2010, 95 days after it was due. The appellate court needed the facts relying on the fraud presented by the City in their delinquent brief, which did not respond to the issues on appeal, in order to convert those “facts” into their Opinion, making the appellate court in league with the City in reliance on the fraud.
    I impeached that fraudulent minute order in my Opening Brief on appeal, as the second issue on appeal, titled “Falsification of the Court record”. Both the City and the appellate court ignored the impeachment and proceeded to rely on that false record, even after the court recognized at Oral Argument that I was seeking to impeach that record. The presiding judge at Oral Argument said the matter would be submitted after hearing my impeachment argument, and yet ignored all evidence proving the fraud which I presented and offered to present. No record of Oral Argument was provided by the court and I had to prepare my own declaration regarding what took place at Oral Argument describing my attempted impeachment of the false record according to statute.

    The false record was an issue on appeal from the beginning and was continually ignored by the City and the appellate court. And yet the appellate court continues to maliciously rely on that false record. The City made no appearance at oral argument and I anticipate the City won’t even bother to oppose my Motion for Reconsideration, figuring “the fix is in” regarding this fraudulent scheme.

    Such arraignment is refuted by the very court reporter allegedly responsible for the transcript, and it is manifest from her testimony that there was not even an attorney present representing my interest at this nonexistent arraignment. Everything is a lie.

    It is obvious that despite the abundant evidence refuting the Appellate Division, that criminal insanity has set in, and all hope of communication has broken down and fraud and lawlessness has become the order of the day. If the testimony of a court reporter cannot be accepted, the testimony of two affiants to the identical facts cannot be received, nor the transcript of a judge, then what has become of our judicial system? If the laws controlling the administration of justice are to be cast aside, and a lie upheld, then what common sense governs our country?

    The implication of this matter is profound beyond measure, for where there is no notice, there is no arraignment; it is impossible to be convicted of anything, much less affirmed on appeal. What follows is not a court proceeding pursuant to Windsor. The outcome of this appeal is void, and challengeable forever, at any time, within any tribunal. This is why Windsor states that such deception and sham should be omitted altogether.

    My question now is, what can be done to enforce my impeachment of this fraudulent record, under CCP Section 1916?

    Ronald Branson


    _____________________________________________________________

    Ronald Branson

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    North Hollywood, CA. 91601

    (818) 310-8999

     

    Defendant and Appellant

     

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

     COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    APPELLATE DIVISION

     

    People of the State of California,

                          Plaintiff and Respondent

                                     v.

     Ronald Branson,

                          Defendant and Appellant.

     

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

     

    Appellate Case No. BR048045

    Criminal Case No. 9VY04970

     (VanNuys)

     

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPOTING DECLARATION

     

     

              PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Appellant moves this court for reconsideration of its Opinion filed February 16, 2011, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, as such Opinion is an affirmance of a void judgment and is likewise void.

              PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of Ronald Branson’s Declaration Re Oral Argument of February 10, 2011, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, describing the void Minute Order printed 04/20/10 which Appellant impeached pursuant to CCP Section 1916, stating at oral argument:

              “That at that time, the female judge on the extreme left interrupted me and said very loudly ‘Mr. Branson, we have nothing in the record. Are you trying to impeach the record?’ That I responded ‘Yes, I am.’ And she countered ‘And what record are you trying to impeach?’ That I proceeded to take the minute order and read the date of the minute order and the contents of that minute order. And I said ‘There was no such arraignment.’”

              Appellant repeats his Declaration re Oral Argument in its entirety, attached as Exhibit B, and makes it a part hereof.

              It is well settled that affirmance of a void judgment is likewise void.

    That by merely mimicking the City’s (respondent’s) arguments and incorporating them into its Opinion, this court is fraudulently acting as an agent of the City (Respondent).

              Appellant requests this court reform its Opinion to comply with his impeachment of the record as fully set forth in his Declaration re Oral Argument, attached as Exhibit B.

              PLEASE ALSO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Declaration of Don Martin, attached as Exhibit C and made a part hereof.

              PLEASE ALSO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Testimony of Veronica Cohen, Court Reporter, attached as Exhibit D and made a part hereof.

     

    Dated: February ____ 2011

    __________________________________

    Ronald Branson, Appellant


     

     

    MEMORANRUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     

             

    (Fraud)

    Fraud vitiates everything it touches. (common law maxim) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416.

    Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210.

    Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 JU.S. 61, 70.

    No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. …fraud vitiates all transactions, and if taken for a fraudulent purpose to carry out a fraudulent scheme, such action is void and of no force or effect whatever, equity will compel fair dealing, disregarding all forms and subterfuges, and looking only to the substance of things.

    Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappell, 327 SW3d 15 at 27 citing Libhart v. Copeland 949 SW2d 783, 794.

     

    (Impeachment of record if by fraud)

    CCP section 1916 provides that any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer of collusion between the parties, or of fraud on the party offering the record in respect to the proceedings.

    Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 821, 824; 236 P2d 142.

    That section is a codification of the settled doctrine that a court has inherent power to expunge a fraudulent record or set aside a decree procured by extrinsic fraud.  Id. at pp 824-5

    Impeachment of the record must necessarily rest on the ground that through fraud and collusion the apparent record is not a record at all, but is a forged or fraudulent instrument which has no existence as a record, therefore the court will expunge it. Id. p.825.

     

    (Extrinsic fraud)

    The essence of extrinsic fraud is one party’s preventing the other from having his day in court.

    Navarro v. IHOP Properties Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.4th 834, 844; 36 CR3d 385.

    Examples of extrinsic fraud are: …failure to give notice of the action to the other party…   Id. at p.844

    The type of fraud necessary to vacate a final judgment is extrinsic fraud… (citation)  City and County of San Francisco v. Cortagena (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1067; 41 CR2d 797.

     

    Extrinsic fraud usually arises when a party is denied a fair adversary hearing because he has been ‘deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense.’ (citation)  Id. p.1067

     

    (Notice)

    That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights, is admitted. Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization, over the subject matter.

    Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 U.S. 274.

    A denial to a party of the benefit of a notice would be in effect to deny that he is entitled to notice at all, and the sham and deceptive proceeding had better be omitted altogether.  Id.

     

    (Void judgment)

    The affirmance of a void judgment upon appeal imparts no validity to the judgment, but is in itself void by reason of the nullity of the judgment appealed from. (Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633, 642 [42 P. 295, 50 Am.St.Rep. 67].)

      “The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to void judgments.  ‘Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud.  [Citations.]’  (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.)”  (Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239–1240.)

    Respectfully submitted,

    ________________________________________

    Ronald Branson

     

    DECLARATION OF RONALD BRANSON IN SUPPORT OF

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

             

              I, Ronald Branson, declare and say:

              That I am Appellant in the within case, No. BR048045. That the facts herein stated are personally known to me to be true and that I could competently testify thereto as a witness if called upon to do so.

              That it is apparent that this court did not hear or chose not to hear my reading of the Windsor v. McVeigh case, 93 U.S. 274 (1876), cited in my Opening Brief, page 12, and orally cited at Oral Argument on February 10, 2011, as I testified in my Declaration re Oral Argument, attached to this Motion for Reconsideration as Exhibit B.

              That, since there is no record of that Oral Argument, in violation of Article VI Judicial, section I, of the California Constitution “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record”, I repeat the key portions from Windsor which this court has refused, and chose not, to hear at Oral Argument: “A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights, is admitted. Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization, over the subject matter. But notice is only for the purpose of affording the party an opportunity of being heard upon the claim or charges made; it is a summons to him to appear and speak, if he has anything to say, why the judgment sought should not be rendered. A denial to a party of the benefit of a notice would be in effect to deny that he is entitled to notice at all, and the sham and deceptive proceeding had better be omitted altogether.”

              That this appellate proceeding is a sham and a deceptive proceeding and not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. That the Opinion of this court rendered February 16, 2011, attached to this Motion as Exhibit A, is void and a nullity and not an opinion of a court, and rests legally as if it had never been made and never existed.

     That as stated in Windsor, “This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations.” That this Opinion (Exhibit A) is a mockery of natural justice and common intelligence as recognized by all nations.

    That I demand to make it very clear that I received no notice, either actual or constructive, regarding any court event taking place in my case on November 24, 2009. That consequently, I was not present at any event on November 24, 2009, nor was I presented with or faced or answered to any charges whatsoever, despite what the minute order printed 4/20/10 states. That that minute order is a lie, a sham and a deception that must be omitted altogether. (Cf Windsor).

    That only after the matter was on appeal did I discover the supposed event of an arraignment November 24, 2009 from that Minute Order printed 4/20/10. That only after that did I learn from the testimony of Court Reporter Veronica Cohen by telephone on 11/1/10, that such event never took place at all; and that therefore I concluded, since there was no such event, that I did not even have the benefit of an attorney at that supposed arraignment to represent my interest. That the evidence establishes that I was not arraigned on anything at any time. That all I knew respecting any notice was that Judge Nancy Gast, on November 3, 2009, orally ordered me to appear at the next event of December 3, 2009 for pretrial in Department 105, which date is set forth in the transcript of 11/3/09, and which notice I obeyed.

    That this court has steadfastly resisted the truth and the facts presented to it, both by motion filed November 12, 2010, and orally at Oral Argument February 10, 2011, and supported by the actual oral words of Veronica Cohen, the court reporter, recorded electronically, which this court has refused to hear, nor will this court call or communicate with Veronica Cohen regarding the validity of such supposed “arraignment” upon which this court relies and founds its judgment.

    That this court has made it very clear that, instead of acting as a court, it has manifested itself as an agent and extension of the City of Los Angeles (respondent herein) to save the City from voidness and certain accountability thereon.

    That I call to witness before a candid world the following facts: First, this court’s own Order dated October 7, 2010, from which I quote: “The court has read and considered respondent’s second application for an extension of time to file a brief due to its obligations in other cases, and appellant’s opposition thereto, and rules as follows: Respondent’s application is denied. Respondent has had in excess of sixty days to file a brief and has failed to do so. (signed) P. McKay, P.J.”

    That nonetheless, the respondent City comes in with a motion arguing that they wish to bring in new issues on appeal not heretofore raised before this court for it to consider. That it is my contention that this situation raises a jurisdictional question on whether this court can consider new issues by respondent on this appeal without their having filed a timely notice of cross-appeal by respondent to bring in those different issues. That I contend that this court is jurisdictionally barred by statute from considering the issues presented in respondent’s brief which could have been brought by them by cross-appeal.

    That nevertheless, this court in contravention of a jurisdictional bar,  seized upon and quoted verbatim the respondent’s new issues in its tentative ruling, despite such arguments being rendered moot in light of Windsor at Oral Argument, and in contempt of its own Order filed October 7, 2010.

    That at no time did this court find that its Order of October 7th was factually incorrect, to wit, “Respondent has had in excess of sixty days to file a brief and has failed to do so” nor that their Order was a violation of some statute.  That this court, in contempt of its own Order, whimsically countered its own finding and accepted respondent’s brief twenty days later, October 27, 2010 in its endeavor to bail out the City (respondent) from its dilemma of not timely filing its respondent’s brief.

     That it is apparent that this court has chosen, come hell or high water, to cover for the respondent City of Los Angeles, even if it has to do so at the peril of its acting in complete and total absence of all jurisdiction pursuant to Windsor that it is not acting as a court.

              That the capstone of the fraud of this court is manifest in its Opinion of February 16 (Exhibit A) on page 3, starting at line 9:

              “The second demurrer, Footnote 4, which is included in the record on appeal, was filed on December 7, 2009. The record before us shows that on November 24, 2009, defendant was arraigned on the amended misdemeanor complaint and entered not guilty pleas to both counts. Note 5. A demurrer must be brought prior to the entry of a plea. (Pen. Code sections 1003, 1004.) Defendant’s demurrer was filed two weeks after the entry of his not guilty pleas and was therefore untimely. Footnote 6. Faced with this procedural bar, defendant denies that he entered any pleas or even appeared in court on November 24, 2009, an assertion which is contradicted by the limited record before us. Footnote 7. Since his assertion has no support in the record, it must be disregarded. (People vs. Szeto, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p.35)”

              That here, this court asserts by inference that there exists no such thing as Impeachment of a court Record, an assertion which is contemptuous of statute, CCP section 1916, which provides that a record may be impeached. That this court argues by implication that the record is true because it states itself to be true and is thus unimpeachable, ignoring my impeachment of the record at Oral Argument (see Exhibit B).

              That by way of summary, I declare that this court shows contempt of its own ruling; accepts and acts upon issues not brought on appeal and in violation of jurisdictional bar, as I state herein; merely quotes the City verbatim, converting it into its tentative ruling; and shows contempt for CCP section 1916 which provides for impeachment of the record.

              That I request that this court reconsider its Opinion dated February 16, 2011, attached as Exhibit A, in that said Opinion is not an opinion of a court at all, is void and a nullity for the reasons stated in this declaration, and must be omitted altogether.

              That if this court refuses to consider the matters raised in this declaration and continues to act in this fraudulent manner, I respectfully request that this court certify this appeal to the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles for further review.

              That I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Dated February ____, 2011, at Los Angeles, California.

    ______________________________

    Ronald Branson

    TESTIMONY OF VERONICA COHEN, COURT REPORTER

              PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of the following testimony of Veronica Cohen, the Court Reporter named in the minute order describing the so-called arraignment on 11/24/09. This testimony also appears in writing on page 5 of Appellant’s Reply Brief and Appellant has it on cassette recording which he offered to the court at Oral Argument on February 10, 2011, but was refused:

              “Good morning, Mr. Branson. This is Veronica Cohen, I’m a court reporter. I have a slip here about an arraignment –piece of paperwork, some minute order actually that was slipped underneath my door and it says that you are looking for a transcript from 11/24/09 from Department 102. There is no transcript from that day for the arraignment. That was actually the date of the [unintelligible] file. The arraignment was actually on 11/3/09 and I was not the court reporter for that day, but the reporter on that day was Dezza Simms. And if you dial 213-687-5780 and you follow the prompts, you can get her voicemail and hopefully she can assist you with everything you need. Have a good day.”

    Respectfully submitted,

    _________________________

    Ronald Branson, Appellant


    Ronald Branson

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    North Hollywood
    , CA. 91601

    (818) 310-8999

     

    Defendant and Appellant

     

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

     COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    APPELLATE DIVISION

     

    People of the State of California,

                          Plaintiff and Respondent

                                     v.

     Ronald Branson,

                          Defendant and Appellant.

     

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

     

    Appellate Case No. BR048045

     Criminal Case No. 9VY04970

     (VanNuys)

     

    DECLARATION OF

    DON MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF

    MOTION FOR

    RECONSIDERATION

     

              DECLARATION OF DON MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF  
    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     

    I, Don Martin, declare and say:

    That I am a personal friend of Appellant Ronald Branson.  That the facts stated herein are personally known to me to be true and that I could competently testify thereto as a witness if called upon to do so.

    That I have attended all court proceedings in Mr. Branson’s criminal matter in Van Nuys. That I also attended Mr. Branson’s appellate Oral Argument proceeding on Thursday, February 10, 2011. That the City (respondent) was not present.

    That I have never been informed about a proceeding on November 24, 2009. That at the proceeding on November 3, 2009, I was present when the judge stated that the next court appearance was set for December 3rd at 8:30 a.m. in Department 105 for pretrial, as established in the Reporter’s Transcript of November 3rd, page 6, lines 27-28 and line 1 on page 7.

    I likewise was in attendance at Mr. Branson’s next scheduled court appearance on December 3rd in Department 105. That based upon my observation and upon the court record, it is my understanding that there was no reason for Mr. Branson to receive a notice or make an appearance on November 24th for an arraignment or any other purpose.

    That I have in my possession the testimony on cassette tape of Court Reporter, Veronica Cohen, in her own voice, stating that there was no arraignment for Mr. Branson on November 24, 2009. That at the Oral Argument in the appellate division on February 10, 2011, I had this cassette tape with me, along with a cassette player and was prepared to play the testimony of Veronica Cohen in her own words for the benefit of the appellate court. That however, the bailiff, having become aware of my intention to play that tape, stated on behalf of the court, “you are not allowed to play a tape to the court.”

    Nonetheless, I observed Mr. Branson at that oral argument hold up his copy of the cassette tape containing Veronica Cohen’s testimony regarding the absence of a proceeding on November 24, 2009 in Mr. Branson’s case.

    Mr. Branson announced to the court “I have her testimony right here, in her own words.” That he stated very emphatically that if they believed there was an arraignment held on November 24th, it was their burden to establish the truthfulness of that fact and not his burden to establish the non-existence of such proceeding. Mr. Branson challenged the court to call the Court Reporter, Veronica Cohen, supposedly responsible for the minute order on which the court now relies, “and she will tell you that there was no arraignment” of Mr. Branson on that date.

    That Mr. Branson stated that he presented this evidence to the court by way of motion and then said “And what did the court do? It denied the motion.”

    From my observation of the Oral Argument, in which Mr. Branson was impeaching the record as being fraudulent, I note that the Opinion rendered by the court on February 16, 2011, does not relate to Mr. Branson’s argument, as if the court did not hear a word he said at Oral Argument.  

              I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.

    Executed this ____ day of February, 2011, at Los Angeles, California

    Signed______________________________

                         Don Martin







Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.