- Back on 9/11/09 I received a smog-ticket from an LAPD Officer, who had absolutely no training nor test equipment although the vehicle duly passed CaliforniaMessage 1 of 1 , Mar 14 12:57 PMView Source
Back on 9/11/09 I received a smog-ticket from an LAPD Officer, who had absolutely no training nor test equipment although the vehicle duly passed California smog both before and after the citation. I was demanded to produce a California Driver's License, and was cited for it not being current.
I thereafter appeared in Department 102 V.N. wherein I made Special Appearance to demurrer to the lack of the verified accusatory pleading. The Judge, Nancy Gast, stated that she would deem the ticket to be a verified complaint. I objected and stated that the court has no jurisdiction but to dismiss. Nonetheless, she sought to force me to plead to a non-existent pleading, and I continued to object. She then ordered the Public Defender to represent me over both my objection and his. I was then ordered to appear one month latter, December 3, 2009 in Dept. 105 for pretrial.
Still not having seen a verified complaint, on Dec. 3 I was asked to fill out a Faretta Waiver Form. The form stated that I understood that I was a defendant in the above case, but there was no case #. I negated the form by reversing it stating that I understand that I am not a defendant in the non-existent case against me, and I stated that I did not understand the charges because I have seen no verified complaint, nor charges.
The Public Defender, without notice or consulting me, stipulated with the Prosecutor that Branson stipulates that the police stop was legal, thus allegedly waiving my other challenge in my demurrer of the lack of Probable Cause pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. I was told by the court that since I am represented by an attorney, and not representing myself, I was not permitted to speak, file anything, nor voice my objection. All I could do is sit there and observe, waiting for the conclusion of the case, which, of course, I was pronounced guilty. I was then thrown in jail.
Thereafter I appealed. In preparing for the appeal, I was provided with a Minute Order dated 04/20/10. It informed me that I was present and plead not guilty on Nov. 24, 2009. This was the first I head of this. The Minute Order states that the Court Reporter was Veronika Cohen, and that "Defendant is present in court, and represented by Marvin Gross Deputy Public Defender. Defendant pleads not guilty to count 01, 12500(A) VC. Defendant pleads not guilty to count 02, 27153 VC" Since I had no notice of such event, nor was present, nor entered a plea, as such a plea would have been inconsistent with my demurrer challenging the jurisdiction of the court to proceed, I asked the Veronika Cohen to produce the transcript regarding my appearance and what was said.
Veronika Cohen was kind enough to state on court stationary the following;
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIARonald Branson
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
In the matter of:
People of the State of California, ) Case No. 9VY04970
VS. ) Declaration Of
Ronald Branson ) Veronika Cohen
I, Veronika Cohen, Official Reporter for the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, do hereby declare as follows:
That I was requested to prepare a transcript for Case No. 9VY04970, for the date of November 24, 2009, in the above-entitled case;
That I made a thorough search of my notes for the date of November 24, 2009, and there were no proceedings held on the record in the above-entitled case.
Therefore, a transcript of the proceeding of November 24, 2009, in the above-entitled case cannot be prepared.
Dated this 9th Day of March, 2011.
ss VERONIKA COHEN
Based upon this sworn declaration by the official court reporter for the County of Los Angeles, there was no such arraignment at which the Appellee City of Los Angeles, in conspiracy with the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court rely. To this date, they both contend, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, that I was indeed present and did enter a plea of Not Guilty to the charges upon which I was convicted and imprisoned.
Isaiah 5:20 describes this as follows, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" "And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." Isa. 59:14.
11245 Otsego St., #12
North Hollywood, CA. 91601
Defendant and AppellantSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
People of the State of California,
Plaintiff and Respondent
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellate Case No. BR048045
Criminal Case No. 9VY04970
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(Fraud)
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.______________________________
A civil action has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against the defendant City of Los Angeles. In that case the City has defaulted, failing to timely answer the complaint. In lieu thereof, the City has removed the case to Federal Court, but they failed to file the jurisdictionally required Notice in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Without addressing in the Federal Court either their default in the State action, nor their lack of Notice to the State Court of their removal, I moved for a remand back to State Court. Without addressing the Motion for Remand, they filed a Motion to Dismiss the Federal Action. I filed a Cross-Motion to Strike their Motion to Dismiss.
In the meantime, I am called upon to appear before the very same court, 102, on Wed., May 25, 2011, in front of the very same judge, to be "arraigned" on a second ticket of driving without a current driver's license, which the State of California refuses to allow me to make current. The entire judicial system subject to the rulings of the Los Angeles County Appellate Department has a conflict of interest, as I am proceeding not only to expose and revoke the Appellate Court's void judgment, but also to take action against each of them. What a joke the entire court system is!
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603