Opposition to Presiding Judge Kirschner's Letter
Opposition to Presiding Judge Kirschner's Letter
11245 Otsego St., #12
North Hollywood, CA. 91601
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
14400 Erwin St. Mall
Van Nuys, CA. 91401
In the matter of:
CITATION # 83267NR
Ronald Branson’s Opposition to letter
dated June 17, 2011 from Judge
Recusal of Commissioner Omens, Department 103, for lack of jurisdiction in the issuing of a Warrant for Ronald Branson’s Arrest, for lack of qualification pursuant to P.C. 808, for presuming to press forward without an accusatory pleading, for the blocking of the filing of an accusatory pleading, and for denying Ronald Branson his day in court.
I, Ronald Branson, having become familiar with the Policy, Practice, and the Customs of traffic court relating to traffic tickets, and having learned of the unconstitutional and unlawful manner in which such traffic tickets are processed by having gone through such procedure aforetime, hired a process server to file and serve a Demurrer upon the Van Nuys Court. The caption read as follows;
Special Appearance on Paper To:
Demurrer to Court Jurisdiction; To
File Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Probable Cause For Lack of a Victim
and Lack of Criminal Conduct; and
therefore Files this Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to P.C. 995.
From prior experience, I fully expected this hired process server to be barred from filing said Demurrer in the Van Nuys Court. When this act fully consummated, I asked my process server to sign a Declaration setting forth his experience as to how they barred him from filing said Demurrer. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A is a copy of that Declaration of Cornelius Roberson. I copied that Declaration and mailed it with a cover letter to Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon in downtown Los Angeles complaining of this violation of due process.
The Postal Receipt of that mailing is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B showing that it was mailed at 4:56 PM on 5/25/2011. I shall return to this issue later.
The law provides, “The demurrer must be in writing, signed either by the defendant or his counsel, and filed. It must distinctly specify the ground of objection to the accusatory pleading or it must be disregarded.” Penal Code Section 1005. It is easy therefore to see why the court forecloses Demurrers in traffic court. The first question in a Demurrer obviously is, where is the “Accusatory Pleading” stated in the statute? No accusatory pleading, no court jurisdiction, and therefore no arraignment! All arraignments must be based upon properly filed “accusatory pleadings.” But the court is ramming through hundreds of thousands of so-called “arraignments” upon unwary victims upon which the court has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever, for the purpose of generating millions in revenue. It is because of this policy, practice and custom, that I, Ronald Branson, am being foreclosed from complying with the statute in the filing of a Demurrer. This policy is resulting in my being denied access to the court and depriving me of my day in court. This policy has got to change!
As a result of this denial, I, Ronald Branson, mailed a complaint to Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon downtown of this practice.
My Demurrer, which the court refuses to file, despite mandate by law that I do so, states in appropriate part;
“[A]ll proceedings and actions before a…court…for a public offense of which courts have jurisdiction, must be commenced by complaint under oath, setting forth the offense charged, with particulars of time, place, person, and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of, and to answer the complaint. … The filing of such complaint is essential to the jurisdiction of the court.” Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257 (1948)
“[T]he filing of a complaint was mandatory, and essential to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is the primary question for determination by a court in any case, for jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine. [Citing cases.] If a judgment is rendered by a court which did not have jurisdiction to hear a cause, such judgment is void ab initio. [Citing cases.] Even though a void judgment is affirmed on appeal, it is not thereby rendered valid.” (In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, 559 [300 P. 132].)
This issue of court jurisdiction is of no light matter, and could rightfully subject the entire traffic process to numerous, and even class-action, lawsuits which the County of Los Angeles, in this time of financial constraints, can ill afford.
Now let us come back to the letter bearing a date of June 17, 2011, showing a mailing date of June 21, 2011, from Judge Richard Kirschner, attached as EXHIBIT C. This letter asserts that traffic citation #83267NR has validity notwithstanding the lack of a verified pleading. Judge Kirschner’s assertion is contrary to statutory law already cited.
Further, Kirschner’s letter states, “These pleadings are in the court system…” Do these words mean “filed.” If so, I am entitled to a conformed copy of what I “filed” in the court. I sincerely question that my Demurrer is, or was, actually timely “filed.” Nonetheless, I request a true conformed copy of such filing with the filing date thereon. “Filing a paper, in modern usage, consists in placing it in the custody of the proper official by the party charged with the duty, and the making of the proper endorsement by the officer. … It is not synonymous with deposited.” Bouvier’s Dictionary.
Here are the facts as to why I believe the testimony of Judge Kirschner’s letter to be deceptive and fraudulent, and designed to create a false illusion. In the first paragraph you state, “I am in receipt of your letter dated May 24, 2011 to Presiding Judge Lee Edmon, who has caused your letter to be forwarded to me for review and response.” In the next paragraph you state, “I have communicated with Commissioner Nancy Gast and the Court Manager for the Northwest District regarding your letter.” You thereafter proceed to set forth dates that do not pan out. “By way of background, you received a traffic citation alleging a violation of Vehicle Code 12500 (unlicensed driver). Your arraignment was set for May 25, 2011. Commissioner Gast, presiding in Department 102, received your documents entitled, “Special Appearance on Paper to: Demurrer to Court Jurisdiction…” and “Motion for Recusal of Judge Nancy Gast…CCP 170.1” These pleadings are in the court system and were noticed for hearing on May 25, 2011 in Department 102 at 1:30 pm.”
Interesting is the fact that these documents are the very same documents required by law to be filed in court, but refused. (See the Declaration of the process server). On May 25, 2011 precisely at 4:56 PM (see mailing receipt), a complaint was mailed to Presiding Judge Edmon regarding the refusal to file these documents. I received a response to this mailing dated June 10, 2011 stating that this matter is being referred to your attention for response to my complaint, and that you will respond to me after you have had “adequate time” to consider my complaint.
What I have received from you after you have had adequate time to consider my complaint? You say you communicated with Commissioner Gast regarding my complaint, and she tells you, “These pleadings are in the court system and were noticed for hearing on May 25, 2011.”
This does not make any sense. My complaint for refusing to file the Demurrer was mailed downtown just four and one half minutes prior to the closing time of the Post Office on May 25, 2011. This means the U.S. mail had to be transported downtown, be opened, read, forwarded to you in Van Nuys for your consideration, and then you presumably “communicated with Commissioner Nancy Gast,” but whether you communicated with her on that date or not, nonetheless, she filed the Demurrer I sent downtown, noticed it for hearing on “May 25, 2011,” at which event I was not present, and then she “transferred your file, along with the above-described pleadings to Commissioner Omens in Department 103,” who called the matter for hearing in her courtroom, and thereafter issued a warrant for my arrest because I “failed to appear” in Department 103, all taking place within four and one half minutes of mailing it. I could have hardly gotten out the door of the Post Office by that time. Am I suspicious of a fraud here? Yes I am!
It should also be noted that I, Ronald Branson, asserted within his Demurrer the preservation of his rights in the event that P.C. 1005 be obeyed in the filing of a accusatory pleading, “Should this court decide to move forward in invoking personal jurisdiction over his person, and over the subject-matter by correcting the above deficiencies, Branson preserves his right to file a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress the Evidence after he is statutorily and constitutionally informed of the charges.”
The preservation of his rights are being ignored, rolled over, and suppressed, and I see the likelihood of a further fraud coming into play with the issuance of a so-called enforcement of a warrant for his arrest.
Your letter, Judge Kirschner, provides me notice for the very first time of the issuance of a Warrant for my arrest by a Commissioner Omens in Department 103. Having just received such notice, it is incumbent upon me to duly object to Commissioner Omens participation based upon the fact that no commissioner is qualified to sit as a magistrate pursuant to P.C. Sec. 808, which statute defines the qualifications, and who has authority to set as a magistrate.
Date: June 29, 2011
11245 Otsego St., #12
North Hollywood, CA 91601
Declaration of Cornelius Roberson
Re Attempted Service upon Judge Nancy Gast
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I, Cornelius Roberson, am domiciled within the above county, State of California, and am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action.My address is:
14660 Oxnard St.
Van Nuys, California 91411
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 on Monday, May 23, 2011, as a hired process server, I entered the courthouse located at 14400 Erwin St. Mall, Van Nuys California, for the purpose of serving upon Judge Nancy Gast, Department 102, 4th Floor, two documents; one entitled “Special Appearance on Paper To: Demurrer to Court jurisdiction; To File Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, For Lack of a Victim and Lack of Criminal Conduct; and therefore Files this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to P.C. 995,” and the other entitled, “Motion for Recusal of Judge Nancy Gast For Cause Pursuant to C.C.P. 170.1”
Upon arriving at her courtroom during normal court operating hours, (around 4 p.m.), I found her courtroom closed and secured.
I then proceeded to the Clerk’s Window, second floor seeking to serve her. I was informed by Barbara Padilla, (818) 74-2620, that I would have to return tomorrow morning, (i.e., May 24, 2011), and serve her directly in her courtroom.
At 9:00 a.m. the following morning, May 24, 2011, I entered Department 102 to consummate the service, and was informed that I would have to go downstairs to the clerk’s office on the second floor to file the documents. I went to the second floor clerk’s window were I was again informed that I had to serve her upstairs in her courtroom.
That I have done all that can be reasonable expected of me to serve Judge Nancy Gast by filing the above two documents.
To set the record straight, it appears to me, and it is therefore my opinion, that there is in place a practice of blocking a clear and unequivocal service of process upon Judge Nancy Gast in this matter, and that Ronald Branson, for whom I am performing my duty as a process server, has done all due diligence in seeking to securely serve and file a Special Appearance, and a Motion to Recuse Judge Nancy Gast in citation 83267 NR.
I state under perjury of the law of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed this 25th day of May, 2011, at Los Angeles California