- On My Way To Get Justice, I Just Got Mugged! By Ron Branson National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief As all of you who have been to Las Vegas know, when you layMessage 1 of 1 , Dec 30, 2011View Source
On My Way To Get Justice, I Just Got Mugged!
By Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
As all of you who have been to Las Vegas know, when you lay your money on the table, you get to throw the dice, or spin the wheel. In purchasing a Lotto Ticket, you stand a change of winning. It may be a long shot, but you are in the competitive pool with the others who likewise purchased a Lotto Ticket. But when you are on your way to get justice, and along the way someone sticks a gun in your ribs and says, "Give me all your money," you don't stand any chance of winning. What am I getting at? and why do I make this comparison?
Back in 2009, on the 24th of November I was made the victim of a cunningly devised fraud without my knowledge. On this date I supposedly was in court at an arraignment on criminal charges at which I entered a plea of not guilty. The problem with this scenario is, it never happened. I knew nothing about this, neither was noticed of such an ordeal. After serving time in jail for my alleged crime, I got out and appealed. What I did know was that I was not present at such arraignment. What I did not know was the whole thing was a fake, as there was no such event that even took place.
During the appeal the I was able to obtain the November 24, 2009 Minute Order that said I was present and plead to the criminal charges. I also saw the name of the court reporter who took down the minutes of this proceeding. So, I contacted her and requested her to prepare a copy of this transcript of this event for me. She told me that no such event took place, therefore no transcript of this event was possible to transcribed.
Armed with this new knowledge, I informed all the judges on the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court of this fact during Oral Argument. They poo pooed my impeachment of the record and stated that my testimony was not borne up by the record. They refused at my urging to contact the court reporter to ascertain the truthfulness of the facts, so I asked the court reporter if she would sign off on a declaration setting forth that there was no such arraignment on criminal charges. She said, "Sure," and indeed prepared the declaration and signed it.
Nevertheless, the "conviction" on appeal of the non-existent criminal charges was "Affirmed." I brought suit using that declaration and called into question the integrity of the Los Angeles County judicial system in federal court, and named in the suit the judges that sat on the appeal in "my criminal case."
The City of Lo Angeles removed my suit to federal court where I was given leave to convert the state complaint into a federal complaint. Having done so, federal judge after federal judge decided to recuse themselves from the case, passing over their opportunity to render judgment on the judicial fraud of the Los Angeles County judicial system. Their recusals continued through four federal judges, and was sent to the fifth federal judge. The fifth federal judge completely the federal complaint and stepped over fraud threw the case against the County of Los Angeles out on October 17, 2011, the very day set for the hearing on my Motions for Summary Judgment against all Defendants as to all issues, bringing a conclusion to the entire case except for damages to be determined by a jury.
Three days later, I filed a Notice of Appeal and paid the $455.00 filing fee. Five days later I was sent a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal because the questions I raised on appeal were "insubstantial." What? Insubstantial? Anyone who knows anything about appeals, including appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, knows you do not file questions to be determined on appeal within your Notice of Appeal. Here is where my "Request For En Banc Determination" filed today, December 30, 2011, and my title, comes in. For those unfamiliar with the word "En Banc," that is term where a determination is requested on an issue of the entire bank of judges in the Circuit, which in this case is the Ninth Circuit. As to the application of my title above, allow me to ask the rhetorical question of what is the difference from a person on his way to the courthouse to file his Notice of Appeal with $455.00 in his pocket, and being confronted by a street robber who robs you at gunpoint of the $455.00 filing fee, and the actual facts incurred in this court case? As I said, for $455.00 you can throw the dice or spin the wheel in Las Vegas. Or you can buy $455.00 worth of Lotto Tickets, but what do you get with your $455.00 filing fee in the Ninth Circuit? An immediate dismissal, and told you did not raise adequate questions in your Notice of Appeal. Below is the actual document filed on this date, December 30, 2011. It is said, "If you want justice, go to a brothel, but if you want to get screwed, go to court!"
(See attachment, or the open past below)
11245 Otsego St., #12
North Hollywood, CA. 91601
Plaintiff Pro Se
REQUEST FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION
Docket Number 11-56857
D.C. No.: 2:11-cv-00565-ODW-JEM
Question Presented To The Ninth Circuit For Determination En Banc:
Is Appellant Required to Present His Questions on Appeal
at the Time of Filing His Notice of Appeal?
This appeal arises out of a federal suit involving fraud engaged in by the underlying state court, County of Los Angeles, wherein a 11/24/2009 Minute Order was fraudulently created alleging Plaintiff was present and arraigned on criminal charges, a fact contradicted by declaration of the very court reporter noted within the 11/24/2009 Minute Order, which declaration is entered into evidence in this federal action, and unopposed by all Defendants within this case!
This fraud question passed through the hands of four federal judges who recused themselves from the case, and was passed on to a fifth federal judge who dismissed the case 10/17/2011 without dealing with the issue of fraud within the complaint or fraud within the state court system, County of Los Angeles.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, and paid the $455 fee three days later on 10/20/2011, EXHIBIT A. On 10/25/2011, five days later, Appellant was sent a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal, stating “A review of the record demonstrates that this appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition because the questions on which the decision in the appeal depends may be so insubstantial as not to justify further proceedings,” EXHIBIT B. This was followed up by a second notice informing Appellate that the appeal was dismissed dated 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C.
ARGUMENT RE QUESTION:
Is Appellant Required to Present His Questions on Appeal
at the Time of Filing His Notice of Appeal?
All that had been filed in the appeal was a Notice of Appeal. Immediately thereafter, Appellant received an Order of intent to dismiss the appeal due to “insubstantial” questions presented in the appeal. The Order cites 9th Cir. Rule 3-6, but such rule cannot apply by virtue of its own wording, as the only time it can only apply, if applicable at all, is prior to the conclusion of a briefing, not before briefing begins. It is impossible to conclude what has not started. In fulfillment of the Order stating intent to dismiss, Appellant received an Order of Dismissal dated 12/8/2011 citing United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982), which is in apropos. The Hooton case states, “Although it is difficult to formulate a precise standard, not every case in which appellant files an unimpressive opening brief is appropriate for summary affirmance. Motions to affirm should be confined to appeals obviously controlled by precedent and cases in which insubstantiality is manifest from the face of appellant’s brief.” Twice the Hooton case states to its determination as based upon the questions presented in an opening brief. But here there is no “opening brief,” only the filing of a Notice of Appeal.
It is manifest that the intent is to dismiss this appeal at the Notice stage before the appeal started. Since the standard set forth in the Order is case precedent, the question is whether there exists case precedent within the Ninth Circuit, or any of the U.S. Circuit, to dismiss an appeal upon the filing of a Notice.
The appropriate standard to be applied here is Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3(c)(4), to wit, “An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.” The filing of a Notice of Appeal is jurisdictional, and Rule 3(c)(1) states the minimum required. “The notice of appeal must: (A) specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice… (B) designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed; and (C) name the court to which the appeal is taken.” Appellant followed the prescribed form articulately as provided within the Rules. Having so provided all the necessary information in the Notice of Appeal, “An appeal must not be dismissed” based upon reaching inadequacy. The Order of 12/8/2011 finds the “questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. AFFIRMED.” The logical question is, what questions are we talking about? There are no questions presented in this appeal, either insubstantial, or otherwise, only a Notice of Appeal!
1.) The Order of Dismissal dated 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C, runs contrary to opinion of United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982).
2.) The Order of 12/8/2011 runs afoul of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 governing appeals as a matter of Right, and treats this appeal as permissive under Title 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1292(b), which statute is limited only to bankruptcy and interlocutory appeals.
3.) The Order of 12/8/2011 is in conflict with Title 28 U.S.C., Sec 1291, which statute, passed by Congress, governs the right of appeal, and the jurisdiction of this Ninth Circuit.
4.) This Order of 12/8/2011, being in violation of the Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, is in conflict with every other Circuit within this nation subject to Rule 3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
5.) Lastly, the Order of 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C, presents a major shift from basic due process of the First Amendment right “to petition government for a redress of grievances,” and requires a faithful en banc determination by this Circuit as to whether substantial appellate questions must attend with, or immediately thereafter, the filing of all Notices of Appeal, and failure to do so shall constitute “automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute,” Order of 10/25/2011, EXHIBIT B.
__________________________________ Dated: December 30, 2011