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

America's Greatest Criminals Wear Black Robes, Not Black Masks

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    America s Greatest Criminals Wear Black Robes, Not Black Masks Below posted on the SacBee Newspaper Comments: America s greatest criminals wear black robes,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8 5:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      America's Greatest Criminals Wear
      Black Robes, Not Black Masks


      Below posted on the SacBee Newspaper Comments:

      America's greatest criminals wear black robes, not black masks. I am currently in the U.S. Supreme Court over a case in which involves the County of Los Angeles creating a false and fraudulent Minute Order that states I was present and was arraigned on criminal charges in which I knew nothing about. I requested of the court reporter named in that Minute Order a transcript of that court proceeding, but was informed that no such arraignment took place. I asked if she would sign an affidavit confirming this, and she did. I sought to impeach that record in the Appellate Department on appeal and was told that the impeachment did not square with the Minute Order record. Of course not, as no fraudulent record will comport with the impeachment of that record.

      I sued and in Federal Court, judge after judge recused themselves from the case until they got a cooperative fifth federal judge to dismiss the case immediately prior to a hearing on a Motion for Sanctions against these judges for refusing to produce the transcript of the event on which they relied that I was arraigned on criminal charges. I appealed this fifth federal judge's dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, and five days later an Order was issued stating the intent to affirm the dismissal of the action though there was only a Notice of Appeal which according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures cannot be dismissed. The intent was followed up with an actual affirmation of dismissal with absolutely no record, no Opening Brief, and no Questions Presented on Appeal. This case, as of Mar. 1st this month, has been received and filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, and is now pending. Yet to be ascertained is the question, "What is the purpose of the Courts?" Supposedly to avoid settling our differences in the streets. But when we consider that it is the judges who are themselves the greatest criminals in America, it is hard to understand why these criminals are to be protected in privacy of their criminality.

      Ron Branson

      http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4320543/california-judges-fight-online.html

      California judges fight online posting of their financial statements

      Published: Thursday, Mar. 8, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 3A

      An association that represents California judges is lobbying to keep annual financial disclosure statements filed by the judiciary off the Internet.

      The state Fair Political Practices Commission, in 2010, began posting statements of economic interest for officials who file the annual disclosures with the agency, such as legislators, the governor and other constitutional officers.

      The agency was set to begin posting the "Form 700" forms from judges in 2011 but postponed the implementation "in response to security-related concerns expressed by several judges and their representatives," according to a memo prepared by FPPC staff.

      After months of discussions, a working group of trial judges, appellate justices and representatives of the Administrative Offices of the Courts and the California Highway Patrol proposed a process for judges to submit a second version of their form that does not include information that they feel would pose a security risk if posted online, such as disclosures that could reveal a home or work address.

      The option to redact sensitive information is available to all officials under current law and, according to the FPPC memo, the case-by-case requests "to redact home addresses for private individuals including both family and friends have been granted liberally" in the past.

      But the California Judges Association, which represents about 2,500 judicial officials, says it is still opposed to posting the forms, which can include addresses of properties owned by the official, a spouse's place of business and gifts the official received. They are petitioning to keep the forms offline, where they can still be requested as public records.

      The debate will come to a head next week, when commissioners hold a discussion of the issue during a March 15 meeting.

      CJA President David Rubin, a San Diego Superior Court judge, said the association plans to share with the commission "our concerns about the particular danger in which judges or judicial officers and their families are put in by posting their Form 700s online."

      Rubin said that given judges' "unique" and public role in the criminal and civil justice systems, his members feel "very dangerous" situations could arise in which someone involved in a case could simply pull up information contained on the forms from a computer or even a smartphone in a courthouse.

      FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel said this week that though the working group had submitted its alternative filing proposal in late January, she decided to open up a full discussion of the issue at next week's meeting after she heard that the judges' association was still concerned.

      © Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.


      Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4320543/california-judges-fight-online.html#storylink=cpy



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