U.S. Supreme Court Brief: Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our American Judicial System?
- View Source
Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our
American Judicial System?
The following Brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24, 2012, and entered upon the Docket March 1, 2012.
Pursuant to Rule 15.3, the Court has given opposing counsel until Monday, April 02, 2012, ten days from today, to oppose this Brief.
Please note that this matter is one of out and out fraud from its inception, wherein there was no Notice whatsoever to appear for an arraignment, Plaintiff was not present, did he have any knowledge of such proceeding, and when inquired of the court reporter named in the 11/24/09 Minute Order for a transcript of this proceeding, was informed that no such proceeding took place.
Upon being so informed by the court reporter, he asked her if she would prepare and sign a Declaration establishing that there was no such arraignment or criminal charges brought forth. She so did, and the declaration from this court reporter has been constantly set forth showing the fraud of this such so-called "conviction."
The implication of this matter is that unless the U.S.Supreme Court reverses, the government can now, through it courts universally applied, see through a "conviction" of anyone they wish of any criminal charge without notice, knowledge, presence, or criminal charges, and can see that that one be imprisoned on these supposed "charges," and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is true even if the person acquires the declaration of an official court reporter name it the record that no such event transpired. This is the issue now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which decision will finalize this question whether such fraudulent action is lawful within these United States.
For those with legal interests, you will find herein a plethora of legal authority referencing the effects of fraud on the courts of America. The question is, can we rely upon these authorities. We shall now see if fraud is now the way of life to be expected in our judicial system of America.
Filed February 24 2012 and Placed on Docket March 1, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RONALD BRANSON, PETITIONER
CITY OF LOS ANGELES , ET, AL , RESPONDENTS
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00565-ODW, NINTH CIR. CASE No. 11-56857
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
- - - - - OTSEGO ST. , # X
NORTH HOLLYWOOD , CA. 91601
(818) 310- 8999
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Is Petitioner Entitled to a Record, Questions on Appeal, and an Opening Brief Prior to Summary Affirmation of Dismissal by the Ninth Circuit?
LIST OF PARTIES
All parties do not appear in the caption on the cover page. A full list of all parties to the proceeding in this court whose order is the subject of this petition is as follows:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
OFFICER KEVIN BAYONA
DOE 1 / aka MARVIN GROSS
DOE 2 / aka MELONY SCHOENBERG
DOE 3 / aka NANCY S. GAST
DOE 4 / aka MICHAEL JESIC
DOE 5 / aka ANITA DYMANT
DOE 6 / aka PATTI JO MC KAY
DOE 7 / aka SUNJAY KUMAR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 2
LIST OF PARTIES 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED 5
STATUTES AND RULES 6
OPINION BELOW 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 8-15
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 16
APPENDIX A: Order of Ninth Circuit filed 10/25/11 18
APPENDIX B: Order of Ninth Circuit filed 12/8/11 19
PROOF OF SERVICE 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210 11
Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 1067 12
Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 (1828) 13, 14
(In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, 559. [300 P. 132]) 11
Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappell, 327 SW2d 15 at 27 11, 12
Libhart v. Copeland 949 SW2d 783, 794 11, 12
Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416 11
Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633, 642 14
Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257, 260 11
Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.,
(1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1239 14
Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917) 14 - 15
United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982) 10, 17
United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70 11
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 (1876) 12, 13
STATUTES AND RULES Page
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1916 8
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(4) 10
9th Cir. Rule 3-6 &n
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)