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

U.S. Supreme Court Brief: Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our American Judicial System?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 23, 2012
    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.

    Ronald Branson


    ------/------/-----/-----/-----/-----/-----


    No.  11-9026

    Filed February 24 2012 and Placed on Docket March 1, 2012

    IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    _____________________________

     

    RONALD BRANSON, PETITIONER

    VS.

    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

     

                                 RONALD BRANSON

                                 - - - - - 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

                                                 Page

    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

     

    JURISDICTION                                                                                             7

     

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                                  8-15

     

    REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT                                                    16

     

    CONCLUSION                                                                                             17

     

    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

     

    CASES                                                                                                      Page

     

    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)

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