Friday, March 23, 2012

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

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











D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00565-ODW,  NINTH CIR. CASE  No. 11-56857



                             RONALD BRANSON

                             - - - - - OTSEGO ST., # X

                             NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA. 91601

             (818) 310- 8999









Is Petitioner Entitled to a Record, Questions on Appeal, and an Opening Brief Prior to Summary Affirmation of Dismissal by the Ninth Circuit?

















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:


















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








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                                                                                        10




Appendix A                                                                                                 9


Appendix B                                                                                                10




















Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the order below.





[x]     For cases from federal courts:


          The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at      Appendix B to the petition and is

          [  ]     reported at _____________________________________; or

          [  ]     has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or

          [  ]     is unpublished.

          [x]     not indicated as to be published or unpublished.




[X]     For cases from federal courts:


          The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my      case was December 8, 2011.


          [x]     No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.


          The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(1)





Facts, Authorities, and Case Precedence


This Certiorari arises out of a federal suit involving a 11/24/09 fraudulent Minute Order created by someone yet unknown that alleges that Petitioner was present and arraigned on criminal charges, a fact which is specifically contradicted by the sworn declaration under oath of the court reporter named within that Minute Order, to wit, VERONIKA COHEN. It follows that she also was made a victim of this fraudulently created Minute Order. An alleged “conviction” of the non-existent charges followed with an affirmation on appeal, despite a CCP Sec. 1916 impeachment of the record, which provides, “Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.”

Petitioner sought to bring up this fraud issue within the State Court of Appeals, but was barred by the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court from doing so. Therefore, in lieu thereof, Petitioner brought a state court civil action in which action defendants defaulted. Instead of dealing with the default, defendants removed the state action to federal court, ignoring the state court default.

In federal court Petitioner was given leave to amend the complaint to convert it into a federal cause of action. Thereupon, four federal judges, one after another, successively recused themselves from the case. It was then passed on to the fifth federal judge, Judge Otis D. Wright, who, without an appearance of any of the parties before him, summarily dismissed the federal fraud action 10/17/2011, stating that Petitioner could refile his federal action when he got the state court conviction overturned. However, since the federal complaint alleges there were no criminal charges upon which a conviction could exist, a fact supported by the declaration of the court reporter VERONIKA COHEN, Petitioner appealed that decision on 10/20/2012.

Upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal, Petitioner was immediately notified, “A review of the record demonstrates that this appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition…” Appendix A, dated 10/25/2011. Petition had never heard of a case in which the appeal was pre-planned to be disposed of instantly without any record, questions on appeal, or an Opening Brief. Such pre-planned summary Affirmation of dismissal of this fraud case materialized in Appendix B, 12/8/2011. This instant Petition for Certiorari ensued.


The Order of 10/25/2011, (Appendix A), states it is based upon “A review of the record,” and cites to 9th Cir. Rule 3-6. But there is no record whatsoever, only a Notice of Appeal. This summary affirmation at the Notice of Appeal stage proves that the dismissal of this case alleging fraud was pre-planned.

An appeal cannot be disposed of by law merely because one files a Notice of Appeal. FRAP 3(c)(4) states, “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 Order of 12/8/2011 (Appendix B), cites to United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982), which twice states that its determination is based upon the filing of an Opening Brief. But here, as stated, there is no “Opening Brief” on which to make a determination, only a summary blockage of the statutory right of appeal.


Here are just some cases in which this Court, and others, have ruled on with respect to the types of fraud which are herein involved:

“…the 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 to 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])” Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257, 260.

 “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.” Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416.

          “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters.”

Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210.

          “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70.

          “No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment or a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. …fraud vitiates all transactions, and if taken for a fraudulent purpose to carry out a fraudulent scheme, such action is void and of no force or effect whatever, equality will compel fair dealing, disregarding all forms and subterfuges, and looking only to the substance of things.” Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappell, 327 SW2d 15 at 27 citing Libhart v. Copeland 949 SW2d 783, 794.

“Extrinsic fraud usually arises when a party is denied a fair adversary hearing because he has been ‘deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense.’ ’’   Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 1067.

“The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.       “That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights is admitted. Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization, over the subject matter. But notice is only for the purpose of affording the party an opportunity of being heard upon the claim or the charges made; it is a summons to him to appear and speak, if he has any thing to say, why the judgment sought should not be rendered. A denial to a party of the benefit of a notice would be in effect to deny that he is entitled to notice at all, and the sham and deceptive proceeding had better be omitted altogether. …. It is difficult to speak of a decree thus rendered with moderation; it was in fact a mere arbitrary edict, clothed in the form of a judicial sentence.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 (1876).

“If the court of a state had jurisdiction of a matter, its decision would be conclusive, but this Court cannot yield assent to the proposition that the jurisdiction of a state court cannot be questioned where its proceeding were brought collaterally before the circuit court of the United States.

“Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.

“The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings.” Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 (1828).

“The affirmance of a void judgment upon appeal imparts no validity to the judgment, but is in itself void by reason of the nullity of the judgment appealed from.” Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633, 642.

“The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to void judgments. ‘Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud.” Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co., (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1239.

“… [W]e are of opinion that we should recognize the condition created by the judgment of the state court unless, from an intrinsic consideration of the state record, one or all of the following conditions should appear: 1, that the state procedure, from want of notice or opportunity to be heard, was wanting in due process, 2, that there was such an infirmity of proof as to facts found to have established the want of fair private and professional character as to give rise to a clear conviction on our part that we could not, consistently with our duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject, or 3, that some other grave reason existed which should convince us that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do.”  Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)














This appeal from the Ninth Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in affirming an Order of dismissal immediately following the filing of a Notice of Appeal, and prior to a record, questions on appeal, and an Opening Brief so as to call for the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.














The Order of Affirmation of dismissal, (Appendix B), not only runs afoul of United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982), but also so far departs from the normal appellate procedure that its Order calls for the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power inasmuch as should such behavior be given universal acceptance, there could exist no more appeals to the Ninth Circuit, as all Orders and Judgments would be Affirmed without record or briefing the instant the Notice of Appeal was filed.

This Court would be just in ordering the Ninth Circuit to permit a Record on Appeal, and based thereupon, an Opening Brief, and for this Appeal to proceed as required under the FRAP.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,



Dated:   February 24, 2012


Post a Comment

<< Home