[Victims of Court Corruption] Strike Zero - You're Out! by Ron Branson

Strike Zero - You're Out!

By Ron Branson

Scott Huminski, it appears that the 9th Cir. is now adopting the very same Modus Operendi as is employed by the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e. denying review without opinion. A I received was first a form letter from the Clerk of the Court stating intent to affirm the judgement below based upon the conclusion that the issues presented were insubstantial. But all that transpired was that I paid  $455 for the Notice of Appeal and five days later I received the form letter from the Clerk of the Court.

Thereafter, I received a letter with three judges signed thereon that the appeal of the judgement of the court below was sustained based upon my Opening Brief. But there was no Opening Brief nor was there even a Record on Appeal. All I got was stiffed of $450, and they didn't even use a gun.

Then it was off to the Supreme Court where not a thing was said about my being denied a opportunity to prepare and file an Opening Brief and argue my case.

I guess this is now standard operational procedure for the 9th Cir. to not allow Opening Briefs or questions on Appeal. As I said illustratively, it is like being called up to bat, and you grab your bat and approach the plate and await the pitch when the umpire yells, "You're Out!"

Ron Branson

-------- Original Message --------

It would save everyone a lot of trouble if the 9th Cir stated its practice of hearing appeals on a discretionary basis rather than issuing bogus rulings stating the issues are insubstantial in a form letter.

The Vermont supremes were right on with the below.

In The

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

 

Scott Huminski, Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                                                        v.                                 Docket No. 12-17225

Mercy Gilbert Medical Center,

Dignity Health, et al., Defendants – Appellees.

MOTION TO CLARIFY

      NOW COMES, Scott Huminski ("Huminski"), and moves to clarify the final opinion/ruling in this matter to specify the findings of law to allow the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to set forth the law of this case that is in conflict with the law adopted by the full Vermont Supreme Court in Huminski v. Lavoie, 173 Vt. 517 (Vt. Supr. Ct. 2001, Docket No. 99—330) (en banc) and authority cited therein.  The insubstantial final opinion entered in this matter does not adequately set forth facts or law sufficient for a meaningful review by the United States Supreme Court.

SUA SPONTE RULINGS/ORDERS WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PARTIES – LAW CONTRADICTORY TO OTHER FEDERAL CIRCUITS AND STATE SUPREME COURTS

 

The Court should state with specificity the rejection of the logic set forth in Huminski v. Lavoie and cases cited therein from the Second Circuit, Sixth Circuit and Seventh Circuit federal Courts of Appeals and from the en banc Vermont Supreme Court.  This appeal involves a sua sponte District Court opinion denying an injunction without allowing time for the parties to respond to arguments sua sponte proffered by the District Court.  The authority rejected by this Court from Huminski v. Lavoie is as follows:

“Through this traditional adversarial process, a complete record is produced, and the pertinent legal and factual issues are crystallized for review on appeal.  Judicial economy is thereby served.  In contrast, sua  sponte dismissals without adequate notice to the parties tend to short-circuit the process, and ultimately to prolong the proceedings and squander judicial resources.  See Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 797 (2d  Cir. 1988) (noting that sua sponte dismissals may "tend to produce the very effect they seek to avoid - a waste of judicial  resources"); Tingler  v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111 (6th Cir. 1983) (lack of record resulting from sua sponte dismissal hampers arguments on appeal and "results in the waste of judicial resources").  

 As other courts have observed, sua sponte dismissals are also disfavored because they cast the judge in the role of "'a proponent rather than an independent entity.' " Perez, 849 F.2d at 797  (quoting Doe v. St.  Joseph's Hosp., 788 F.2d 411, 415 (7th Cir. 1986)); see also Lewis v. New York,  547 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1976). We note that courts should be particularly careful to avoid this perception in cases involving pro se  plaintiffs.” (emphasis added)

 

Dated at Naples, Florida this 13^th day of November, 2012.          

/s/ Scott Huminski

 _________________________              

Scott Huminski, pro se

P.O. Box 10224

Naples, FL  34101

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                        I hereby certify that on this 13^th day of November 2012, copies of this

 

paper were served upon parties of record.

                                                                                    /s/ Scott Huminski

___________________________

            Scott Huminski

[Victims of Court Corruption] Restoring our rights through us "Dumb Asses"

Restoring Our Rights
Through Us "Dumb Asses"

Gene Swank, even regular Grand Jurors do not try criminal cases. They only determine if there is Probable Cause for the defendant to go to trial. In the case of the Special Grand Jurors within J.A.I.L., they only determine if there is Probable Cause that the judge has willfully violated the law or the Constitution, then the judge may face either Criminal or civil charges, or both. There is not innocence or guilt with any Grand Jury, regular or Special.

Within the perview of JAIL4judges, defendants are only judges, no one other than judges! The SGJs do not deal with police cases, only with judges who cover for police. J.A.I.L. opens a whole new world that has heretofore been unknown by its process. It recovers the rights which we have lost through tyranny.

Ron Branson

-------- Original Message --------

We definately need these Grand Juries, The average High school grad can figure out what is right and what is wrong. But a Jurer needs tknow the basics of the law. All jurers should know that they have the legal constitutional right to nullifie a law and find the defendent innocent if they think the law is wrong, that the Police were overzealous or the Prosecuter is trying to make a name for himself or an example of the defendent. Many many of our Police, Prosecutors and Judges operate outside the law. They rule on there own feelings, not what the law says. 3 times I have had Judges make rulings in complete violation of what the law says. I have had social workers and Police Detectives make totally false reports Luckily twice I had recorded what was said and proved to the Judge the person was lying. The other times I was unable to find an Attorney I could afford so I lost. We need to fix the legal system as soon as possible!!!!!!

    Gene Swank
   gswank54@hotmail.com

---

Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:54:22 -0800
From: VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
To: bob@bobhurt.com
CC: VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
Subject: Grand Juries Are Dumb Asses



Bob Hurt, you have the whole idea regarding the Special Grand Jury wrong. First, there are no prosecutors of the kind of which you are thinking, in regards to the Special Grand Jury. Second, the seats of Special Grand Jurors names are drawn by public lottery. If your name is drawn, no one can make you serve, nor forbid you from serving, unless you are one of the government entities that are precluded, such as being a member of the law enforcement, work within the judicial branch of government, or a member of the Bar Association. As to the Special Prosecutors chosen by the Special Grand Jurors, they cannot be a part of the government. They must be People such as you who are qualified to serve on the Special Grand Jury.

Thirdly, it is the wealthy and well connected individuals who have University degrees who are the lest likely to submit themselves to the constraint of the Constitution. The professors of colleges and universities are by in large largely Marxist, placed in those positions for the purpose of brainwashing graduates, knowing they are likely to be the future leaders of this country who hold Marxist philosophy. Right now if you go to law school, you will get only a single class of constitutional law, that is it. Do you really think that the lawyers who are graduates from these universities are going to be the saviors of society?

The issue is ethical People, and College graduates are not so inclined to ethical lifestyles. I was in the law library of La Vern University making copies when I witnessed a man from the school with his arm up inside of a copy machine jiggling a switch and nickles came dropping down. I asked the librarian if he was authorized to empty the copy machines. He asked me to describe what I witnessed, and then asked if I would be willing to testify of what I saw to the University Administration. I said "Yes." A hearing was set up and I was called in to testify. The man was there with one of the staff as his attorney. What I stated is what I saw, and stated that either he was authorized to drain the copiers of money, or he was stealing money from the school.

I got the man is trouble. Unknown to me was that he was the future son-in-law of one of their influential professor at the University. What did I get? I was ordered not to step foot in the University law library every again. The Scripture tells us what type of men to avoid. "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" James 2:6. It is better to trust an uneducated poor man with a low I.Q. when it comes to ethics, than to seek out someone seeking future judgeship or some other influential position.

Ron Branson

-------- Original Message --------

Ron:

No prosecutor would allow me to sit on a jury of any kind because I am not a dumbass. 

An ideal grand juror should have a university bachelor degree or equivalent, and should have passed basic courses in constitution of state and US, including federalist papers, and laws and court operation.  They should attest to having read and studied the constitutions, and should have to pass a competency test.

Requiring a university degree guarantees the juror prospect has at least 110 IQ.  It guarantees each juror has a decent education and ability to think analytically and rationally.  The constitution course and test guarantees that the juror understands the ideals of good American government.

Thus, the jury will have no dumbasses in it.

***

Bob Hurt

From: Ron Branson [mailto:VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:51 AM
To: Bob Hurt
Cc: VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
Subject: Grand Juries Are Dumb Asses

Bob Hurt, if you are speaking of the County Grand Juries, then I would agree with you. However, the JAIL4Judges Initiative is not going to be creating County Grand Juries. County Grand Juries have jurisdiction over all matters, but as you say, "The Grand Jury is largely made up of dumb asses who don't have a clue."

This is precisely why it is paramount that we must create the People's Independent Special Grand Juries that only have jurisdiction over the judiciary. Since J.A.I.L. does not interfere with any existing legal processes, it leaves them to operate just as they exist. However, in order for the People to gain access to the Special Grand Juries, they must exhaust all the existing channels before they can gain access to the Special Grand Juries, including County Grand Juries. This is true criminally and it is true civilly. This way, J.A.I..L. cannot be justifiably accused of interfering with either the judicial system, nor with the prosecutor, or with the Grand Jury.

These Special Grand Jurors are you and me. If you wish to refer to yourself as a dumb ass that is you prerogative. But I would hope that you find yourself with a higher opinion of yourself. Perhaps if my name is drawn to serve on one of these Special Grand Juries, I am likely to be accused of having a conflict of interest and challenged to recuse myself. I can live with that, as I will consider myself as an ad hock "adviser" to all of the Special Grand Juries throughout the country, should they call upon me, if there be such a position. I find no provision that any Grand Jury may not consult with anyone they shall chose.

Ron Branson

-------- Original Message --------

I fully believe the fourth branch which I have proposed SHOULD interfere with the misdeeds by indicting and prosecuting government criminals, including those in the courts.  The grand jury is largely made up of dumbasses who don’t have a clue, chosen for that reason.  State and US Attorneys interfere with their deliberations and tell them what to think, and even forge documents in their name.  The grand jury system is hopelessly broken and it does not have the disconnection from criminal infrastructure of government that it needs to function effectively for eliminating government crime.  THAT and the lack of penalties for loyalty oath violation explains WHY we have so much government crime.

 

Another reason for government crime is the combined lack of intelligence, responsibility, education, and ethics in the electorate.  Dumbasses elect criminals and intellectual thugs like Obama.

 

America and the states all need a fourth branch that

 

1.       Advises and informs the other branches about prudence and constitutionality of laws

2.      Advises and informs the people about prudence of laws and character and record of politicians, including judges and candidates for judgeships

3.      Indicts and prosecutes government crooks on behalf of the people

 

***

Bob Hurt

 

Contact: Email  bh   f       t • 
Blogs: 1 2 3 • 
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  •  
727 669 5511