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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
1
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?
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
2
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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Page
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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
4
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)
(In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, 559. [300 P. 132])
13, 14
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)
United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 (1876)
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
5
10, 17
11
12, 13
STATUTES AND RULES
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1916
Page
8
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(4)
10
9th Cir. Rule 3-6
10
OTHER
Appendix A
9
Appendix B
10
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
6
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORATI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the order
below.
OPINION 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.
JURISDICTION
[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)
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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.
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
8
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.
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
9
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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
10
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.
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
11
“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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
12
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).
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
13
“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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
14
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)
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
15
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
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.
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
16
CONCLUSION
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
Petition for Certiorari to United States Supreme Court
17