The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Patronizes Corruption of the US District Court in LA and the Los Angeles Superior Court


The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Patronizes Corruption of the US District Court in LA and the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The US courts are not ready, willing, able to address their own corruption.  No remedy can be found there for the abuse

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has presided over corruption of historic proportions of the justice system under the 9th Circuit….

Los Angeles, November 5 – in response to the latest filing by Mr Ron Branson, of Jail4Judges.org, (see below) Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) issued the following statement:

There is no sense in filing in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in an effort to gain protection against corruption in the Southern California courts.  The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has established a firm record in patronizing the corruption in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the Los Angeles Superior Court.

To whit, Dr Zernik referred to three cases in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit from recent years, where simulated [1] petitions or appeals were conducted by the Court of Appeals, as part of cover up of the corruption of the lower courts:

  • In Zernik v US District Court, LA (08-72714) –  Dr Zernik filed an emergency petition, after the US District Court in LA refused to issue summons in  Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), where some 10 judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were sued for conduct amounting to racketeering, led by California Judge Jacqueline ConnorUS Judge Virginia Phillips and US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in collusion with US Clerk Terry Nafisi insisted on conducting a simulated litigation instead.

The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, summarily denied the petition in the names of US Circuit Judges  Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha Berzon and Milan Smith, Clerk Molly C Dwyer (through an unsigned, unauthenticated orders), and papers, which were duly filed with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and documented the corruption in the other courts, were eliminated from the docket. [2]

  • In Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) – the former US prosecutor Richard Fine, filed a petition originating in the conduct of simulated habeas corpus litigation under Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) by US Judge John Walter, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and US Clerk Terry Nafisi. The case itself originated in the Los Angeles Superior Court, where California Judge David Jaffe, Clerk John ClarkeSheriff Lee Baca and others engaged in conduct amounting to racketeering, and falsely imprisoned Richard Fine in solitary confinement for 18 months, under fraudulent records, claiming that he was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”. [3]

The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, summarily denied the petition in the names of US Circuit Judges  Alex Kozinski, Richard Paez, and Richard Tallman (through an unsigned, unauthenticated order).

  • In Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813), the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, insisted on conducting a simulated appeal from a fraudulent, uncertified judgment in the US District Court in Los Angeles under Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425), again the product of collusion by US Judge Virginia Phillips and Clerk Terry Nafisi. [4]

“Filing with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is only worthwhile as part of the efforts to document the scope of the corruption, but not out of hope of gaining Equal Protection under the Law,” concludes Dr Zernik. “Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has presided over corruption of historic proportions of the justice system under the 9th Circuit.  He will surely be remembered for that!”

Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:

Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. 
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1)  induce payment of a claim from another person;  or                      
(2)  cause another to:                                                       
(A)  submit to the putative authority of the document;  or                
(B)  take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b)  Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels.
[2,3] For documentation of the conduct of simulated litigation in the US District Court, Central District of California, under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), see:
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
[4] For evidence regarding conduct of the simulated appearl in Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813), see:

11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’  the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Simulated Appeal from a Simulated Judgment of the US District Court

Filing by Mr Ron Branson, of Jail4Judges.org

Fraud & Corruption Appeal
Filed 11/2/11 in Ninth Cir. Court of Appeals

Ronald  Branson
11245 Otsego St., #12
North Hollywood, CA. 91601
(818) 310-8999

Plaintiff Pro Se


Ronald Branson,


CITY OF LOS ANGELES; L.A.P.D., 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; & DOEs 8 – 10, Inclusive

No. 11-56857

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00565-ODW-JEM

U.S. District Court for Central
California, Los Angeles

Opposition to Order

Filed by Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals

on Oct. 25, 2011

Plaintiff/Appellant hereby appears in Opposition to the “Order” of 10-25-11 a copy of which is attached for reference.

Good cause exists for allowing this appeal as of right to move forward pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, for the following reasons based on the abundance of evidence already established in this case.

In preparing this Opposition, Appellant’s research reveals that the definition of the term as used in this instant Order “insubstantial” is deemed subjective by this circuit. “Although it is difficult to formulate a precise standard, not every case in which appellant files an unimpressive opening brief is appropriate for summary affirmance. Motions to affirm should be confined to appeals obviously controlled by precedent and cases in which the insubstantiality is manifest from the face of appellant’s brief.2” United States of America v. James Lynn Hooton, Defendant-Appellant No. 82-1441, U.S. Court of Appeals, (Decided October 13, 1982.)

As to form, Plaintiff/Appellant, has found no authority as to the form this Opposition should take, nor has there been any requested format. Therefore, Appellant shall respond in opposition to this Order after a practical manner.


On August 9, 2011, Plaintiff Ronald Branson in the underlying court action,  moved the below court for the entry of Summary Judgment against all Defendants as to all issues, based upon two grounds; namely 1) Non-response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, and 2) upon EXHIBITS A, B, C, and D. Such Exhibits documented a major fraud which took place within the Los Angeles Superior Court, which fraud led all the way up through, and included the Appellate Department of the Superior Court. Such fraud appears on its face to have begun when someone unknown, created and filed a fraudulent Minute Order of 11-24-09, which Minute Order alleges “DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY MARVIN GROSS DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER – DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 01, 125(A) VC. DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 02, 27153 VC. – DEFENDANT WAS ARRAIGNED AND PLEAD NOT GUILTY ON CITATION 0750701 – THAT CITATION IS NOW FILED AS A MISDEMEANOR ON THIS CASE. – LAST DAY IS 12/18/09.”

It was not until after the matter was on appeal that Plaintiff/Appellant, (hereinafter “P/A”), discovered this fraud upon which all Defendants/Appellees (hereinafter “D/A”) rely in asserting that P/A was convicted of a crime. This fraudulent Minute Order is an exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

As a result of P/A discovering the information regarding this false and fraudulent arraignment of criminal charges, he consulted with Court Reporter Veronika Cohen about this incident at which he supposedly was present and entered pleas to such charges. She advised P/A that no such incident took place. P/A relayed this same information on to the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court at oral argument attempting to impeach the record and uncover the fraud behind this fraudulent Minute Order. P/A asked this panel of judges to consult with the Official Court Reporter for themselves and ascertain the truth regarding this matter, after all, it was this document upon which their entire affirmance of a conviction was based.

California Code of Civil Procedure 1916 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.”

Notwithstanding this law, this County appellate panel forged forward, based upon this exposed fraud, to order, without jurisdiction to do so, a false and fraudulent affirmance of the charges as stated within this fraudulent Minute Order.

It thereby became obvious that it was this very appellate panel itself who were offering this fraudulent record, in respect to the proceedings, and who thereby were in collusion by fraud with the other side. Such conduct, bordering on criminal conduct, cannot be respected by any other tribunal.

P/A then got back with Court Reporter Veronika Cohen listed in the Minute Order, and informed her that the appellate court refused to accept the fact that no arraignment took place. Ms. Cohen then prepared a declaration dated 3-9-11 verifying that there was no such arraignment that took place. In her declaration she identifies her position as the “OFFICIAL REPORTER FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES” which P/A attached as Exhibit B to all three Motions for Summary Judgment served upon counsels for all of the D/As.

The declaration of the Official Reporter for the Los Angeles County Courts stands unopposed and deemed true throughout both the State action, and this current federal action. There is nothing more to be resolved in this federal action except damages to be determined by a jury.

P/A has testified numerous times by declaration that he was neither present at any arraignment, had never received notice of any arraignment, never plead to any charges at an arraignment, was never presented with a verified complaint alleging charges, that he never waived his right to defend himself should he be presented with criminal charges. Everything involving the People of the State of California v. Ronald Branson, Case # 9VY04970, is based upon a total fraud, and that the affirmation of conviction based upon a fraudulent non-existent arraignment on fraudulent non-existing charges performed without notice and without the presence or knowledge of P/A, all now manifest as a magnificent cover-up in this federal action.

Coming to the other ground for P/A’s Motion for Summary Judgment, i.e., non-response to Request for Admissions, it was therefore deemed admitted by the D/As: “That there was no case called Re Ronald Branson; that there was no foundation for the affirmance of a criminal conviction against Ronald Branson inasmuch as there was no arraignment on criminal charges against him. (Admission 6 & 8). That the case of People v. Ronald Branson, 9VY04970 was absent jurisdiction and the most basic fundamental right to due process, and was based on fraud; that the intended targeted victim was Ronald Branson to cause him to suffer imprisonment. (Admission 13 & 15).”  – Conclusion of P/A’s Reply to Opposition of Defendant Marvin Gross to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Ronald Branson against Defendant Marvin Gross & Los Angeles County, page 14, lines 12 – 21.

Since it is manifest by both the declaration of the Official Court Reporter for the County of Los Angeles, and by their own deemed admissions that there was no criminal charges brought forth against P/A, nor an arraignment on anything, that the criminal court debacle upon which these D/As rely for their Motions to Dismiss was devoid of absolutely all jurisdiction both in personam, and in rem, and are situated in the same legal status as if no criminal proceeding existed. Further noteworthy is the fact that the City of Los Angeles did not even oppose  P/A’s Motion for Summary Judgment. They submitted nothing in their defense against the granting of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The question now in consideration is whether such lack of jurisdiction through manifest fraud, and deception, should carry over into this Federal litigation.

P/A’s Motion for Summary Judgment was set for hearing on October 17, 2011. On this date, P/A appeared in court for a decision regarding this fraud. However, rather than a decision regarding this fraud, the court rendered the following; “ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Otis D Wright, II. This Court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ Motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s FAC in its entirety. In the event Plaintiff’s conviction is overturned on appeal, he may file a new action. All remaining motions are hereby found moot, and the Clerk of Court shall close this case.”

It therefore becomes obvious that Judge Otis D. Wright’s Order completely ignores all the evidence regarding the fraud. By saying, “In the event Plaintiff’s conviction is overturned on appeal, he may file a new action,” he thereby refutes that P/A never received a notice, was never arraigned, was never presented with a verified complaint, that he never entered a plea to anything, that there was no magistrate, no Probable Cause, he was never allowed to put on his own defense should he have been presented with charges, and that he was never convicted of any charges. It was impossible to affirm a conviction of anything against P/A.

He also, by his Order, necessarily, by implication, calls the Official Court Reporter for the County of Los Angeles, a liar when she states under oath by declaration that there was no such criminal proceeding before her upon which Minute Order all Defendants rely in asserting that there was a conviction.

Obviously, it is impossible to “overturn” a non-existent fraudulent “conviction,” based upon a non-existent fraudulent arraignment, based upon non-existent fraudulent charges, all performed without notice to P/A, and without his knowledge or his appearance, thereby making it impossible to “file a new action.”

All of this fraud was brought to the judge’s attention within P/A’s opposition to all of these D/A’s Motions to Dismiss, which facts, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, must assume the truthfulness of the factual allegations. As to the application of substantive law as to the facts of Notice and Opportunity, and fraud, P/A will establish this within his below points and authorities.


As stated in U.S. v. Hooton, (Supra), cited in the commencement of this Opposition to “Order,” the standard for insubstantiality of an Opening Brief is case precedent, “Although it is difficult to formulate a precise standard, not every case in which appellant files an unimpressive opening brief is appropriate for summary affirmance. Motions to affirm should be confined to appeals obviously controlled by precedent and cases in which the insubstantiality is manifest from the face of appellant’s brief.2”

While acknowledged that this is not an Opening Brief, which Opening Brief would otherwise be due April 2, 2012, the same minimum standard of case precedent for an Opening Brief should be applied as to when no Opening Brief on appeal is allowed.

Below are case precedents in matters of lack of notice, lack of opportunity to put on a defense, and of extrinsic fraud, as alleged, and even proved, within discovery below. P/A had a right to notice, a right to appear, to be apprised of  charges, if any, that might be laid against him, to a magistrate, and to Probable Cause, and to put on his own defense, all of which were denied him.

“No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

“While warrants were not required in all circumstances, the requirement of probable cause, as elaborated in numerous precedents, was treated as absolute. The “long-prevailing standards” of probable cause embodied “the best compromise that has been found for accommodating [the] often opposing interests” in “safeguard[ing] citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy” and in “seek[ing] to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 338 U. S. 176 (1949). The standard of probable cause thus represented the accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience as to the minimum justification necessary to make the kind of intrusion involved in an arrest “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. The standard applied to all arrests….”  Dunaway v. New York, 4422 U.S. 200 (1979)

“The petition here involved does not disclose whether petitioner upon his arrest was immediately taken before a magistrate …. It does aver that no waiver was made. Under such circumstances 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)


Should Plaintiff-Appellant be allowed the standard process of filing an Opening Brief in this appeal, such Opening Brief would be voluminous, among which would tentatively include not only the FAC, but various Motions for Summary Judgment, and a Motion for Sanctions for refusing to respond to the questions of discovery with obvious answers which D/A know would further substantiate P/A’s Motions for Summary Judgment. The fact is, these D/As have absolutely no defense whatsoever within this action, but depend entirely upon fraud, cover-up and evasion of the truth.

This case manifesting major fraud and cover-up throughout, has already passed through the hands of several Federal Judges, to wit; Judge Margaret M. Morrow, Judge Gary A. Feess, Judge Marina R. Pfaelzer, Judge Dale S. Fischer, all of which judges chose to recues themselves from this case prior to being finally assigned to a fifth judge, Judge Otis D. Wright. All of these aforementioned judges had the opportunity to act on the issue of fraud alleged herein, but instead chose, for whatever reason, to recues themselves.

Before this Appellate Court now is the question of how Judge Otis D. Wright ruled on this issue of fraud? He chose not to address this issue at all, but rather chose to collude with D/As in avoiding the issue altogether. Ignoring the question of fraud alleged before a court does not make it go away. Neither does it defeat the numerous case precedents cited herein by P/A relating to fraud.

P/A hates to utter this word, as he has heretofore avoided even the hint of suggesting bias of any federal judge who has been previously assigned this case, but P/A has to reluctantly admit that he sincerely questions Judge Otis Wright’s ability to faithfully rule according to law applied to the facts of this case. Judge Wright has chosen to avoid all of this authority as if such authorities did not exist. Judge Wright instead counters the allegations of the FAC, and asserts contrariwise to the complaint that P/A must “overturn” his conviction, after which he may then file a new federal action. Such assertion defies imagination in light of the facts and evidence. P/A questions whether Judge Wright is capable of entering a summary judgment against these defendants, even if the appropriate law so required it, due to his personal bias.

Finally, this case is hardly one of “insubstantiality” so that a Title 28 USC 1291 right of appeal should be summarily dismissed without allowing the filing an Opening Brief, or presentation of evidence.


Ronald Branson                                     Dated:  November 2, 2011

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Flag Counter: 126
Total Reads: 627,060
Followers: 1,130
Total Item Views: 566,338

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply