Copy of Letter Sent to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit
Sent to J.A.I.L. Nov 3, 1999

October 25, 1999

Mr. Ronald Williams

In regards to Complaints of Judicial Misconduct Numbers 99-80153 and 54.

Dear Judges,

As members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, who under 28 U.S.C. 372, are charged with literally underwriting the integrity of the federal judiciary in this jurisdiction, all of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The Order each of you issued that upheld the Chief Judge's Order dismissing my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, was no less a cover-up decision than that of the Chief Judge's decision. The Record setting forth my complaints of judicial misconduct, as all of you are well aware, are facts and documentary evidence supporting claims of Perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1623 and the Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503, against Judges, who sit on the United States District Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

I did not make the laws; I was only trying to gain judicial compliance to the law, and/or sanctions against certain federal judges for willfully violating the law. You, as well as I know that 18 U.S.C. 1623, the criminal section that proscribes sanctions for perjury, includes persons who not only make false statements under oath, but also persons who knowingly use such statements in a United States court. Furthermore, that section does not appear to make any exceptions for Judges while on or away from the bench. Moreover, if the perjured statement(s) are knowingly used as evidence to terminate a federal action, the federal action terminated is subjected to a criminal obstruction of justice, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1503.

As all of you know - the complaints of judicial misconduct I presented you, alleges that Judge K.M. Wardlaw in the case I sought to prosecute under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and Judges R. Beezer, Brunetti and Noonan in the case I brought under 42 U.S.C. 2000e (Title VII), 1983 and 1985, knowingly used and relied on statements of a declaration known by each of them to be false, to corruptly terminate each of the just cited federal causes of action. As all of you know, my allegations were supported with (1) a copy of the filed false declarations in question; (2) copies of the subject federal Order and the subject Opinion shown to have relied on the false declarations; and (3) copies of the two prior decisions of the California State Court of Appeals - both of which proves that the statements of the declaration were false.

So, from the Facts and the supporting documentary Evidence presented, my Complaints of judicial misconduct states a clear and convincing case that in order to obstruct and prevent the due course of justice of my federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 2000e, 1983 and 1985, and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, the federal Judges subject of my complaints, issued an Order and an Opinion, that feigns the false statements set forth by Declarations under oath, had been one of the two decisions of the California State Court of Appeal. (Decisions that had been rendered during my state court prosecutions of a claim of wrongful termination)

Judges, if you were objective and accurate in your review of my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, rather than seeking to cover up the misconduct of fellow Judges, all of you know that the conduct of the federal judges complained of, was calculated to conjure evidence that I had voluntarily surrendered my former position of public employment, while covering up and concealing the evidence of the wrongful taking of my employment. You see, and I am sure that you are all well aware of this; If it could be established that I had not been the victim of a Wrongful Termination, (taking) but had voluntarily surrendered my position of employment, it follows that I would not be entitled to maintain federal causes of action under any of the federal takings statutes.

So, after citing the decision of the California State Court of Appeal of May 10, 1991, under Williams vs City of Los Angeles, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 in a federal Opinion than a later federal Order, the federal judges knowingly used the false statements of the sworn declaration and feigned those statements to be the 1991 state court of appeal decision. Moreover, all that need be done to ascertain what I just stated and cited was true, is to compare the actual, 1991 decision of the California State Court of Appeal, with the filed Declarations purported to represent that decision. Furthermore, both the federal Order and the federal Opinion is shown to have used the version of the State court of appeal decision, precisely as falsified by the statements of the Declarations. That, Judges, is what the Record I presented you shows.

My complaints of judicial misconduct also shows as you know; that in order to sustain the above described conjured the evidence of my having voluntarily surrendered my position of employment instead of being wrongfully terminated, the Judges complained of had to cover and conceal the existence of the other decision of the State's court of appeal: the one that was rendered on August 10, 1989, under Williams vs City of Los Angeles, B035287 and that had affirmed the Judgment of the State's superior court of my wrongful termination against my former employer, the City of Los Angeles' police department.

Judges, there are several paths that each of you could have taken to arrive at a disposition in my favor of judicial misconduct. However, no matter what path you elected to take, all of them lead to but one conclusion: that the Judges against whom the complaints were made, in fact, engaged in conduct that violated Perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1623 and Obstructed the Due Course of Justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503.

For instance:

Notwithstanding the above described evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice against the above named federal Judges; when you apply the well settled doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel to the decision rendered by the California State Court of Appeal on August 10, 1989, under Williams vs City of Los Angeles, Cal.App. B035287 in my State action, it is legally impossible for the federal Judges to have terminated my federal causes of action on the ground of my voluntary employment retirement. Because, as I demonstrated to you by presenting a copy of the 1989 State court of appeal decision, the California courts had declared that I had been subjected to a wrongful termination. Again, it is the 1989 State court of appeal decision of my wrongful termination that the subject federal Judges covered and concealed, to arrive at their disposition of my voluntary retirement.

When you compare the false statements of the filed Declarations to the federal Order that dismissed my federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, as well as the Opinion that affirmed the summary judgment against my federal cause under 42 U.S.C. 2000e, 1983 and 1985, the clear convincing evidence: that the concerned federal judges knowingly used what was falsely declared by the declaration as the 1991 decision of the California State Court of Appeals. This not only violates the knowing use clause of perjury section 18 U.S.C. 1623, but also the corrupt communication clause of obstruction of the justice section 18 U.S.C. 1503.

Not to mention that as Judges of courts of the United States, you are all aware that a cause of action under Title VII and related statutes that establishes an adverse employer action, presents the requisite prima facie case for employment discrimination. Thus, even if you were to ignore and not consider the evidence supporting my claims of violations of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1623, there is still the binding evidence of my wrongful termination - the decision of the California State's court of appeal, under Williams vs City of Los Angeles, Cal.App.2nd Civ. B035287 (Aug. 10, 1989).

Furthermore, the content of the decision of the State court of appeal of May 10, 1991, under Williams vs City of Los Angeles, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627, in itself is as clear and convincing evidence as there is that the filed Declarations used and relied on by the federal Judges, had misrepresented that particular State court of appeal decision.

In still other words, contrary to the dispositions of my federal causes of action by the Judges subject to my judicial misconduct complaint, it had not been the determination by the State appeal court in its decision of May 10, 1991, nor could it, that I had voluntarily surrendered my position of employment. Thus, both the federal Order and the Opinion that made this determination, is the conscious misrepresentation of the 1991 State court of appeal decision. A misrepresentation shown to have been taken from the false Declaration(s).

While I've addressed this letter that discusses the judicial misconduct that your disposition of my complaints of judicial misconduct covers up to you, as members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, it is by no means the sole purpose of the letter. I am spreading copies to as many organizations and private persons who has ever publicly addressed the issues of a corrupt and biased federal judiciary. Particularly persons and organization that complain of judicial discrimination against minorities. I only hope that my experiences as an Afro-American federal plaintiff that are only partly demonstrated here, will fuel a national debate on the biased practices of the federal judiciary. Practices that in my case(s) that not only shows the refusal of judges to comply with the law underlying my complaints of employment discrimination, but also federal judges who willfully and wantonly violated federal criminal statutes to prevent and obstruct my going forward with my federal cause for discrimination.


Dear Ronald Williams:

I have read your complaint of Judicial Misconduct against certain Ninth Circuit Judges. Your experience has be identical in concept to mine. Words well put. Please read our articles in our website entitled, "The Enemy Within - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals", and "Godzilla Must Be Destroyed!". as well as the "Press Release" regarding my instant brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Every time I have filed a Section 372 complaint, it always has resulted in the same modis operendi, i.e., a cover-up of the judicial misconduct.) I have at least three complaints now before Congress against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I like your spirit! Please get back in touch with me after you have read our JAIL Initiative and the articles above. If we were to decide to print this on our website, would you give your permission?

Ron Branson

 

Return To Home Page