i i
`
`~3
`
`supreme Court, ll.S^
`FILED
`m 1 0 2021
`OFFICE OF THE Cl Fpi,
`
`CASE NO. S259479
`
`(p
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`IVAN RENE MOORE AND RONALD HILLS,
`
`Petitioners
`
`vs
`
`SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
`
`Respondent
`
`ON PETITION FOR
`
`WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`TO THE
`
`UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Ivan Rene Moore
`Ronald Hills
`1236 Redondo Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90019
`(323) 932-9439
`
`LORI'S
`
`
`
`~3
`
`supreme Court, ll.S^
`FILED
`m 1 0 2021
`OFFICE OF THE Cl Fpi,
`
`CASE NO. S259479
`
`(p
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`IVAN RENE MOORE AND RONALD HILLS,
`
`Petitioners
`
`vs
`
`SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
`
`Respondent
`
`ON PETITION FOR
`
`WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`TO THE
`
`UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Ivan Rene Moore
`Ronald Hills
`1236 Redondo Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90019
`(323) 932-9439
`
`LORI'S
`
`
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`1.
`
`Shall a writ lie for violation of due process because the California Supreme
`
`Court violated its own Constitution by allowing one department of the Superior
`
`Court to contemporaneously overrule another department in the same matter ?
`
`2. Were the Petitioners denied due process and their right to redress by the
`
`Supreme Court of California when it affirmed the decision of the California Court of
`
`Appeals allowing the trial court to dismiss the Petitioners’ entire action without
`
`notice and a hearing?
`
`3. Were the Petitioners denied due process and equal protection when the California
`
`Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s judgement, ignoring their published
`
`opinion in Martin-Bragg vs. Moore 219 Cal App 4th 367 (2013), and the rulings of two
`
`other judges who found that Petitioner Moore had a beneficial interest in his
`
`Shenandoah home because
`
`he and only he paid the mortgage, taxes and
`
`improvements on his Shenandoah home for over twenty years?
`
`4. Were Petitioners’ denied due process and right to possess and enjoy and
`
`property and practice their profession using their professional property, when the
`
`California Supreme Court affirmed the denial of their Constitutional right by
`
`upholding Judge Johnson’s denial of the return of their adjudged converted
`
`property, leaving it in the hands of the converter Martin-Bragg?
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Were the Petitioners denied due process and their right to fair and impartial
`
`court to redress grievances when the California Supreme Court affirmed their
`
`denial of their California Constitutional and inviolate rights to trial by jury and
`
`by failing to find such a denial reversible prejudicial error ?
`
`6. Were the Petitioners denied due process and their First Amendment right to
`
`redress grievances by the Supreme Court of California when it affirmed the
`
`decision of the California Court of Appeals affirming the lower courts orders
`
`denying the Appellants any discovery on whether defendant actually paid anything
`
`for the Shenandoah home when the defendant herself testified and the Superior
`
`Court and the Court of Appeals previously found, that Petitioner Moore paid the
`
`mortgage, taxes and improvements?
`
`7.
`
`Were the Petitioners denied redress before a fair and impartial Court, when
`
`Justice Helen Bendix , was abruptly removed from the Court of Appeals Panel
`
`during oral argument, after she acknowledged she had ruled that Petitioner Moore
`
`was the owner of the Shenandoah home while a Superior Court Judge, and in
`
`another action with the same defendant Martin-Bragg, and ordered Mr. Moore only
`
`to pay the $290,000 judgment lien or lose his 6150 Shenandoah family home?
`
`li
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`1. WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
`
`IS WARRANTED
`
`1, n
`
`v,vi,vii,viii
`
`1
`
`,xx
`
`1
`
`18
`
`18
`
`A. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS NEEDED TO UPHOLD THE US AND
`
`THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
`B. NO RELIEF CAN BE OBTAINED IN ANY OTHER FORM
`C. THE RIGHT TO A WRIT IS CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE
`
`18
`
`21
`
`21
`
`D. MANDAMUS IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT
`
`LACKED JURISDICTION TO ACT AND THE CALIFORNIA
`
`SUPREME COURT FAILED TO ENJOIN THE WRONGFUL ACTS
`
`OF THE LOWER COURT
`
`22
`
`2. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION DEPRIVED
`
`PETITIONERS OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT RELY
`
`ON PRIOR COURT ORDERS FROM THE PREVIOUS JUDGES ASSIGNED
`
`TO THE SAME CASE
`
`24
`
`m
`
`
`
`3. IGNORING THE CALIFORIA CONSTITUTION, BINDING
`3.
`IGNORING THE CALIFORIA CONSTITUTION, BINDING
`
`PRECEDENT AND CONTROLLING LAW VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND
`PRECEDENT AND CONTROLLING LAW VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND
`
`CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
`CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
`
`30
`.............................. 30
`
`4. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED A SERIOUS
`4. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED A SERIOUS
`
`33
`DEPRIVATION OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ...................................... 33
`DEPRIVATION OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
`
`5. AN APPEARANCE OF UNFAIRNESS AND IMPROPRIETY BY THE
`5. AN APPEARANCE OF UNFAIRNESS AND IMPROPRIETY BY THE
`
`CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS DURING ORAL ARGUMENT
`CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS DURING ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`34
`CAUSED A LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION......... 34
`CAUSED A LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
`
`39
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 39
`CONCLUSION
`40
`US SUPREME COURT RULE 33.2 CERTIFICATION
`US SUPREME COURT RULE 33.2 CERTIFICATION............................... 40
`
`iv
`IV
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Abstract Investments Co. Vs. Hutchinson 204 Cal App. 2d (1962)....
`
`Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal 17 Cal.2d 280 (1973)................
`
`Akley v. Bassett 68 Cal.App. 270(1924)................................................
`
`Appo v. People 20 N.Y. 531(1860).........................................................
`
`Armstrong v. Manzo 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).....................................
`
`25
`
`32
`
`36
`
`32
`
`17
`
`Auto Equity Sales. Inc. v. Superior Court 57 Cal.2d 450_(1962)........
`
`32,33
`
`Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863)............................
`
`Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (1953)..........
`
`Bhd. R.R. Trainmen v. Va. exrel. Va. State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)..
`
`Bill Johnson’s Rests., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983)...................
`
`Browne v. Superior Court 16 Cal. 2d 593(1940)..................................
`
`Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)
`
`Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U.S. 579 (1976)...............
`
`Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978).............................
`
`16
`
`23
`
`22
`
`22
`
`26
`
`22
`
`18
`
`33
`
`Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004
`
`18,19, 20,23
`
`Chisholm v. Georgia 2 US 419 (1793)...................................
`
`Cowlin v. Pringle, 46 Cal. App. 2d 472 (1941)......................
`
`Cruz v. Beto 405 U.S. 319 (1972)...........................................
`
`Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880).................................
`
`Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 (1947).....................................
`
`Farrell v. City of Ontario, 39 Cal. App. 351 (1919).............
`
`v
`
`21
`
`38
`
`22
`
`17
`
`23
`
`22
`
`
`
`Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)
`
`Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
`
`22
`
`17
`
`Ford vs. Superior Court 188 Cal. App. 3d 737 (1986)......
`
`4, 13,16,25, 31
`
`Globe Indemnity Co. v. Larkin, 62 Cal.App.2d 891 (1944)
`
`Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
`
`In re Kowalski 14 Cal. 2d 656 (1971)
`
`Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)......................
`
`Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123(1951)
`
`Kendall v. U.S. ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524, 624 (1838)
`
`Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital, 104 Cal.App.2d 336 (1951)
`
`Lee v. Offenberg, 275 Cal. App. 2d 575 (1969)
`
`Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 406 (1996)
`
`34
`
`22
`
`26
`
`18
`
`17
`
`21
`
`34
`
`25
`
`22
`
`Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309, (1989). ...21
`
`Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).....................
`
`21
`
`Martin-Bragg v Moore 219 Cal App 4th 367......................
`
`1,4,9, 23,25,31
`
`Medeiros v. Medeiros 177 Cal App 2d 69 (1960, 3rd Dist)
`
`35, 36
`
`Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
`
`Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976).........................
`
`Morrisette v. Superior Court 236 Cal. App. 2d 597 (1965)
`
`NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, (1963)
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749
`
`(2014)
`
`Offutt vs. United States 348 US 11 (1954)
`
`vi
`
`33
`
`22
`
`26
`
`22
`
`22
`
`44
`
`
`
`Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, (1973)
`
`People v. Batchelor 56 Cal. App. 3d 278 (1976)...................
`
`People v. Grace, 77 Cal. App. 752 (1926)..............................
`
`People v. Hall, 199 Cal. App. 3rd 914 (1988).......................
`
`People v. McGuire, 45 Cal. 56 (2016)....................................
`
`People vs. Municipal Court 69 Cal. App. 153rd (1977)......
`
`People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe 37 Cal.2d 283 (1951)
`
`People v. Rosas 72 Cal.Rptr. 65 (1965)................................
`
`22
`
`26
`
`13,25
`
`38
`
`22
`
`22
`
`14
`
`Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49
`
`(1993)
`
`Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).........................
`
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26, (1943).
`
`,22
`
`22
`
`22
`
`Spreckels v. Spreckels, 172 Cal. 789 (1916)
`
`Spruance vs. Commission on Judicial Qualifications 13 CAL 3rd 779 (1975)
`
`State v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161 (1908)
`
`18
`
`28
`
`33
`
`Stevens, J. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) Sullivan v. Louisiana 508
`
`U.S. 275 (1993)
`
`Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984)
`
`Talbot v. Gadia 123 Cal.App.2d 712 (1954)
`
`Thomson v. Thomson, 7 Cal.2d 671 (1936)
`
`Vll
`
`39
`
`22
`
`36
`
`14
`
`
`
`Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Hane 27 Cal. App. 2d 106(1938)
`
`United Transp. Union v. State Bar of Mich., 401; U.S. 576
`
`(1971)
`
`United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 12 v. III. State Bar Ass’n, 389 U.S. 217,
`
`(1967)
`
`38
`
`22
`
`22
`
`United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)
`
`22, 23
`
`Weintraub v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 763 (1928)......
`
`Whitaker v. Moran, 23 Cal. App. 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
`
`Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, (1967)
`
`Williams v. Superior Court, 230 Cal. App. 4th 636 (1999)
`
`Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006)................................
`
`UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`FIRST AMENDMENT
`
`33
`
`18
`
`23
`
`26
`
`22
`
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
`
`the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
`
`right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
`
`redress of grievances
`
`FIFTH AMENDMENT
`
`38
`
`No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
`
`unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
`
`the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or
`
`public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
`
`viii
`
`
`
`put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
`
`witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
`
`process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
`
`compensation
`
`FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
`
`24
`
`No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
`
`immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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......................................... 24
`
`UNITED STATES STATUTES
`
`28 U.S. Code 1651
`
`US Supreme Court Rule 10(b)
`
`CALIFORNIA CONSTITUION
`
`ARTICLE I SECTION 6
`
`5
`
`24
`
`Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause
`
`three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict
`
`37
`
`ARTICLE VI SECTION 4
`
`SEC. 4. In each county there is a superior court of one or more judges. The Legislature shall
`
`prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior
`
`court. If the governing body of each affected county concurs, the Legislature may provide that
`33
`
`one or more judges serve more than one superior court
`
`IX
`
`
`
`ARTICLE VI SECTION 10
`
`The court may make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and
`
`credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination
`
`of the cause
`
`ARTICLE VI SECTION 11
`
`(a) The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been
`
`pronounced. With that exception courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when
`
`superior courts have original jurisdiction in causes of a type within the appellate
`
`jurisdiction of the courts of appeal on June 30, 1995, and in other causes prescribed
`
`by statute
`
`24,26, 27
`
`CALIFORNIA STATUTES
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure 475
`
`The court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error, improper ruling,
`
`instruction, or defect, in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said
`
`court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. No judgment, decision, or
`
`decree shall be reversed or affected by reason of any error, ruling, instruction, or
`
`defect, unless it shall appear from the record that such error, ruling, instruction, or
`
`defect was prejudicial, and also that by reason of such error, ruling, instruction, or
`
`defect, the said party complaining or appealing sustained and suffered substantial
`
`injury, and that a different result would have been probable if such error, ruling,
`
`
`
`instruction, or defect had not occurred or existed. There shall be no presumption
`
`that error is prejudicial, or that injury was done if error is shown..........................
`
`27
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure 581 (d)
`
`A written dismissal of an action shall be entered in the clerk’s register and is
`
`effective for all purposes when so entered.
`
`All dismissals ordered by the court shall be in the form of a written order signed by
`
`the court and filed in the action and those orders when so filed shall constitute
`
`judgments and be effective for all purposes, and the clerk shall note those
`
`judgments in the register of actions in the case.
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure 592
`
`In actions for the recovery of specific, real, or personal property, with or without
`
`damages, or for money claimed as due upon contract, or as damages for breach of
`
`contract, or for injuries, an issue of fact must be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is
`
`waived, or a reference is ordered, as provided in this Code.......................................
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure 760.060
`
`The statutes and rules governing practice in civil actions generally apply to actions
`
`under this chapter except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of this
`
`chapter.
`
`xi
`
`
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.10
`
`2031.010. (a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope
`
`delimited by Chapters 2 by inspecting documents, tangible things, and land or
`
`other property that are in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to
`
`the action.
`
`(c) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the
`
`party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf,
`
`to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things
`
`that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom
`
`the demand is made.
`
`(d) A party may demand that any other party allow the party making
`
`the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to enter on
`
`any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or
`
`control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and
`
`to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other
`
`property, or any designated object or operation on it.............................
`
`30
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.10
`
`“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title,
`
`any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
`
`that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
`
`determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is
`
`itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Xll
`
`
`
`Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of
`
`any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and
`
`location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the
`
`existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document,
`
`electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other
`
`property
`
`California Rules of Court
`
`26
`
`Rule 8.1115. Citation of opinions
`(d) When a published opinion may be cited
`A published California opinion may be cited or relied on as soon as it is
`certified for publication or ordered published.
`(e) When review of published opinion has been granted
`
`(2) After decision on review
`
`After decision on review by the Supreme Court, unless otherwise ordered by
`
`the Supreme Court under (3), a published opinion of a Court of Appeal in
`
`the matter, and any published opinion of a Court of Appeal in a matter in
`
`which the Supreme Court has ordered review and deferred action pending
`
`the decision, is citable and has binding or precedential effect, except to the
`
`extent it is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court or is
`
`disapproved by that court
`
`31
`
`xiii
`
`
`
`California Code of Judicial Ethics
`
`Cannon 1
`
`A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
`
`OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES
`
`A. Promoting Public Confidence
`
`A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a
`
`manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity ana impartiality of
`
`the judiciary.
`
`ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
`
`Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
`
`conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of
`
`impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public
`
`scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct
`
`that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community
`
`and should do so freely and willingly.
`
`The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of
`
`impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a
`
`judge. The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware
`
`of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able
`
`to act with integrity impartiality, and competence.
`
`xiv
`
`
`
`As to membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination,
`
`see
`
`also Commentary under Canon 2C. In addition, Code of Civil Procedure
`
`section 170.2, subdivision (b), provides that, with certain exceptions, a
`
`judge is not disqualified on the ground that the judge has, in any capacity,
`
`expressed a view on a legal or factual issue presented in the proceeding
`
`before the judge.
`
`CANON 3 A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
`
`OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY
`
`A. Judicial Duties in General
`
`All of the judicial duties prescribed by law shall take precedence over all
`
`other activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties, the
`
`following 11 standards apply.
`
`B. Adjudicative Responsibilities
`
`(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except
`
`those in which he or she is disqualified.
`
`ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
`
`Canon 3B (1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of
`
`Civil Procedure 170
`
`(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge
`
`shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures,
`
`xv
`
`
`
`or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (1) bias or
`
`prejudice, including but not bmited to bias or prejudice based upon race,
`
`sex, gender, rehgion, national origin, ethnicity, disabihty, age, sexual
`
`orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political
`
`affiliation
`
`SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
`
`Richardson, John G., Bias in the Court! Focusing on the Behavior of Judges,
`
`Lawyers, and Court Staff in Court Interactions. Williamsburg, VA: National
`
`Center for State Courts, 1997
`
`37
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`App. 1.
`
`App. 2.
`
`12* 2007)
`
`App. 3.
`
`App. 4.
`
`Watson v Moore Complaint filed June 1st, 2006
`
`Stipulation to dismiss Watson v Moore action BC353300. (Filed October
`
`Martin Bragg v Moore 219 Cal App 4th 367 (Filed August 1st, 2013)
`
`Martin-Bragg Motion to void deed to the 6150 Shenandoah property.
`
`(Filed December 31st, 2012)
`
`App. 5.
`
`Judge Rosenblatt’s order denying Martin-Bragg’s request to void deed to
`
`the 6150 Shenandoah property. (Filed February 1st, 2013)
`
`App. 6.
`
`2013)
`
`App. 7.
`
`Jury verdict Conversion in Moore v Bragg BC480013. (Filed July 29th,
`
`Jury verdict Trespass to Chattel in Moore v Bragg BC480013. (Filed
`
`July 29th, 2013)
`
`App. 8.
`
`Judge Rosenblatt’s Judgement in Moore v Bragg BC 480013 (Filed
`
`November 8th, 2013)
`
`App. 9.
`
`California Court of Appeal Second District affirming the jury verdict in
`
`Moore v Bragg BC 480013. (Filed September 8th, 2017)
`
`App. 10.
`
`Judge Rosenblatt’s ruling on Plaintiffs Moore right to a Jury trial in
`
`BC464111. (Filed November 8th, 2013) Pg. 2, |4.
`
`App. 11.
`
`Judge Schaller ruling on Plaintiffs Moore right and setting a Jury trial
`
`in BC464111. (Filed June 26th, 2014) Pg. f 3.
`
`App. 12. Judge Johnson denied Moore and Hills a Jury trial in Moore v Bragg
`
`BC464111. (Filed October 5th, 2015)
`
`xvii
`
`
`
`App. 13. Plaintiff Moore ex-parte application to shorten time to get discovery to
`
`show Martin Bragg’s fraud. (Filed July 30th, 2015)
`
`App. 14. Judge Johnson denied plaintiff motion for discovery documentation to
`
`show Martin-Bragg’s fraud. (Filed July 30th, 2015)
`
`App. 15. Writ of Possession to the 6150 Shenandoah Property issued by the Los
`
`Angeles Superior Court Clerk. (Filed February 18th, 2015)
`
`App. 16. Judge Johnson denial of More and Hills to get their trial documents for
`
`trial that started on 10/5/15. (Filed September 2nd, 2015)
`
`App. 17. Trail transcripts 10/5/15. (Filed October 5th, 2015) Pg. 6, lines 24-28 Pg.
`
`7, lines 1*18.
`
`App. 18. Judge Johnson’s Tenitive Decision & Statement of Decision following
`
`trial (Filed February 11th, 2016)
`
`App. 19. Transcript of trial 10/5/15. (Filed October 5th, 2015)
`
`App. 20. Judge Johnson Judgement after trial where he states he dismissed the
`
`case Moore v Bragg BC464111 before trial. (Filed March 29th, 2016) Pg.2 lines 5_6
`
`App. 21. Appellant Moore v Martin -Bragg corrected Opening brief in the
`
`California Court of Appeal Second District. (Filed July 3rd, 2018)
`
`App. 22. California Court of Appeal Second District ruling on Moore/Hills appeal.
`
`(Filed October 25th, 2019)
`
`App. 23. California Court of Appeal Second District denial for rehearing. (Filed
`
`November 12th, 2019)
`
`App. 24. California Supreme Court ruling Petition for review denied. (Filed
`
`January 15th, 2020)
`
`xviii
`
`
`
`ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Ivan Rene Moore and Ronald Hills, Petitioners in the California Court of Appeals
`action, and Petitioners in the California Supreme Court
`
`Kimberly Martin-Bragg (aka) Kimberly Barbour, Respondent in the Cahfornia
`Court Appeals
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE US SUPREME COURT RULE 29
`
`Pursuant to Rule 29.6 of this Court’s Rules, Petitioner Ivan Rene Moore states
`that he has no parent company, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more
`of its stock.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 29,6 of this Court’s Rules, Petitioner Ronald Hills states that he
`has no parent company, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its
`stock.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution provides jurisdiction.
`
`This case arises from a denied Petition for Review by the California Supreme
`
`Court on January 15, 2020. This case involves US Constitutional questions and
`
`Petitioners here seek a writ under 28 USC 1651.
`
`xx
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Petitioners are asking this Court simply to mandate that the California
`
`courts comply with the US Constitution and their own Constitution. Specifically,
`
`they allowed one judge of the same California Superior court to overrule three prior
`
`judge’s rulings in the same matter involving the very same parties. The California
`
`Constitution and precedential case law cited by the California Supreme Court itself
`
`prohibits this. This case arises from the ownership of a beautiful five-bedroom
`
`family home at 6150 Shenandoah Avenue (“Shenandoah ) in Los Angeles.
`
`Three California Courts/Judges found that Petitioner Moore paid all the
`
`mortgage taxes and improvements on the 6150 Shenandoah for over ten years,
`
`even
`
`the Unlawful Detainer (“UD”) Judge who evicted him, and the California
`
`Appeals Court reversing the eviction so found. The eviction was reversed because
`
`an
`
`ownership matter was tried summarily as an eviction and a prior judge found
`
`that Moore was the owner.
`
`After the UD case was reversed and the ownership case remanded, the trial
`
`judge reversed every prior order and ruling by every previous judge on the
`
`ownership case and dismissed the remanded case without notice or hearing to the
`
`Petitioners. The trial judge stated that he could do what he wanted, flagrantly
`
`ignoring the rulings and the appeal case, Martin-Bragg vs. Moore 219 Cal. App 4th
`
`367(2013). Petitioners not only lost their home, but their entire means of making
`
`and earning a living because a great part of the home was a multimillion-dollar
`
`music television development and production studio.
`1
`
`
`
`The trial Court also allowed the adjudged converter to keep all the personal
`
`property she converted, from 2012 until today. This type of unconstitutional court-
`
`sanctioned rulings deprived the Petitioners of their real and personal property
`
`rights, legal documents, professional property, and denied them due process of law
`
`in both a substantive and procedural manner. Indicators point that this may be
`
`due to racism and gender discrimination, with two of the trial courts calling
`
`Petitioners who are successful African American men, “you people think you so
`
`smart, but I’ve got something for you”. To put it simply, this Court is asked to
`
`mandate that the California Supreme Court not violate its own Constitution.
`
`When a full noticed motion and hearing, a prior judge makes an Order, do the
`
`parties have a right to rely on that order when that judge retires, and a new judge
`
`is assigned to the case? Or can the replacing judge simply overrule every prior
`
`ruling of the prior judges that were assigned to the case?
`
`The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts violation of the California
`
`Constitution, which clearly states the replacing judge cannot act as an appeals
`
`court and must abide by all prior rulings when the matter is the same matter with
`
`the same parties. A litigant must have the right to rely on a court’s ruling on a
`
`motion and or a litigated issue. Otherwise, no court has efficacy. This seems to be
`
`a very fundamental right to any litigant’s due process of law. Allowing rogue
`
`judges to fabricate and create their personal jurisdiction and law, violates basic
`
`of real property due process of law, and denies equal protection in the most
`
`owners
`serious of manners. A fundamental precept is that a judge cannot act outside his
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`2
`
`
`
`HISTORY OF THIS ACTION
`
`In 1994, Petitioner Ivan Rene Moore’s mother purchased a beautiful
`
`sprawling five-bedroom home in a picturesque neighborhood located at 6150
`
`Shenandoah Avenue, Los Angeles, California. (“Shenandoah”). Mr. Moore is a
`
`music producer who travels extensively. Mrs. Moore had serious health issues,
`
`based on advice of their family corporate attorney, Mrs. Moore deeded the 6150
`
`Shenandoah property to the Moore’s family corporate secretary, Appellant Ronald
`
`Hills, to hold in trust for the Moore family, Mr. Moore, and the Moore family
`
`Corporations. Petitioner Moore is a four-time Grammy nominated music producer,
`
`songwriter, and owner of FCC governed radios stations. Mr. Moore and Mr. Hills
`
`and others operated a music recording and production studio, equipment rental
`
`business and FCC radio stations from 6150 Shenandoah Property.
`
`The Watson Matter
`
`In 2007, Petitioners Mr. Hills and Mr. Moore, and the Respondent, Kimberly
`
`Martin-Bragg, were sued by Petitioner Moore’s creditor, in Watson v Moore et al
`
`Los Angeles Superior Court BC353300. (APP# 1) It was determined in the Watson
`
`matter by Superior Court Judge Hellen Bendix, that Petitioner Mr. Moore was the
`
`legal and beneficial owner of 6150 Shenandoah property. And pursuant to Judge
`
`Bendix’s rulings. Mr. Moore only was ordered to pay the stipulated judgment,
`
`$290,000 in certified funds to release any and all liens on Shenandoah.
`
`Judge Helen Bendix was later appointed to the California Court of Appeals. After
`
`payment of certified funds of the $290,000 the matter was dismissed by Judge
`
`Bendix’s predecessor in or about October 12th, 2007 all parties signed the
`3
`
`
`
`stipulation the court retain jurisdiction of the matter. (App#2) Judge Helen
`
`Bendix sits now in Division One at the California Court of Appeal Second District.
`
`THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION
`
`In 2011, Petitioner Moore’s neighbor, a real estate broker, Respondent
`
`Kimberly Martin-Bragg (“Bragg”) filed an Unlawful Detainer (“UD”) action to
`
`dispossess him of Shenandoah, his home of twenty plus years, Martin- Bragg
`
`vs.
`
`Moore BC 459449. The California Superior Court UD Judge, Richard Fruin,
`
`evicted Mr. Moore from Shenandoah. However, it contained a multimillion-dollar
`
`music recording television and broadcast studio and everything arising from this
`
`studio, masters, intellectual property, corporate property, business property,
`
`musical equipment, musical instruments, one-of-a-kind items such as an SSL
`
`Recording console purchased by Petitioner Hills from George Martin The Beatles
`
`producer, personal items given to ]Mr. Moore by the late Michael Jackson, and a
`
`Concert Grand Piano purchased by Ima Moore Petitioner’s mother. Also
`
`remaining in the home was everything Mr. Moore and Mr. Hills and others had at
`
`the home, of a personal and family nature. During the U.D. Judge Fruin overruled
`
`another Judge who granted Mr. Moore a stay to file an ownership/ breach of
`
`contract/fraud action. Despite the fact that he unlawfully evicted Mr. Moore,
`
`Judge Fruin’s Statement of Tentative Decision January 3, 2012, found specifically
`
`that Mr. Moore and only Mr. Moore, paid all the mortgage, taxes, and
`
`improvements, for the past twelve plus years on the 6150 Shenandoah property.
`
`4
`
`
`
`In 2013, the California Court of Appeals, reversed in full the UD action in
`
`Martin-Bragg vs. Moore 219 Cal App 4th 367 (2013), calling the UD trial a “trial by
`
`ambush.” The Court cited a seminal California case Ford vs. Superior Court 188
`
`Cal. App. 3d 737 (1986), which states that one Superior Court judge cannot
`
`overrule or another Superior Court judge in the same matter while it is pending,
`
`because that violates the California Constitution Article VI, Section 11. (APP
`
`3) The Ford case states that in overruling another Judge, the trial judge would
`
`act as if he were the Court of Appeals and a judge has no jurisdiction or legal
`
`authority to overrule another judge in the same trial court. “[0]ne department of
`
`the Superior Court cannot enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with the judicial
`
`act of another department of the superior Court”. Ford supra. The Court of
`
`Appeals also found that Mr. Moore had a beneficial interest in 6150 Shenandoah
`
`property because he paid the mortgage, taxes, and improvements in the
`
`Shenandoah property for the many years and Martin-Bragg never made
`
`one
`
`payment on the 6150 Shenandoah property. After the remand of the UD action,
`
`the lead ownership case, Moore vs. Martin-Bragg BC 464111 was assigned to
`
`Judge Michelle Rosenblatt (now ret).
`
`THE CONVERSION TRESPASS ACTION
`
`Mr. Moore also filed another action for conversion and trespass, on the suggestion
`
`of the UD Judge, for the return of the studio and the contents of Shenandoah.
`
`In 2013, a Los Angeles Superior Court Jury in Moore vs. Martin-Bragg BC
`
`480013, unanimously found that Mr. Moore and others, owned the contents of the
`
`6150 Shenandoah property on the day of eviction, and awarded him the return of
`5
`
`
`
`his and others personal, business and professional property, and an award of
`
`$2,500,000 for the conversion and $2,500,000 for trespass, and $650,000 for the loss
`
`of earnings. In that trial the jury and the court completely rejected Bragg s
`
`outlandish baseless defense that Mr. Moore owed her money and that she Martin-
`
`Bragg was the owner of the personal and business property. (APP #6), (APP #7)
`
`Based upon these verdicts Judge Rosenblatt issued an Inte
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
