Tag: Supreme Court

5/12/2023 US Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing filed Petition not Opposed Supreme Court Conference Set For June 8, 2023

  By , , , ,
Los Angeles California Supreme Court ignores judicial corruption victims ignoring Amend SBX 2 11

The petition for rehearing is one of the most important cases before the Supreme Court. It will require the state government executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch to uphold their oath of office to obey the U.S. Constitution and not “war against the Constitution”. It requires the U.S. Supreme Court to follow its precedents of Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. School Board and Cooper v. Aaron requiring the Supreme Court sets the law, due process must be followed and violating the oath of office is “war against the Constitution”, respectively. To deny the Petition for Rehearing, will be to overturn these cases interpreting the Constitution from its outset. May 12 US Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing filed READ THE PETITION HERE Actual Supreme Court Document location MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND AMEND SBX 2 11 What is Wrong with the County Payments to Judges? TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM! The Dirty Truth Behind California’s $400 Million of “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” The Campaign for Judicial Integrity Supreme Court of the United States CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner vs…. Read More

4/14/2023 the US Supreme Court Conference Decides the Future US Judicial System by Deciding this Petition

  By , , , ,

April 14 is a day of monumental decision for the US Supreme Court: (1) do the justices uphold the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court precedents of over 200 years and the codes of conduct and penal codes by reversing the California Supreme Court and voiding all decisions by state judges and justices who accepted illegal payments from counties or trial courts when they were California State trial court judges; or (2) violate all of the above by denying the unopposed Petition. A denial will effectively destroy the integrity, functioning and respect for the U.S. Judicial System. READ THE PETITION HERE   MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND AMEND SBX 2 11 What is Wrong with the County Payments to Judges? TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM! The Dirty Truth Behind California’s $400 Million of “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” The Campaign for Judicial Integrity Supreme Court of the United States CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner vs. USC On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari RICHARD ISAAC FINE SBX 2 11 gave retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to… Read More

Supreme Court of the United States CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner vs. USC On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari RICHARD ISAAC FINE

  By , ,
Richard I Fine Petition to the Supreme Court of California For A Writ Of Certiorari

“Richard I. Fine Presents the argument against paying County or Court Supplemental or Local Judicial Benefit Payments to Judges, to the US Supreme Court.” ========================================================================================= In The Supreme Court of the United States ——————————— ♦ ——————————— CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Respondent. ——————————— ♦ ——————————— On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of California ——————————— ♦ ——————————— PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ——————————— ♦ ——————————— RICHARD ISAAC FINE, ESQ. P.O. Box 789, 1187 Coast Village Rd., Ste. 1 Santa Barbara, CA 93102-0789 Telephone: (310) 622-6900 Email: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com Counsel for Petitioner Carol Pulliam ================================================================================================== COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Do state court trial judges, court of appeal justices and supreme court justices “war against the (United States) Constitution” by denying state litigants Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional due process when each and/or all these judicial officers did not disclose and recuse themselves as required by state law, state Code of Judicial Ethics and/or other state or federal requirements when he/she: (1) currently receives or in the past received payments from: (a) the county currently paying or paid the Respondent for Respondent’s services; and/or… Read More