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

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 (b) an entity jointly offering services with Respondent; (c) a partner, representative and/or affiliate of the Respondent; and/or (d) another county; and/or (2) as a lawyer who personally represented and/or his/her firm represented the county making the payments to the judges in cases involving: (a) the legality and/or the constitutionality of the payments; and (b) subsequent statutes relating to the payments. ii LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page: (1) Carol Pulliam; and (2) University of Southern California. MSS Nurses Registry was a defendant in the trial court.   CORPORATE… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

Vote no or live under a corrupt judicial system Governor Gavin Newsom did not support Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 to hold judges accountable

CALIFORNIA VOTERS GUIDE TO STOP JUDICIAL CORRUPTION ON 11/8/2022 THIS IS YOUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECTLY END CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. VOTE “NO” TO EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE SEEKING RE-ELECTION. VOTE AGAINST EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SEEKING RE-ELECTION IN EVERY COUNTY VOTE AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND EVERY INCUMBENT LEGISLATOR SEEKING RE-ELECTION. Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. Law (International Law), Chmn. Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co Chmn. Judicial Reform Comm., DivorceCorp. Explains: “Since the mid 1980s, California counties and Superior Courts have paid approximately 90% of the California Superior Court judges “supplemental or local judicial benefits” in addition to the judges State compensation. These payments are over $400 million. The Superior Court judges receiving the payments became California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court justices, corrupting the entire California judicial system.” Fine continued: “In 2008 the California Courts held the payments violated Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution. The judges responded by hiring a lobbyist who engineered the enactment of SBX 2 11. SBX 211 made the payments temporally legal and gave California retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to the judges who received the payments and the counties, county supervisors and employees who made the payments.” Fine further stated: “The Superior Court judges are disqualified but sit on cases. Examples are: (1) child custody and family law cases; (2) class action cases; (3) conservator and elder cases; (4) constitutional cases; (5) contract cases; (6) criminal cases; (7) death, estate, and probate cases; (8) eminent domain cases; (9) environmental cases; (10) personal injury cases; (11) property cases; (12) regulation cases; (13) tax cases; (14) traffic cases; (15) trust cases; and (16) zoning cases, amongst others.” Fine concluded:… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE