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

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 Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

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;… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE