HEROS Archives - Page 3 of 19 - Court Victim Network

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

By Chat Tech Support California, California Supreme Court, Campaign for Judicial Integrity, Corrupt Judges, Corruption, CourtVictim hosted, DOCUMENTS, Dr. Richard I. Fine, Judges, Legislation, Los Angeles County, Petitions, Richard I. Fine, Richard L. Fine, Supreme Court

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

THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT

By Chat Tech Support DOCUMENTS, Government, Judges, Sherry Lund, Sherry Lund

Exhibit # 001-1 THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT All shall be considered rebutted Canon 3228 A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true [Or as “truth in commerce”]. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt: 1. The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and 2. The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and 3. The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE