Tag: Richard I. Fine

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 (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

End California’s Judicial Corruption before the November 8, 2022 General Election. Here’s How!

  By , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Help pass Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 Help stop the corruption

The History and Effect of California’s Judicial Corruption In 1985, Los Angeles County started paying California Superior Court Judges sitting on the State of California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles “supplemental judicial benefits” in addition to the judges’ State of California Compensation. In 1988, Los Angeles County Supervisors justified the payments stating they were necessary to “attract and retain qualified people to serve as judges on the LA Superior Court.” On its face, such explanation doesn’t make sense. Paying a sitting judge, a “supplemental judicial benefit” will not retain him/her in office as he/she must face an election to retain his/her judicial office. It will not recruit a judge as the judge is already in office. Nor does it appear that over time the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” attracted more successful, experienced private lawyers to apply to be politically appointed for judgeships or to run for judgeships more than the usual government lawyers such as deputy district attorneys, deputy public defenders, county counsels and state employees. The real reason for the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” payments was to increase the compensation of the individual members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Article II, Section 4 of the Los Angeles County Charter states in relevant part: “They [Board of Supervisors] shall each receive as compensation for their services a salary, payable monthly from the County Treasury, which shall be the same as that now or hereafter prescribed by law for a judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles,”. Other counties and Superior Courts followed Los Angeles County In 2008, such payments were held to be unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution, in… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE