On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court Conference will address the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing in the case of Carol Pulliam v. University of Southern California, Supreme Court Case No. 22-782.
The Reasons for Filing the Petition for Review.
The Unopposed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was Denied on April 17, 2023, by the U.S. Supreme Court Conference without any written objection.
Such Denial allowed the continuance without notice to the citizenry of: (1) the largest U.S. Judicial Scandal; (2) the violation of U.S. Constitutional Supremacy and Due Process Clauses; (3) the violation of relevant laws; and (4) the effective violation and overturning of controlling U.S Supreme Court decisions.
On May 12, 2023, responding to the Denial, and conforming to the U.S. Supreme Court Rules, Carol Pulliam timely filed a Petition for Rehearing which was also Unopposed.
What Must the U.S. Supreme Court Conference Decide.
The U.S. Supreme Court Conference must decide whether to Grant or Deny the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing.
What does the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing Request.
The Unopposed Petition for Rehearing requests the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions allowing judges and justices who received unlawful payments from a California County when each was a California State Superior Court Judge (Trial Judge) for any county.
What are the Options and Effects of each Option before the U.S. Supreme Court Conference.
The U.S. Supreme Court Conference:
(1) By Granting the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing will:
(a) enforce U.S. Constitution Articles III, Cl. 2 and VI, Cl. 2 Supremacy Clauses, and the 5th and 14th Amendments Due Process Clauses:
(i) ending approximately 40 years of judicial corruption in the State of California and U.S. Judicial Systems;
(ii) ending over approximately $1.5 billion unlawfully paid from California counties to California State Trial Court judges; and
(iii) ending injuring millions of victims of the California and U.S. Judicial Systems’ corruption;
(b) enforce U.S. Constitution Article III, Cl. 2 Supremacy Clause and the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause violated by the actions of the same California State Court Trial judges who became U.S. District Court judges and U.S. Court of Appeal justices with the same effects;
(c) Indicate California’s Budget’s past, current and 2023-2024 approximate $5.5 Billion allocations for California’s Judicial Branch were and will be wasted; or
(3) By Denying the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing will continue the massive corruption presently existing in the California and U.S. Judicial Systems.
What is a partial summary of the facts and relevant decisions common to both Unopposed Petitions.
A partial summary of facts cited in both Unopposed Petitions is:
Carol Pullam:
(1) was a nurse who worked in a University of Southern California (USC) hospital where USC committed illegal acts against her;
(2) was denied U.S. Constitutional 14th Amendment due process when every state trial court judge, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court justice in the State case of Carol Pulliam v. University of Southern California, either:
(a) was paid unlawful money from the County of Los Angeles who was/is a partner with USC in the hospital business; or
(b) received unlawful money from another California county; or
(c) worked for the County of Los Angeles as a lawyer in the case in which the monies paid by Los Angeles and other California counties to State Trial Court Judges was held to be unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution.”
A partial summary of relevant decisions cited in both Unopposed Petitions include U.S. Supreme Court precedents of:
(1) Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (to uphold U.S. Constitutional due process); and
(2) United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) (fraud voids everything, including judgments) and Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (equity can replace “law” when extrinsic fraud occurs, extending or removing statutes of limitation).
What information in the Unopposed Petitions supports the Corruption?
A December 15, 2009, California Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature (December 15, 2009, Report) showed that approximately 90% of the California State Superior (Trial) Court Judges received unlawful “supplemental or local judicial benefit payments” (Payments) from 34 of California’s 58 Counties in addition to the Trial Court Judges California State Compensation.
The December 15, 2009, Report has not been updated despite a legislative mandate to do such in SBX 2 11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective May 20, 2009 (SBX 2 11). However, the per cent remains approximately the same as only three counties discontinued the Payments, while the number of Trial Court Judges in the counties making the Payments increased.
The Payments commenced in the mid to late 1980’s in the County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County) as shown in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) (Sturgeon I).
The Payments were 29% of a judge’s State Compensation, plus a Professional Development Allowance of $6,000-8000 and a contribution to the Trial Court Judge’s individual 401K or 457K retirement account.
As of the present time Los Angeles County alone has paid the State Trial Judges approximately $1Billion in these Payments as shown through a compilation of Los Angeles County Annual Budgets from 1985 onwards, “Trial Court Funding” or similar sections.
Based upon the amounts of county payments shown in the December 15, 2009, Report for the counties other than Los Angeles County and the estimated $1 Billion from Los Angeles County, the total Payments to the Trial Court Judges are estimated to be at least $1.5 billion.
Annual Litigation Reports from the Los Angeles County Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors showed that in almost 100% of the time Los Angeles County won every case “tried” or decided by a Trial Judge receiving the Payments.
The Payments were held to be unconstitutional as a violation of California Constitution Article VI, Section 19 in Sturgeon I.
As reported in the December15, 2009 Report, the California Judicial Council, the Los Angeles Superior Court, leading judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts proposed legislation to make the Payments “an interim solution” until the Legislature resolved the problem of the disparity of the judicial compensation caused by the Payments between State Trial Court judges receiving the Payments and State Trial Court judges not receiving the Payments.
Darryl Steinberg, then President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate pushed SBX 2 11 to passage through the State Legislature in three days.
SBX 2 11 made the Payments “an interim solution” in Section 2, and gave the Counties and their employees who made the Payments and the Trial Court Judges who received the Payments prior to July 1, 2008, “retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action” in Section 5.
SBX 2 11 was upheld as constitutional as an “interim measure” under the California Constitution with the Court commenting it was the State Legislature’s responsibility to change the law in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.4th 344 (2010) (Sturgeon II).
SBX 2 11 was held to apply the payments to all Trial Court Judges who were elected or appointed after July 1, 2008, if the County was making the Payments on July 1, 2008, in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 242 Cal.App.4th 1437 (2015) (Sturgeon III). The court again stated it was the State Legislature’s responsibility to change SBX 2 11.
The California State Legislature has refused to act since 2010 for 13 years, despite draft legislation to amend SBX 2 11 having been distributed to each Legislator on at least two occasions. No Legislator has drafted legislation to amend SBX 2 11.
New Facts in the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing.
The Unopposed Petition for Rehearing showed new recent facts in the federal case of Robert GeorgeKincaid v. County of Los Angeles, USDC Case No. 2:22-CV-09056-JLS-MAA in which the U.S. District Court judge for the Central District of California admitted she received the Payments when she was a California State Trial judge in Orange County California amongst other new references in Texas and the State of Washington relating to the abortion pill cases.
Post Unopposed Petition for Rehearing Filing Information.
The deadline to pass the 2023-2024 California Budget is before July 1, 2023. Governor Newsom’s final recommendation for the Judicial Branch of the State Government is a total of approximately $5.5 Billion.
The Unopposed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari affected the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
On May 3, 2023, Los Angeles County issued a press release stating the Board of Supervisors changed the name of Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center to Los Angeles Hospital.
The name change conceals from the public and voters:
(1) any association of Los Angeles County’s payments to the California State Judges in Los Angeles County and in the California Court of Appeal who are involved in the Unopposed Petition for Rehearing and the Unopposed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; and
(2) attempts to hide the approximate $1Billion paid to all the State Trial Court judges in Los Angeles over the last approximate 40 years.
Conclusion
A recent Marquette Law School poll taken between May 8 and May 18, 2023, shows 59% of U.S. adults disapproved and 41% approved of the U.S. Supreme Court, showing a 1% difference from a Gallup poll taken in September 1-16, 2022, showing a 58% disapproval rate and a lowest in recent history 40% approval rate.
With the upcoming June 8, 2023, exposure of the 40 years of massive corruption in both the California and U.S. judicial systems contributing to the already largest judicial scandal in U.S. History, any integrity remaining of the U.S. Supreme Court will be destroyed.
In this situation the question is:
Does the U.S. Supreme Court have any unknown and yet to be discovered legal principle or Constitutional power to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn established and uncontested:
(1) Constitutional Supremacy;
(2) Constitutional Due Process;
(3) Supreme Court legal precedent and
(4) Constitutional Supremacy of the of the balance of power between the Executive Branch, the Congress and the Judicial Branch to allow:
(a) the unending continuance of the present 40 years of massive corruption of both the California and U.S. Judicial Systems; and
(b) the final destruction of any remaining judicial integrity in both the California and State judicial systems; and
(5) Constitutional Supremacy of the balance of power between the Executive Branch, the Congress and the Judicial Branch to prevent the institution of severe repercussions upon the U.S. Supreme Court:
(a) by the Congress through legislation;
(b) by the Executive Branch through the appointment of judges with Senate approval; and
(c) by the Congress, the Executive Branch, the States and the citizens by the approval of amendments to the Constitution.
Richard I. Fine, U.S. Supreme Court Counsel for Carol Pulliam; Doctor of Law; Ph.D.-Law, International Law; Chmn. Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co-Chmn. Judicial Reform Comm., DivorceCorp.
*The documents in the Carol Pulliam v. University of Southern California Case No. 22-782 are available on the U.S. Supreme Court website under the Case Docket Category.
