Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Fareed Sepehry-Fard, Petitioner v. Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, et al.

jg.003 8

kJ

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F areed- Sepehry-Fard

v.

PETITIONER. _

k^

lU;j ITivtfili liVUriii"

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,—-RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Supreme Court of California, Case No. S265157

After an Unpublished Decision by the Court of Appeal

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Fareed-Sepehry-Fard, Sui Juris

C/o 12309 Saratoga Creek Dr.

Saratoga, the State of California, Santa Clara County

(Zip code Exempt DMM 602 sec 1.3(e))

Phone Number (408) 690-4612

Email: Ahuraenergysolarcells@msn

FILED

DEC 1 6 2020

supreEm°FcTourtLm SK

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is

Notice to Agent.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Courts across this Republic have systematically become

vehicles for pedophiles, MS 13, sex, human traffickers and drug

cartels to launder monies using variety of ruses, inter alia, using

security instruments created from each and every court cases

through the CUSIP1, when the alleged claimants have got

nothing to do with the alleged financial transactions that never

ever happened or happens in spite of their false representations to

the contrary that they do.

The Committee on Uniform Securities Identification

Procedures "CUSIP". Every case whether criminal or civil or

even probate, is assigned a CUSIP number and traded on wall

street among various deep state operatives who launder monies

obtained from various unlawful activities including but not

limited to kidnapping over 800,000 children on an annual basis

in this Republic alone, selling their organs and committing all

kinds of other heinous crimes on those children using various

other conduits and ruses inter alia : Credit Default Swaps

(CDSs), Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDOs), Yield Spread

Premiums, and other ruses such as but not limited to obtaining

federal and state grants which are obtained and distributed

among members of these racketeering clubs.

-1 -

All cases, whether civil or criminal, et.al. are assigned

Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures

("CUSIP") numbers and traded on wall street as securities.

Petitioner served Respondents Mister Sunil R. Kulkami

("Kulkami") and Miss Mary E. Arand ("Arand") with two

subpoenas for their furnishing the sources of the monies used to

monetize two cases in Superior Court of California, County of

Santa Clara-Case Numbers 17cv314286 and 17CH007672

through the CUSIP.

The monies obtained by Superior Court in monetizing

Case Number 17cv314286 and Case Number 17CH007672

which is the nexus to Case Number 17cv314286, managed by

Mister Kulkami and Miss Arand, seem to be from inter alia, sex

and human trafficking, pedophilia, drug cartel money laundering

without attorneys having any power of attorney from the alleged

Plaintiff in Case Number 17cv314286 which is the nexus to Case

Number 17CH007672.

The subpoena'd documents and tangibles are material to

both cases, relate to a determination of jurisdiction of Sunil

Kulkami and Mary Arand and their Co Parties.

-2-

There are on going investigation of these individuals'

repeated misconduct who are helping laundering monies for

pedophiles when there is no Power of Attorney to attorneys

claiming falsely they are representing the alleged Plaintiff in

Case Number 17cv314286 and no relationship between

Petitioner and any and all of the alleged claimants on Petitioner's

land in Case Number 17cv314286 which is the nexus to Case

No. 17CH007672.

This Petition directs this court of records to order the

Respondents Kulkami and Arand to show cause why Arand and

Kulkami are not in contempt of the writs for not returning the

writs and why Petitioner is not entitled to tort claims to purge

Kulkami and Arand's contempt?

The two writs ordered Kulkami in Case Number

17cv314286 and Arand in Case number 17CH007672 to furnish:

1) the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification

Procedures "CUSIP" Number; 2) All the amounts of

monetization received and or to be received; 3) Sources of any

and all monies received and traded on wall street within thirty

-3 -

(30) days from the receipt of the Subpoena or by 5 p.m. on

September 11th, 2020 whichever happens first.

The issue presented is whether or not this court must order

all Respondents to appear and show cause why Respondents are

not in contempt of the writs for not returning the writs and why

Petitioner is not entitled to tort claims to purge Respondents'

contempt of the writs or in the alternative, this court should

continue to aid and abet laundering monies for pedophiles,

MS 13, drug cartels, sex and human traffickers based on

ignorance, on purpose or both?

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption page of the case on the

cover page.

-4-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED

1

LIST OF PARTIES

4

OPINIONS BELOW

5

JURISDICTION

5

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

7

A. What the Petition Asked the California Supreme Court

and the California Sixth Appellate District to Do?...........

8

B.

Trial Court Proceedings

9

C.

The Court of Appeal Affirms

10

D.

The California Supreme Court Affirms

10

14

ARGUMENT

A.

The Writ Clearly Noticed Respondents-Should They

Fail to Return the Writ, There May Be Consequences.

14

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

33

CONCLUSION

36

-l-

INDEX TO PETITIONER’S TRANSCRIPT

FILED

/DATE

PAGE VOL.

11/18/2020

1 California Supreme Court Docket (Register of Actions)

2 California Supreme Court Rejection of Petition for a Writ 11/17/2020

3

1

4

1

10/21/2020

8

1

4 Verified response to the Clerk's letter date October 21-2020 10/21/2020

91

1

10/16/2020

186

10/16/2020

187

1

1

of prohibition or mandate for Respondents' to Appear and

show cause why Respondents are not in contempt of the

writs for not returning the writs and why Petitioner is not

entailed to tort claims to purge Respondents'contempt for

not retunring the writs as required under the law

3 Verified Petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition for

an order to show cause why Mary E. Arand and Sunil

Kulkarni are not in contempt of the writs for not returning

the writs and why Petitioner is not entitled to tort claims

to purge Kulkarni's and Arand's contempt of the writs;

Memorandum of Law; Declaration

re: the so called "vexatious litigant order" Memorandum of

Law; Declaration

5

6th DCA Docket (Register of Actions)

6 6th DCA Rejection of Verified Petition for a Writ of

prohibition or mandate for an order to show cause why

Mary E. Arand and Sunil Kulkarni are not in contempt of

the writs for not returning the writs and Petitioner is not

entitled to tort claims to purge Kulkarni's and Arand's

contempt of the writs, Memorandum of law, Declaration

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

California Cases

People v. Taylor, 57 Cal. 620; Payne v. San Francisco, 3 Cal.

122 People v. Brite, 55 Cal. 79; [***4] Hull v. Superior Court,

63 Cal. 174; People v. Hartwell, 67 Cal. 11, [6 Pac. 873],

See, also, Ball v. Kenfield, 55 Cal. 320, and People v. Perry,

79 Cal. 105, [21 Pac. 423].), sqq Lorbeer v. Hutchinson, 111

Cal. 272, [43 Pac. 896], it is said: 'The failure to qualifyif he did so fail-ipso facto created a vacancy. (People v.

Shorb, 100 Cal. 537, [38 Am. St. Rep. 310, 35 Pac. 163].').......

11

Sepehry-Fard v. Aurora Bank CA6 (2016)

Passim

Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,

226 CaTAppA* 495 (2014)......................

Passim

Tenderloin Housing Clinic vs. Sparks (1992) 8 Cal. App.4th 29

Passim

Abandonato v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 264.

Passim

Federal Cases

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d.297

Passim

Taylor v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 171, 173 (2013)

Passim

Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115 (1985).........

Passim

Rodriques v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor)

769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).........................................

Passim

Media Technologies Licensing, LLC v. Upper

Deck Co., 334 F.3d 1366,1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Cal)

Passim

Sosa v. Fite, 498 F. 2d 114, 116, 117 (5th Cir. 1974)

Passim

-IV-

Supreme Court Cases

Aetna Insurance Company vs. Hallock (1868) 73 U.S. 556,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES..............

13

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.

17-1272, January 8, 2019..................................

Passim

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

Passim

Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

Passim

Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)

Passim

Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478

Passim

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U. S. 63, 67...

Passim

Compton v. State ofAlabama, 214 U.S. 175 (1909).......

.Passim

AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers,

475 U. S. 643, 649-650...............................................

Passim

STATUES AND RULES

18 US Code Section 1346-- Honest Services Fraud

14

California Rules of Court

Passim

Rule 8.25 (b) (3)

Statues and Other Authorities

Title 9, US Code

Passim

Cal. Const., art. VI, §10.

Passim

Civil Code of the State of California section 3516

Passim

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 (h) (3)........................................

Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (Ark. 1925)......................

.Passim

Passim

Kansas P. R. Co. v. Dunmeyer Supreme Court of Kansas

14

-v-

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution

Passim

6

Article III

18 US Code Sections 241 and 242;

42 US Code Sections 1983 and 1985

Passim

18U.S. Code §2382

Passim

18 USC § 1512 et seq

Passim

Article IV Section 4

Passim

18 USC §2385

Passim

Title 28 US Code §454

Passim

Declaration of Independence...........................................

Passim

Bureau of Land Management, Public Information Office.

Passim

Land Patent.

Passim

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

between the United States and the Republic of Mexico

Passim

Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27.....................

Passim

Fed Rule. 201 (e) and FRAP 34

Passim

Civil Code of the State of California section 3516

Passim

Title 28 US Code Section 1653 ..........

28 U.S.C § 1257(a) and 5th amendment.

Passim

6

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 14th amendment.

7

Section 996 of the Political Code

11

Stats. 1850, ch. 21

12

Code of Civil Procedure 14, Government Code 68076

13

-vi-

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue

to review the judgment below issued by the California Supreme

Court.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Decision of the highest California Court, California

Supreme Court's refusing to issue an order to show cause

why Respondents should not be found to be in contempt of

the writs for not returning the writs and why Petitioner is

not entitled to tort claims to purge Respondents' contempt

of the writs appears at [2 PT 4]2 and is unpublished.

The Decision of the California Sixth Appellate District,

refusing to issue an order to show cause why Respondents

should not be found to be in contempt of the writs for not

returning the writs and why Petitioner is not entitled to tort

claims to purge Respondents' contempt of the writs

appears at [1 PT 187] and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The date on which die California Supreme Court decided

Petitioner's case was on November 17, 2020. A copy of

that decision appears at [1 PT 4],

2 PT stands for Petitioner's Transcripts concurrently filed, [1 PT

49-54] means volume 1 of Petitioner's Transcripts pages 49 to

54 inclusive, etc. etc

-5-

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C

§ 1257(a) and 5th amendment right to due process.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Petitioner was unable to obtain an impartial

arbitrator and an impartial forum, without bias, pursuant to the

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendment guaranteed rights of the

federal Constitution of 1787, as purviewed by the states for

Complainant, Petitioner and Appellant Fareed -Sepehry-Fard.

Petitioner has been wronged by the void orders of

California Supreme Court in refusing to avail due process to

Petitioner, and as an American who has been wronged, is due

remedy.

The lower court order is void on its face, in fact and in law

due to inter alia, that there is no court in our entire Republic,

except this court of records, that has article III judicial power

since none other has been ordained and established at Article III

Section I of the Constitution of our Republic. The inferior court

administrators refused to perform their administrative duties in

availing due process to Petitioner.

-6-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Fareed- S epehry-Fard°, Sui Juris, (or

"Petitioner") filed for a writ of mandate or prohibition directing

Mister Kulkami and Miss Arand to appear and show cause why

they should not be found in contempt of the two writs they

received and why Petitioner is not entitled to tort claims to purge

Kulkami's and Arand's contempt of the writs for not returning

the writs, Id., [1 PCT 8-90],

The Sixth District Court of Appeal denied the Petition, [1

PCT 187], Court of Appeal No: H048455, on or about October,

16th, 2020.

Since Petitioner did not obtain his due process, Petitioner,

as an American who has been wronged, asked the California

Supreme Court to furnish him with long overdue remedy.

California Supreme Court also refused to furnish long overdue

relief to Petitioners at [1 PT 4]]. Subsequently, this Petition for

writ of mandate, Id., followed.

This summary of facts is based on sworn statements of

Petitioner made in the Petition, Id.

-7-

A.

What the Petition Asked the California Supreme

Court and the California Sixth Appellate District

to Do?

Petitioner asked the California Supreme Court and the

California Sixth Appellate District through a writ of Prohibition

or mandate to order Respondents Mister Sunil Kulkami and Miss

Mary E. Arand ("Respondents”) to appear and show cause why

Respondents are not in contempt of the writ that they received

but did not return and why Petitioner is not entitled to tort claims

to purge Respondents Kulkami's and Arand's contempt of the

writs they received but did not return, [1 PT 8-90],

Petitioner explained to inferior courts that as a direct and

proximate results of Respondents failing to return the writs,

Petitioner has been significantly economically damaged and is

entitled to economic damages to purge Respondents' contempt of

the writs by not returning the writs, Id.

The writ noticed Respondent Sunil Kulkami at [1 PT 47]

that "DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAYBE

PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL

ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED

DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR

-8-

FAILURE TO OBEY", [1 PT 47], In spite of this clear notice to

Respondent Sunil Kulkami, Kulkami still refused to obey the

writ and must show cause why Petitioner is not entitled to tort

claim to purge Respondent's Kulkami's contempt of the writ by

not returning the writ.

Additionally, another writ also noticed Respondent Mary

E. Arand at [1 PT 69] that "DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS

SUBPOENA MAYBE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS

COURT YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES

RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY", [1 PT 69], In

spite of this clear notice to Respondent Mary E. Arand, Arand

still refused to obey the writ and must show cause why Petitioner

is not entitled to tort claim to purge Respondent's Arand's

contempt of the writ for not returning the writ.

B.

Trial Court Proceedings

Based on Petitioner's railroaded on every turn by both

Respondents Arand and Kulkami in Trial court, Petitioner filed

his claim on September 21, 2020, (1 PT 189.) to the Sixth DCA.

-9-

C.

The Court of Appeal Affirms.

Petitioner filed his claim on September 21, 2020, (1 PT

189.) to the Sixth DCA.

On October 16,2020, the Sixth DCA denied that Petition.

D.

The California Supreme Court Affirms.

Since there were many erroneous facts and law in the void

decision, Id., and or otherwise substantial material and law

presented to the court, which were, based on ignorance, on

purpose or both, completely overlooked, Petitioner filed the

Petition in California Supreme Court, [1 PT 8],

California Supreme Court asked Petitioner to corroborate

why Petitioner would overcome the [void] so called vexatious

litigant order issued by Miss Mary Arand, [1 PT 187].

Petitioner replied, [1 PT 91] explaining to the California

Supreme Court, that, for a variety of reasons, the so called

vexatious litigant order issued by Arand has been void and of no

force and effect.

For example, Petitioner explained and corroborated that

both Miss Arand and Mister Kulkami had long ago vacated

office by failing to post bond in Santa Clara County Recorder,

-10-

see inter alia, section 996 of the Political Code provides: 'An

office becomes vacant on the happening of either of the following

events before the expiration of the term;. . . Subdivision 9: His

refusal or neglect to file his official oath or bond within the time

prescribed.. .', see The official oath or bond must be filed

within the prescribed time or the right to the office becomes

forfeited. (Citing People v. Taylor, 57 Cal. 620; Payne v. San

Francisco, 3 Cal. 122 People v. Brite, 55 Cal. 79; [***4] Hull v.

Superior Court, 63 Cal. 174; People v. Hartwell, 67 Cal. 11, [6

Pac. 873]. See, also, Ball v. Kenfield, 55 Cal. 320, and People v.

Perry, 79 Cal. 105, [21 Pac. 423].), see Lorbeer v. Hutchinson,

111 Cal. 272, [43 Pac. 896], it is said: The failure to qualify-if

he did so fail--ipso facto created a vacancy. (People v. Shorb,

100 Cal. 537, [38 Am. St. Rep. 310, 35 Pac. 163].')

Also take further notice, if any person, elected or

appointed to any office, shall perform any of the duties thereof

without having executed and filed in the proper office any bond

required of him by law, he shall be deemed guilty of a

misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum

not exceeding one thousand dollars, and his office be declared

- ll -

vacant. Stats. 1850, ch. 21, "An Act concerning the Official

Bonds of Officers.", Feb. 28,1850.; [1 PT 94-95], that Petitioner

never ever consented or consents to a Nisi Prius Court at [1 PT

95-96], that both Kulkami and Arand seems to have hired

mercenaries, armed men with military weapons to take Petitioner

out so that both Arand and Kulkami can continue to aid and abet

laundering monies for dmg cartels, MS 13, pedophiles, sex and

human traffickers using Petitioner's home as a conduit and

another mse for their misconduct, Id., [1 PT 22], [1 PT 24], etc.

Hence the vexatious litigant so called order, Petitioner

explained to California Supreme Court, that the so called

vexatious litigant order, as a direct and proximate results of

controlling case laws, Id., and enacted law, has been void and

was never worth the paper it was printed on, in spite of both

Mister Kulkami and Miss Arand monetizing those and other so

called orders on Wall Street in attempts of laundering monies for

pedophiles, dmg cartels, sex and human traffickers, MS 13 and

others, [1 PT 22], [1 PT 29], that the summons is void as a matter

of enacted law--since it does not have the seal and the wording

pursuant to enacted substantive law at inter alia Code of Civil

-12-

Procedure 14, Government Code 68076 and controlling case

law—Aetna Insurance Company vs. Hallock( 1868) 73 U.S. 556,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ft <( The statute

recognizes it as such, and requires that it shall issue under the

seal of the court.... It is therefore to all intents andpurposes an

execution, and the statute expressly requires that it must issue

under the seal of the court. Without the seal it is void. We cannot

distinguish itfrom any other writ or process in this particular...

... This is his authority, and if it is for any reason void, his acts

purporting to be done under it are also void... ”, Aetna Insurance

Company vs. Hallock, Id.

In spite of these facts on records, California Supreme

Court, based on what seems to be ignorance, on purpose or both

still denied to avail Petitioner due process and continued to

further harm Petitioner economically.

Petitioner explained to the inferior court of records, "The

words, "by due course of law," are synonymous with "due

process of law," or, "the law of the land;" Emphasis added,

Kansas P. R. Co. v. Dunmeyer Supreme Court of Kansas, if law

of the land is not furnished to Petitioner, and the law of the land

- 13-

has not been furnished to Petitioner, then Petitioner has been

deprived of his 5th amendment right to due process and takings of

property by the Respondent and Respondent's culprits.

ARGUMENT

A.

The Writ Clearly Noticed Respondents—

Should They Fail to Return the Writ,

There May Be Consequences

The writs, addressed to Respondents Kulkami and Arand,

clearly noticed them - should Respondents Arand and Kulkami

refuse to return the Subpoenas, there will be consequences, Id.

For instance, the writ noticed Respondent Sunil Kulkami

at [1 PT 47] that"DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY

BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT YOU WILL

ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED

DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR

FAILURE TO OBEY", [1 PT 47], In spite of this clear notice to

Respondent Sunil Kulkami, Kulkami still refused to obey the

writ and must show cause why Petitioner is not entitled to tort

claim to purge Respondent's Kulkami's contempt of the writ by

not returning the writ.

-14-

Additionally, another writ also noticed Respondent Mary

E. Arand at [1 PT 69] that "DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS

SUBPOENA MAYBE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS

COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES

RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY", [1 PT 69]. In

spite of this clear notice to Respondent Mary E. Arand, Arand

still refused to obey the writ and must show cause why Petitioner

is not entitled to tort claim to purge Respondent's Arand

contempt of the writ for not returning the writ.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

Imposters who have vacated office and have not been

"judges" for years can not and must not be allowed to endanger

our Republic, our safety and our prosperity.

Respondents do not have a "dispute" provision to rely

upon under the writ. Respondents, and all parties who have

taken an oath were absolutely mandated by law to defend

Petitioner's constitutional rights against all enemies, foreign and

domestic by operation of law.

- 15-

The courts below view Petitioner's writs, endorsed by all

three branches of tbe government, as a cause of action and a

pending claim which, according to the court below, was not in

the jurisdiction to avail remedy to Petitioner as an American who

has been wronged by the Respondent and its Co Parties Agent(s)

Principle(s).

Because Sepehry-Fard v. California Supreme Court et al.,

unpublished opinion as well as other courts of appeal and lower

courts have led to disregard established Federal, State law and

clear unambiguous power of the writ issued by the authority, to

wit: "We the People", Id., that no contempt of the writ for not

returning the writ is allowed, and to ensure uniformity of

decisions across this Republic, this court should grant review in

this case to continue to uphold the power of the writ, Id.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari should

be granted.

DATED: 11th day of December, 2020

Respectfully presented,

All rights reserve waive none

- 16-

DECLARATION

i: a man, Fareed-Sepehry-Fard ("Petitioner"), declare:

1. i: am a man of Republic of California and an American

National, i: have personal first hand knowledge of the

facts set forth in this declaration. If called upon to testify

as a witness re same, i: a man, Fareed-Sepehry-Fard could

and would competently testify to the facts in this

declaration.

2. Everything that i, a man, Fareed-Sepehry-Fard have stated

in " PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" which is

concurrently filed with this Declaration are truth to the

best of my (a man's) knowledge and nothing but the truth.

i: a man, Fareed-Sepehry-Fard declare under the penalty of

perjury under the laws of the United States of America, the

State of California and California Republic that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Executed and DATED: 11th day of December, 2020 in Saratoga,

California.

All Rights Reserve Waive None

Respectfully presented,

All rights reserve waive none

F areed- S epehry-F ard

-18-