Can a void ruling legally be challenged at any time and in any court?

No question identified. : U.S. Court of Appeal, 9% District, No. 21-55710 . U.S.D.C., Central District, No. 2:20-cv-00830-AB-KS Supreme Court of California, 9% Circuit, No.$229413 (civil); $257833 (criminal) California Court of Appeal, 2"4 District, No. B247883 (civil); B272452 (criminal) LASC No. GC04934 (civil); BA424226-01 (criminal) : Supreme Court of the Huited States EDDIE TURNER Petitioner, vs. RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden ; Respondents. . On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari . to the Supreme Court of the United States PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR EDDIE TURNER Eddie Turner 428 East Concha Street Altadena, California 91001 213.810.2068 i 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI & QUESTIONS FOR THE US SUPREME 2 _ COURT 3 1) Petitioner respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a 4 judgment of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 5 which denied a “certificate of appealibity” directly related to a void 6 ruling. Can a void ruling legally be challenged at any time and in any 7 _ court? 8 2) Is review warranted based on the significance of a void and second . 9 made opposing ruling that deals with the same exact statute and the : 10 same exact facts? This court has an absolute duty to resolve unsettled 11 issues of law and provide guidance applicable to other pending or ; 12 anticipated cases. The Supreme Court of the United States has a duty 13 to secure the uniformity of decisions based on settled questions of law 14 and precedent rulings. Appellate courts review the procedures and 15 the decisions of trial courts to make sure that the proceedings were 16 fair and that the proper law was applied correctly. Is there a 17 justifiable reason to pass on the issues within this petition, which have 18 the potential to be unjustly repeated if they are not corrected? 19 3) Is a state court’s decision “contrary to” clearly established : 20 federal law under §2254(d)(1) when there is a direct and : 21 irreconcilable conflict (Appeal Case No. B247883 versus Appeal Case 22 No. B272452)? 23 Direct and irreconcilable conflicts occurs when the state court 24 either (1) arrived at a conclusion opposite the one reached by the 25 same court, (2) arrived at an opposing ruling to a court of superiority 26 regarding a question of law or (3) confronts a set of facts materially 27 indistinguishable from a relevant court or a court of superiority and ; 28 reached an opposite result. Has Petitioner identified two opposing PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1 1 opinions dealing with the same set of facts and same question of law, 2 | which has resulted in opposing rulings or in other words constitutes a 3 direct and irreconcilable conflict; Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 997 4 | (9* Cir. 2014) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000)? 5 | 4) Is a state court’s decision an “unreasonable application” of 6 | clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) ifthe state court’s 7 application of a precedent opinion from a court of superiority was 8 | ; unreasonable applied or just merely misapplied; White v. Woodall, 9 | 572 US. 415, 419, (2014)? 10 In this Petition a “lower” criminal court (LASC Case No. 11 BA424226-01} reached an opposing ruling to a “superior” appellate 12 court (Appeal Case No B247883) regarding the onset of the statute of 13 the limitations for mortgage frauds. The same Court of Appeal then 14 wrongfully affirmed the opposing ruling with a second opposing 15 opinion (Appeal Case No. B272452) regarding the onset of the SOL 16 | dealing with the exact same mortgage frauds. 17 | 5) Is it possible to have two contradicting opinions dealing with 18 | the exact same set of facts & exact same statute? 19 | This case is of great public interest because the Due Process 20 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands equal protection of the 21 | law and consistency in rulings. Both rulings are especially unjust 22 | because when it came to Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to 23 defend his perso