No. 25-5559

Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2025-09-05
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: bankruptcy due-process land-patents supremacy-clause treaty-law vexatious-litigant
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2026-01-16 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the lower court violated Article VI Clause 2 of the Supremacy Clause in relation to Land Patents and treaty laws, and whether the court's actions constituted embezzlement, vexatious litigation, and due process violations

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Did the lower court violate Article VI Clause 2 as to the Supremacy Clause of Federal Constitution in relation to Land Patents and treaty laws on Land Patents? 2. Did the lower court conceal embezzlement of about $1,200,000 of Petitioner ’s and estate monies 14 days after the close of escrow in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case? 3. Was labeling Petitioner a “vexatious litigant ” by a state actor lawful? 4. Did the lower court ’s failure to consolidate case numbers 17cv314286-the unlawful detainer action with 17cv310716* wrongful foreclosure action violate Petitioner's due process rights? 5. Did Petitioner's invoking Chapter VI, section 18, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution remove the jurisdiction of the actor who issued the vexatious Etigant order? 6. Is an affidavit of truth signed and notarized under penalty of perjury at united States Supreme Court Decision Comp ton v. State of Alabama , the same as a declaration that is not signed under penalty of perjury? 7. Could a court administrator (“judge ”) refuse to consolidate case numbers 17cv314286 and 17cv310716 when the alleged Defendant U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR GREENPOINT MORTGAGE TRUST MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-AR2 in Case Number 17cv310716 responded to the Petitioner ’s claim, by court administrator ’s relying on the “vexatious htigant order ” ? -22 8. Did any other derivative action as a direct result of the above such as inter alia harboring, aiding, abetting and shielding Defendants ’ violation of Sherman Anti Trust Act, Bid rigging, Cal. Civ. Code 2924(h) Subdiv.(g) and other Defendants ’ criminal violation of law take place? 9. Did the lower court administrators make reversible errors in not realizing that BAR in 26 states including in California gave CLES to attorneys who took late Dr. Garfield's seminar? 10. court administrator failed to adhere to Rule 3.1590 ■ Announcement of tentative decision, statement of decision, and judgment 1 ) Signature and filing of judgment which must have been done within 50 days from the lower court ’s adoption of tentative order, to wit: within 50 days from January 2024? 11. Did the lower state court actor admitt to treason, subversion and mutiny? -33 12. Should one of the sovereign people of the united States of America stand on the Constitution, treaty law, Supreme Court rulings, the intend of congress, and other lawful writings of which one is the beneficiary and defend their property against theft and piracy? 13. Which one has the right, against those who have taken an oath to the Constitution of this republic? 14. Which party will be the perpetrator? 15. Would it not be Treason to violate sovereign people's rights secured by the Treaty and the Constitution? 16. Did the lower state court actor violate section 409.1 which required compulsory and required supporting affidavits for a motion to expunge lis pendens? 17. Is standing jurisdictional and lack of standing precludes ruling on the merits? 18. Did the lower courts and their administrators (“judges ”) violate the law by faffing to report the crimes committed by Severson & Werson APC., its attorneys and all officers and directors all other companies involved such as inter alia, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Clear Recon Corp. , etc. to law enforcement for subsequent actions? 19. Aren ’t the actions mentioned above, aiding, abetting, sheltering Cross Defendants ’/Defendants' Criminal activities? 20. Did the lower court violate 18 USC §2 ? -44 21. 18 USC § 1512? 22. Did the lower court and its administrator violate 18 U.S. Code § 3? 23. 18 USC § 4, 1510, 1511, 1513-retaliating against a victim, witness or informant, 1514, 1516 Obstruction of Federal audit, 1517 Obstructing examination of financial institution, 1519 ■ Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy, § 1520 -Destruction of corporate audit records, etc. etc.? 24. Does the actions of the lower court administrators invoke

Docket Entries

2026-01-20
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2025-12-30
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2025-12-01
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2025-11-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2025-10-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-06-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 6, 2025)
2025-05-22
Application (24A1134) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 28, 2025.
2025-04-14
Application (24A1134) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 29, 2025 to June 28, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Fareed Sepehry-Fard
Fareed Sepehry-Fard — Petitioner