Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Yehoram Uziel v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-55554 · judgment August 23, 2021


Certiorari denied · April 25, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

"The constitution, indeed law in general, applies to those who are not popular just as it applies to those who are popular1. Uziel v Superior Court alleges discrimination against a self represented Plaintiff, obstruction of justice and legal extortion2 by a judge and six attorneys. Defendants3 moved to dismiss Uziel v Superior Court as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held4 that the District Court "didnot abuse its discretion by denying Uziel' motions to recuse both magistrate and district court judges", affirmed the District Court Judgment, denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. The question presented isCan a judge ignore a party' challenge to his impartiality, maintain jurisdiction and abuse his adjudicative authority to extort the challenging party as the Ninth Circuit held? Or^ Does the Ninth Circuit' decision establishes a precedent that legitimizes: (i) discrimination against a self represented litigant, and; (ii) Extortion from that litigant? 1 Justice Stephen Breyer in the 2021 Scalia Lecture at Harvard Law school published in "THE Authority of the Court and the Peril o/Politics [Harvard Press 2021 ISBN 9780674269361, Identifier: LCCN 2021017885] 2 "Legal Extortion" is a violation of 18 U.S. Code §872 committed by officers of the Court by utilizing the US judiciary and their judicial privileges to intimidate and extort money from their victims. 3 Defendants include a sitting LASC judge, five attorneys and three legal corporations acting in support of the alleged criminal conduct of Defendants. 4 Appendix A THE PARTIES Plaintiff Represented by: Yehoram Uziel Yehoram Uziel 19329 Bryant Street Northridge, CA 91324 Phone: 818-885-1258 Email: vehoram@soligen.com v. Defendants: Represented by:

  1. Superior Court of the Sarah L. Overton State of California for Cummings McClorey Davis the County of Los &Acho Angeles 3801 University Ave. St 560

  2. Honorable Judge Riverside, CA 92501 Melvin D. Sandvig Phone: 951*276-4420 Email: soverton@cmda-law.com

  3. Winget Spadafora Matthew Jason Negrin and Schwartzberg Baer Negrin and Troff LLP LLP (WSS) 12400 Wilshire Blvd St 1180

  4. Gabriel Z. Reynoso Los Angeles, CA 90025 Esq. SBN234027 phone: 310-5028268 Email: Matt@btllp.com Michaela Battista Sozio Tressler LLP 6100 Center Drive St 1175 Los Angeles, CA 90045 phone: 310203-4800 Email: msozio@tresslerllp.com

  5. Reif Law Group LLP Matthew Jason Negrin (RLG) (See above for address)

  6. Brandon Reif Esq. SEN214706 7. Huston International Nathaniel S G Braun Insurance Group (HIG) Sinclair Braun LLP

  7. Previn Sathananthan Esq. 16501 Ventura Blvd St 400 Encino, CA 91436 phone: 213-429-6125 nbraun@sinclairbraun.com Michael B Gelfound Selman Breitman LLP 11766 Wilshire Blvd 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-6546 phone 310-445-0800 mgelfound@selmanlaw.com

  8. Eric J. Palmer Esq. Brandon Scott Reif SBN 231207 Reif Law Group PC 1925 Century Park East St 1700

  9. Karl Gerber Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90067 SBN 166003 phone: 310-494-6500 Marc S Ehrlich (See above for address)

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Yehoram Uziel

For respondent

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Jun 13 2022
    Rehearing DENIED.
  2. May 24 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
  3. May 10 2022
    Petition for Rehearing filed.
  4. Apr 25 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  5. Apr 06 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
  6. Nov 22 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 21, 2022)