Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, et al.
IFP petition · Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, No. H052586 · judgment October 22, 2024
Questions presented
-
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?
-
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?
-
Was labeling Petitioner a “vexatious litigant” by a state actor lawful?
-
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?
-
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?
-
Is an affidavit of truth signed and notarized under penalty of perjury at united States Supreme Court Decision Comp ton v. State ofAlabama , the same as a declaration that is not signed under penalty of perjury?
-
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” ? -2-
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Fareed Sepehry-Fard
For respondent
—
Proceedings
- Jan 20 2026Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
- Dec 30 2025Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
- Dec 01 2025Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
- Nov 10 2025The 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).
- Oct 16 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
- Jun 21 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 6, 2025)
- May 22 2025Application (24A1134) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 28, 2025.
- Apr 14 2025Application (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.