Ivanka Trump’s medical records; Refusal to obtain treatment for bulimia. Desperate defamation to cover up for her bulimia

186538JmedicalrecrodsivanktrumpThe Institute of Behavioral Sciences has become aware of Ivanka Trump’s psychopathic conduct confirmed with numerous medical providers. Ivanka Trump was diagnosed as a psychopath by a mental health professional and with bulimia by her psychiatrist that she has had since the age of 16. She was under long term psychiatric care and refuses to obtain treatment. She obtained treatment from Eric Speare, without any success. The relevant treatment providers have provided sub standards medical care and have refuses to treat her properly catering to her obscene delusions of grandeur.

She has the following disorders



Conduct disorder is defined, according to the DMS V as follows:

Ivanka Trump has initiated the following conduct:

Bullies, intimidates, threatens and harasses individuals with socially aggressive conduct and claims that she is directing the conduct of specific individuals. She is desperate to portray that she is control of the impact of her socially aggressive behavior. She uses the same socially aggressive techniques that have caused an increase in the suicidal ideation and suicide risk in teenagers based upon social bullying.

She is physically abusive to people and has physically abused her own children.

She lacks empathy, compassion and respect for living/ human beings.

She has deliberately caused the wanton destruction of other peoples’ property.

Has stolen the identity of various individuals and has fabricated reports centered around the identify of these people.

She lies in her various reports to obtain recognition and standing in society.

Has engaged in a serious violation of all applicable rules, social norms, ethics and standards, violating all applicable criminal stalking and harassment laws.


Delusions have a great variety of themes, but certain recurrent themes have been identified (Spitzer, 1990). These include delusions of control, mind-reading, thought insertion, reference, persecution, grandeur, self-accusation, jealousy (Othello syndrome), romance or sexual involvement (erotomania), somatic change or disease or death (Cotard syndrome). Somatic delusions are associated with mood disorders and organic dementias, and may constitute their own diagnostic entity (body dysmorphic disorder) (Spitzer, 1990), while grandiose or persecutory delusions are often cardinal symptoms of schizophrenia and related disorders (Freeman, 2004). Ivanka Trump has somatic delusional disorder where she “:believes” that persons have some physical defect or other genral medical condition. She is desperate to portray these delusions as real without a medical license or other valid medical diagnosis from any valid medical provider. She fixates on fabricated delusional medical records, documents, images, identities, people that do not exist in real life to perpetuate her fabricated somatic delusional disorder reports

Delusional disorder is differentiated into different types:

Erotomanic Type: delusions that another person, usually of higher status, is in love with the individual

  • Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person

  • Jealous Type: delusions that the individual’s sexual partner is unfaithful

  • Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way

  • Somatic Type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition

  • Mixed Type: delusions characteristic of more than one of the above types but no one theme predominates

  • Unspecified Type

Delusions of grandeur

Ivanka Trump’s delusions of grandeur are linked to her delusional disorder differentiated into the Grandiose Type with delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person. She claims to have a special relationship with numerous individuals who do not even know her, she claims to be their treatment provider when these people have never hired her and has fixated delusion fo inflated power on her fabricated reports, “opinion” “knowledge”, “identity” and special relationships to the people that she stalks and harasses while displaying her obvious conduct disorder


THE DSM V has classified various psychopathic traits into different personality disorders. The disorders that Ivanka Trump suffers from include narcissistic personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorders with pathological personality traits. These include the following:

a. Narcissistic personality disorder

The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:

  1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):

    a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.

    b. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.


    2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):

    a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.

    b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little genuine interest in others‟ experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain

    B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain:

    1. Antagonism, characterized by:

    a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert;

    b. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.

    C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.

    D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment. E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

b. Schizotypal Personality Disorder

The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose schizotypal personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:

  1. Impairments in self functioning:

    a. Identity: Confused boundaries between self and others; distorted self-concept; emotional expression often not congruent with context or internal experience.

    b. Self-direction: Unrealistic or incoherent goals; no clear set of internal standards.

    2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning:

    a. Empathy: Pronounced difficulty understanding impact of own behaviors on others; frequent misinterpretations of others‟ motivations and behaviors.

    b. Intimacy: Marked impairments in developing close relationships, associated with mistrust and anxiety.

  2. B. Pathological personality traits in the following domains:

    1. Psychoticism, characterized by:

a. Eccentricity: Odd, unusual, or bizarre behavior or appearance; saying unusual or inappropriate things.

b. Cognitive and perceptual dysregulation: Odd or unusual thought processes; vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, over-elaborate, or stereotyped thought or speech; odd sensations in various sensory modalities.

c. Unusual beliefs and experiences: Thought content and views of reality that are viewed by others as bizarre or idiosyncratic; unusual experiences of reality.

2. Detachment, characterized by:

a. Restricted affectivity: Little reaction to emotionally arousing situations; constricted emotional experience and expression; indifference or coldness.

b. Withdrawal: Preference for being alone to being with others; reticence in social situations; avoidance of social contacts and activity; lack of initiation of social contact.

3. Negative Affectivity, characterized by:

a. Suspiciousness: Expectations of – and heightened sensitivity to – signs of interpersonal ill-intent or harm; doubts about loyalty and fidelity of others; feelings of persecution.

C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.

D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.

E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

c. Personality Disorder Trait Specified

The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose a personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

A. Significant impairments (i.e., mild impairment or greater) in self (identity or self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy or intimacy) functioning.

B. One or more pathological personality trait domains OR specific trait facets within domains, considering ALL of the following domains.

1. Negative Affectivity

2. Detachment

3. Antagonism

4. Disinhibition vs. Compulsivity

5. Psychoticism

NOTE: Trait domain or one or more trait facets MUST be rated as “mildly descriptive or greater. If trait domain is rated as “mildly descriptive” then one or more of the associated trait facets MUST be rated as “moderately descriptive” or greater. C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.

The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment. E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

The disorders are based upon the above referenced conduct and pathological conduct.


Ivanka Trump has bulimia, anorexia and non-specific eating disorder characterized by repeat binge eating on a daily basis.She fixated on binging and purging based upon the meals provide by Jared Kushner including spaghetti. Jared Kushner shares her obscene bulimia fetish with her and has repeatedly specified that she should be bulimic. The same applies to her father who facilitates her drug addiction and bulimia. She defames women based upon her vindictive hatred and refuses to obtain treatment for her psychopathic and insane conduct and plays harassing and criminal stalking games with people where they have to battle through based upon her vicious and obscene defamation based upon the refusal to obtain treatment for bulimia.

She rationalizes the above conduct with delusions manifest from a delusional disorder in the grandiose type on those occasions.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Timothy Ewanyshsyn, La Quinta Law Group, has threatened to kill a domestic violence victim for the last six months several times

Timothy Ewansyshyn refuses to stop his stalking and harassment of a domestic violence victim. He deliberately wants to force an emotional response as he has convinced himself that he had an affair with this person. He has threatened to kill this person over the last six month, by pointing a gun at a screen based on his unlawful stalking and harassment as he wiretapped a person in violation of CA penal code 623 and placed an image of this person on his TV screen. He obsessively stares at this image while having sex and has pointed several time at this person. He has crawled around with a gun in his home hunting for this person.  It’s not enough that someone has already experienced domestic abuse but in the mind of Timothy Ewansyhsyn can live their own life without his abusive conduct and manipulation of everyone around him, to support his conduct.

He was committed on a 51/50 hold after crawling around with a gun in his home by the Indio Police Department and was screaming, while strapped down during his commitment.

He deliberately attempts to force a domestic violence relationship down the throat of a domestic violence victim, as he cannot accept that he does not have any relevance anywhere.  He attempts to rope everyone in with his psychologically abusive games and is vindictive, manipulative and malicious He prefers to manipulate women to do his bidding flooding them, with his emotional issues.

The people that he is acquainted with increase his stalking and harassment and find it acceptable that he threatens to kill domestic violence victims, with domestic violence restraining orders. He is dangerous and out of control and everyone around him supports his obsession and stalking and harassment. The people that he is associated with increase his abusive nature and desire to kill by escalating their obsessive behavior.

The domestic abuse signs are well known to any court as well as the obsessive characteristics of a psychopath, who can kill. He finds it acceptable to act in this manner and floods everyone with self-created emotional issues that only exist in his head. The domestic violence victim refuses to associate with him in any capacity and knows how dangerous he is. He blames everyone else for his abuse and blames the people that he targets for his violent conduct. He fails to realize that his obsession is self-created and that if he stops harassing and stalking that his obsession will stop.

He has escalated his conduct out of control, resorting to defaming this domestic violence to agencies, individuals and other people. He abuses children who are protected by a domestic violence restraining order as well.

Judge Becky Dugan supports Timothy Ewanyshyn, as a Judge Pro Term by paying him $ 50,999 a year to cover up for his drug abuse. She lies to state agencies about his conduct and any court records of this domestic violence victim that she has tampered with and removes. She has substituted others, including minute orders. She refuses to act according to any law and supports a drug addict regardless of the consequences to the court. She has offered drug rehabilitation in the past to Timothy Ewanyshyn who refuses to accept it. Her solution is to support his domestic violence and abuse until he kills. He is completely out of control and has made it clear that he wants to kidnap the domestic violence victim and her children.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Judge Sterling provides his phone number to restrained party

Judge Sterling has made a habit of involving himself in extra-judicial affairs that conflict with the CA judicial canon of ethics.

He granted a restraining order with full personal and full stay away orders and decided to stop by at the location of the restrained party, who was traced through his cell phone. This location was not in his jurisdiction.

He provided his “phone number” and advised the restrained party to phone him at any time.

Judge Sterling refuses to admit that his stalking and harassment of all individuals in the Riverside Superior Court violates all judicial canon of ethics; including CA penal code section 632.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized


Judge Becky Dugan proclaims to be a judge who gives speeches that people are responsible for their own behavior and that she does not accept any excuses, These speeches occur when she sentences a criminal defendant.  She refuses to accept that there are extenuating circumstances for criminal behavior  or the facts surrounding.

In her personal capacity she does the opposite. She stalks and harasses women and judges that are associated with the Riverside Superior Court. She violates their privacy by recording them illegally in violation of CA penal code 632. She prevents their freedom of movement by notifying everyone when a judge travels with their family and intimidates/stalks/harasses their children by specifying that the children of the judge are recorded and stalked through their phone and social media/school.

She does the same with any person who she claims is involved with the court including any litigant who is and was represented by an attorney as she claims ownership of anyone associated with the court. She makes nasty comments about former and current clients to attorneys and judges that she visits in their home, she makes those same nasty comments in public to anyone who knows this person to harm her reputation so that this person is unable to find any work in the community that she has lived in or lives in. The purpose is to depress these individuals to such an extent that they cannot focus on any solution and expected to deal with their vicious harassment.

She incites sexual harassment and rape with these comments as they are designed to place these women on a lower social standing than the rest of the United States population. She deliberately forces these women to obtain welfare as these women cannot obtain any work based on her derogatory and nasty comments that do not have any relevance to anything but are merely designed to force these women to live in poverty and to be emotionally, financially and socially destroyed. She isolates these women from the past and current communities that they have lived in to prevent that they have any social, emotional and financial support.

Most of these women are highly educated including with a degree in Psychology and she refuses to accept that these women have social standing in their communities as a person who has the right to live free of her interference. She has appointed herself as the person capable of influencing anyone associated with the person that the court terrorizes to prevent they are able to live in peace. She associates and thinks of certain specific judges and specific women as sub-human beings who deserve to be treated in this capacity.  She refuses to accept that people can survive without the interference of the court as she has now turned her behavior into a game of survival for the targeted people of the court.

There are numerous women that have been financially, socially and emotionally destroyed by the court behavior including women who have had their children removed based on false claims and who had to move to another state to obtain these children back. They were forced to obtain welfare in order to survive and to obtain any contact with these children.

This behavior violates the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

and the human rights of individuals that the court targets has and is violated on a constants basis.

The only basis or their behavior is delusional as Judge Becky Dugan relies on the nasty comments and targeted behavior that she initiates to destroy women. The court cannot accept that there is a world that does not revolve around the nasty derogatory comments and the intent to destroy a human being. The court specifically targets domestic violence victims as these women do not deserve any peace or the right to live without their vicious harassment and targeted destruction.

Judge Becky Dugan relies on the 5 minute memory of individuals and that they focus on any negative comments rather than on a positive association with this person, a new  game that she has invented as any targeted person is not allowed any personal relationship, family relationship, work, a home without the targeted criminal behavior that this person is exposed to based upon her negative portrayal of this individual who deserved to be criminally targeted.

They specifically target strong women and individuals and it goes back to the old game of identifying individuals as the stronger person and the target person before any court proceeding so that they initiate games to harm and to destroy this individual.

These women are expected to accept sexual harassment at their work place, in their personal life, rape, involvement with people that they refuse  to associate with based upon their negative vilification of individuals so that these individuals do not have any self-worth as a human being. Judge Becky Dugan verbally and emotionally abuses these women.

They treat women and associated individuals as their possession and chattels, who are expected to loose their homes, their children, their jobs and who deserve to be exposed to criminal behavior based on their sub-human degradation/vilification of these individuals.

These individuals receive medical treatment that is below standard based on the defamation and stalking/ harassment that they are exposed to. Their children are called the “FUCKING LYING SCUM” by the court and associated individuals and are not allowed to live in peace with their target parent. Their schools are impacted including and medical professional that they have.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Dr. Eric Speare, danger to himself and others

Dr. Eric Speare is a heroin addict who claims to have a low grade addiction to heroin for over 20 years. His wife witnessed one of his injections based on his claims that the addiction is not that serious and that he is in full control of a 20 year heroin addiction. It is common knowledge in his close circle of friends that he is addicted.

The impact of the drug is well known including a cloudy mental functioning https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin which is more than apparent in the way that his patients are treated and how he conducts himself in person with claims of forging medical records. He claims to hear voices which direct him what to say and how to conduct himself and which control his interaction with patients and other individuals.

Dr. Eric Speare (MD) who practices in orange county claims to be a psychiatrist. Rumors and opinions have come to light that Dr. Speare sexually harasses patients, refusing to accept no.

Dr. Speare insists on a very specific form of treatment which resembles bondage, facilitating transference to the patient, refusing to allow a patient to leave his practice. This specific type of psychiatrist insists on misdiagnosing patients to fleece their medical and health care provider for years at a time, creating a sadistic bondage relationship. This psychiatrist refuses to take drug addiction seriously and considers it a joke.

Dr. Speare writes out prescriptions that are meaningless for the alleged diagnosis and refuses to accept that they do not work if the patient queries the diagnosis, insisting on prescribing an additional heavier dose, (once again fleecing the same health insurance).

Dr. Speare violates a patient’s alleged medical confidentiality to employers (past and present), school districts, court systems and anyone who requests alleged medical records and passes the medical records of patients to other patients

Dr. Speare can be contacted at his office address: 33971 Selva Rd, Dana Point, CA 92629 and his home address at 11 S La Senda DR Laguna Beach, CA 92651.

There are witnessed scenes of Dr. Speare buying heroin at his home address located on top of a hill and his drug dealer playing a joke on him and substituting his drugs with others. He is a danger to himself and others and refuses to accept help or that he actually has a drug problem. Concerned members of the community can call the Dana Police Department Address33282 Street of the Golden Lantern # 140, Dana Point, CA 92629 Phone(949) 770-6011 or 911 and report his drug transactions and possession of a controlled substance. He is a danger to himself and others. 

Dependence is a major medical, social, and economic problem for many countries worldwide. For example, tobacco contributes to 8.8% of deaths worldwide, alcohol to 3.2%, and illicit drugs to 0.4% (WHO, 2008). In England alone, around 24% of adult men and 13% of adult women consume hazardous amounts of alcohol, costing the economy approximately £20 billion (NHS, 2009). In 2003/2004 class A drug use cost the UK roughly £15.4 billion (Singleton et al., 2006), 90% of this cost due to drug-related crime, with the health care costs amounting to approximately £1.4 billion per year (Lingford-Hughes et al., 2010). While an extensive range of drugs are abused, opiates, cocaine, and alcohol have been identified as the three drugs most dangerous to both the individual and society (Nutt et al., 2010) and they will be the focus of this review.

Drug dependence is associated with changes to brain structural, neuropsychological, and emotion systems (Asensio et al., 2010). These changes have the potential to influence vulnerability for substance dependence, contribute to the maintenance of problem drug use once it has started, as well as affecting the likelihood of relapse following detoxification. Clinically and therapeutically it is important to understand the mechanisms of each of these three stages of addiction. Identification of vulnerability markers for problem drug use would allow the possibility of early intervention, or even preventative therapies in high-risk individuals. Understanding the mechanisms of maintenance of drug-taking behavior is important for preventing initial drug use from developing into dependence. Perhaps the most difficult problem facing the treatment of addiction is the very high rate of relapse following initially successful treatment (Sinha, 2011), and it is therefore crucial to understand the factors involved, in order to break the cycle of repeated detoxification and relapse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491319/

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

The chambers of Judge Otis Sterling.Riverside Superior Court wire taps in violation of CA penal code 632.

The court introduces new Pro-term judges by revealing that they have illegal wire taps in the chambers, which violates CA penal code 632 as CA is a two party consent stated. New temporary judges are introduced to their profession with alleged aged tapes, that the court has allegedly obtained of former clients to color their state of mind and to involve them in their illegal wire tapping activity.  These alleged tapes are not authenticated nor are any of the associated documents that are alleged as associated with these tapes, but are presented as valid and relevant.

The sole purpose is to influence an individual to be a pro-term judge and to influence their status as being superior to the individual that is being illegally wire tapped, with vicious commentary that does not have any relevance to their appearance in any court proceeding. The wire tapping does not show any criminal or illicit behavior but the court has made a mockery of any subpoena process in order to illegally wire tape a private person. In their minds of the individuals involved these persons do not enjoy the same rights and privileges of a permanent resident or a citizen with the same constitutional safeguard and is merely designed to harass the private person and perpetuate their alleged superior standing in their mind.

The comments specify that the individual that is wire tapped has bulimia and the pro-terms are forecably exposed to this state of mind to influence their perception so that they can function in their day for one hour. The court ignores the substance abuse of the judge pro-terms including cocaine and other drugs to perpetuate the insane statement against the individual that they are defaming on a daily basis.  The court has footage of the same judge pro-terms snorting cocaine and having sex at their law offices.

The same pro-term judge has illicit wire tapping at their home and has abused his daughter for 4 hours with physical and emotional abuse. This individual forces children to be exposed to the same insanity that Judge Otis Sterling imposes on the judge pro-term merely to emotionally upset children during a holiday. There are no reasons for these actions as they are perpetuated by a drug addict and constitute emotional abuse.


By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

UN Report Finds Mass Surveillance Violates International Treaties and Privacy Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States.


The United Nations’ top official for counter-terrorism and human rights (known as the “Special Rapporteur”) issued a formal report to the U.N. General Assembly today that condemns mass electronic surveillance as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions. “The hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether,” the report concluded.

Central to the Rapporteur’s findings is the distinction between “targeted surveillance” — which “depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization” — and “mass surveillance,” whereby “states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites.” In a system of “mass surveillance,” the report explained, “all of this is possible without any prior suspicion related to a specific individual or organization. The communications of literally every Internet user are potentially open for inspection by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the States concerned.”

Mass surveillance thus “amounts to a systematic interference with the right to respect for the privacy of communications,” it declared. As a result, “it is incompatible with existing concepts of privacy for States to collect all communications or metadata all the time indiscriminately.”

In concluding that mass surveillance impinges core privacy rights, the report was primarily focused on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty enacted by the General Assembly in 1966, to which all of the members of the “Five Eyes” alliance are signatories. The U.S. ratified the treaty in 1992, albeit with various reservations that allowed for the continuation of the death penalty and which rendered its domestic law supreme. With the exception of the U.S.’s Persian Gulf allies (Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar), virtually every major country has signed the treaty.

Article 17 of the Covenant guarantees the right of privacy, the defining protection of which, the report explained, is “that individuals have the right to share information and ideas with one another without interference by the State, secure in the knowledge that their communication will reach and be read by the intended recipients alone.”

The report’s key conclusion is that this core right is impinged by mass surveillance programs: “Bulk access technology is indiscriminately corrosive of online privacy and impinges on the very essence of the right guaranteed by article 17. In the absence of a formal derogation from States’ obligations under the Covenant, these programs pose a direct and ongoing challenge to an established norm of international law.”

The report recognized that protecting citizens from terrorism attacks is a vital duty of every state, and that the right of privacy is not absolute, as it can be compromised when doing so is “necessary” to serve “compelling” purposes. It noted: “There may be a compelling counter-terrorism justification for the radical re-evaluation of Internet privacy rights that these practices necessitate. ”

But the report was adamant that no such justifications have ever been demonstrated by any member state using mass surveillance: “The States engaging in mass surveillance have so far failed to provide a detailed and evidence-based public justification for its necessity, and almost no States have enacted explicit domestic legislation to authorize its use.”

Instead, explained the Rapporteur, states have relied on vague claims whose validity cannot be assessed because of the secrecy behind which these programs are hidden: “The arguments in favor of a complete abrogation of the right to privacy on the Internet have not been made publicly by the States concerned or subjected to informed scrutiny and debate.”

About the ongoing secrecy surrounding the programs, the report explained that “states deploying this technology retain a monopoly of information about its impact,” which is “a form of conceptual censorship … that precludes informed debate.” A June report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights similarly noted “the disturbing lack of governmental transparency associated with surveillance policies, laws and practices, which hinders any effort to assess their coherence with international human rights law and to ensure accountability.”

The rejection of the “terrorism” justification for mass surveillance as devoid of evidence echoes virtually every other formal investigation into these programs. A federal judge last December found that the U.S. Government was unable to “cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack.” Later that month, President Obama’s own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies concluded that mass surveillance “was not essential to preventing attacks” and information used to detect plots “could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”

Three Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote in The New York Times that “the usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated” and “we have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security.” A study by the centrist New America Foundation found that mass metadata collection “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism” and, where plots were disrupted, “traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case.” It labeled the NSA’s claims to the contrary as “overblown and even misleading.”

While worthless in counter-terrorism policies, the UN report warned that allowing mass surveillance to persist with no transparency creates “an ever present danger of ‘purpose creep,’ by which measures justified on counter-terrorism grounds are made available for use by public authorities for much less weighty public interest purposes.” Citing the UK as one example, the report warned that, already, “a wide range of public bodies have access to communications data, for a wide variety of purposes, often without judicial authorization or meaningful independent oversight.”

The report was most scathing in its rejection of a key argument often made by American defenders of the NSA: that mass surveillance is justified because Americans are given special protections (the requirement of a FISA court order for targeted surveillance) which non-Americans (95% of the world) do not enjoy. Not only does this scheme fail to render mass surveillance legal, but it itself constitutes a separate violation of international treaties (emphasis added):

The Special Rapporteur concurs with the High Commissioner for Human Rights that where States penetrate infrastructure located outside their territorial jurisdiction, they remain bound by their obligations under the Covenant. Moreover, article 26 of the Covenant prohibits discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, nationality and citizenship. The Special Rapporteur thus considers that States are legally obliged to afford the same privacy protection for nationals and non-nationals and for those within and outside their jurisdiction. Asymmetrical privacy protection regimes are a clear violation of the requirements of the Covenant.

That principle — that the right of internet privacy belongs to all individuals, not just Americans — was invoked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when he explained in a June, 2013 interview at The Guardian why he disclosed documents showing global surveillance rather than just the surveillance of Americans: “More fundamentally, the ‘US Persons’ protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%.”

The U.N. Rapporteur was clear that these systematic privacy violations are the result of a union between governments and tech corporations: “States increasingly rely on the private sector to facilitate digital surveillance. This is not confined to the enactment of mandatory data retention legislation. Corporates [sic] have also been directly complicit in operationalizing bulk access technology through the design of communications infrastructure that facilitates mass surveillance. ”

The latest finding adds to the growing number of international formal rulings that the mass surveillance programs of the U.S. and its partners are illegal. In January, the European parliament’s civil liberties committee condemned such programs in “the strongest possible terms.” In April, the European Court of Justice ruled that European legislation on data retention contravened EU privacy rights. A top secret memo from the GCHQ, published last year by The Guardian, explicitly stated that one key reason for concealing these programs was fear of a “damaging public debate” and specifically “legal challenges against the current regime.”

The report ended with a call for far greater transparency along with new protections for privacy in the digital age. Continuation of the status quo, it warned, imposes “a risk that systematic interference with the security of digital communications will continue to proliferate without any serious consideration being given to the implications of the wholesale abandonment of the right to online privacy.” The urgency of these reforms is underscored, explained the Rapporteur, by a conclusion of the United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that “permitting the government to routinely collect the calling records of the entire nation fundamentally shifts the balance of power between the state and its citizens.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found on the United Nations website: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States can be found on the United Nations website:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Tamara Meyers, Riverside County Library

Ms. Meyers caused her marriage of 23 years to fail by exploring her gay tendencies. She had three children at the same time and did not care about the status of her marriage. Her husband at the time had an emotional background and the court declared that he was a suicidal risk based upon her application to the Riverside Superior Court with a temporary restraining order and her false claims that her ex-husband was suicidal based on 2 advils. Her ex-husband was committed based upon the emotional devastation of a failed marriage and is now happily married. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Sherrill Elsworth; the cancer of the Riverside Superior Court.


Sherill Ellsworth was a Riverside Superior Court judge and retired to the private sector. Her career as a bench officer was characterized by outrageous statements in family law cases including calling mom’s a cancer in a child’s life. Her behavior in court cases was geared towards escalating the conflict between parties, rather settling cases. he even order a criminal anger management course for a family law party based on alleged anger management issues which were not presented in a formal hearing. The criminal diversion program is usually used in criminal cases and not the sentencing that was imposed on a family law party. Her home address is ” 44206 Whittier Ave, Hemet CA. “.

Sherill Ellsworth makes derogatory comments on attorneys, former litigants and refuses to cease with the interference in their lives. She has history of unlawful sanction orders that violate all statutory requirements and due process procedures and refuses to treat moms with respect in any court proceeding.

Her husband is a dentist with his own practice in Riverside, (located at 4959 Arlington AvenueRiverside, CA 92504)  and she has 6 adult children. Throughout in the Riverside Superior Court she maintained that the 6 children allowed her to handle high conflict domestic violence cases. “Who better than me?”   “Who better than me, a mother of six, to sort out the complex issues of high-conflict custody battles? Who better than me, an LDS (Mormon) woman, to preside over child molestation cases where the victims and the juries need a gentle touch? Who better than me to handle domestic violence cases?” http://jrclswomen.blogspot.com/2013/05/la-women-in-law-host-judge-sherrill.html


She presented domestic violence seminars and specified that mothers should think twice before moving out of home due to domestic violence as they could end up homeless and loose their children, https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourts.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/riverside-superior-court-blames-the-victim-in-its-domestic-violence-summit/.

Sherill Ellsworth declined to specify that these mothers were entitled to spousal and child support with any domestic violence filing.

Her private involvement focuses on allegedly helping families with a co-parenter tool, https://www.coparenter.com/what-is-coparenter/. The co-parenter tool is just another tool to convince the judicial council to spend funds on a platform that is unnecessary, without providing any statistics or how it is effective in family law. The court already uses the our family wizard tool for co-parenting and scheduling.  Sherill Ellsworth is attempting to convince the public that this tool is the only communication tool that exists rather than e-mail. phone contact or discussion, to resolve any settlement. Prior articles have discussed that reasonable parents can come to an agreement outside of a law to settle any issues that affect their children. The high conflict escalation arises when the court refuses to acknowledge domestic abuse and refuses to acknowledge the conflict that is generated by the other parent.

Her profile on her LinkedIn profile specifies the following “https://www.linkedin.com/in/hon-sherrill-a-ellsworth-ret-5a9410130/

“After serving as a Bench Officer in California for almost 20 years I have moved into the private sector where I remain active in trying to help families . One day , about 18 months ago I met Jonathon Verk and Eric Weiss . They had this idea about an APP , a coparenting platform or tool that would help the families of divorced, separating and never married individuals to avoid the high financial and emotional cost of going to Court. We became fast friends working together to create CoParenter. When it comes to children , we all feel passionate about empowering co parents to make decisions for their children in a way that “PUTS CHILDREN IN THE CENTER NOT THE MIDDLE.” With CoParenter , we can make a real change in the culture of Courts and in families. We can create new landscapes for how divorce, separation and parenting disputes are resolved .CoParenter fosters amicable resolutions outside of Court by empowering co parents to make decisions for their children.It is so exciting to work with this team and within this positive platform . CoParenter. Org

In addition to my position at CoParenter I continue to settle cases ; business, family , construction defect etc . I believe individuals need to have ” a say ” in the process and outcome of their dispute . I am equally comfortable in the role as Mediator as I am as Private Judge , Arbitrator or Special Referee . I am a Judicial Educator , Consultant and Public Speaker .

I haven’t really retired ! Instead I have transformed . I am busy making a difference focusing on what is near and dear to my heart .I am resolving conflict and removing children from conflict while helping Courts , Communities , Businesses and Families .”

Sherill Ellsworth owns another company in Florida, which she refuses to register in the State of California, even though she is legally required to do so under CA law.

A CA Secretary of State business search shows that her company is not registered in the State of California.


Her husband and Sherill Ellsworth have two limited partnerships.



By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Riverside Superior Court ignores domestic violence protocol and drug manufacturing felonies of the other parent and prolonged substance abuse. Timothy Ewanyshyn, specifies that the court file does not demonstrate any issues with regard to a parent.

The Riverside Superior Court has a number of cases which they prefer to cover up. These cases involve abuse and substance abuse. Some of these cases have an incorrect ruling for every custody order and the court insists on targeting a target parent to cover up the failure to protect and the failure to address long-term substance abuse. Any attorney is bound by client attorney privilege and may not reveal any information about their clients in any capacity. http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules/Rule-3-100

These rulings for example ignore any domestic violence that exists including mandatory application of the CA family code section 3044 advisory notice which accompanies every mediation.

In some cases one parent had a sole legal and sole physical custody under a domestic violence as the existing custody order. The court fails to apply the rebuttable presumption according to CA family code section 3044 et seq., as it relates to the application of the rebuttable presumption for custody at the relevant mediation or the relevant hearing.

The court mediators refuse to adhere to the concept that parties who has a domestic violence restraining can request a separate mediation, without the parent who is and was restrained under a domestic violence restraining order. The court fails to address the settlement requirements contained in CA rules of court as it relates to settlement providers and mediators (CCRC, (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_420).

Several of these cases have the track record. Flooding the court record with OSC cause for sanctions and other irrelevant statements against the parent who has been protected and is protected by several restraining order. The only purpose is to influence the state of mind of any court or any judicial officer who reviews the court file.

A tactic used by vindictive abusive ex-spouses is to portray the party protected under a domestic violence restraining order as mentally ill and crazy. Numerous studies confirm this tactic and it is used to evade the protection of a restraining order and its enforcement. The court also specialized in this tactic if a parent is resistant to the risk of exposure to domestic abuse by placing the children in contact with the restrained party.

Attorneys specialize in pressuring the protected party under a domestic violence restraining order to allow the restrained party to see the children protected under a domestic violence restraining order, without a supervision order, and without guaranteeing the safety of the children. The tactic is used to portray to the court that there is no danger if the protected parent complies. These attorneys then present to the court that the protected parent must be so delusional that they even imagined the holes punched in the wall. One such attorney is Palmer Riedel. The court relies on these statements without any evidence presented by a psychologist or a psychiatrist. As in the court’s mind these delusions must exist when they are expressed by an attorney.

This type of tactic occurs and continues to occur despite an attorney of a parent specifying to the court that the court file does not specify any issues relating to the mental health of a parent. In this instance the attorney was Timothy Ewanyshyn. The relevant mediation with Emelina McGinnis failed to address the existing domestic violence at that time and portrayed a parent as rigid for refusing to place children at risk. The mediator failed to apply the rebuttable presumption for custody which addresses any domestic violence restraining according to CA family code section 3044 and the relevant ca rules of court for mediation (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_215). The court failed to do the same as it merely rubber stamped a mediator’s (CCRC) recommendation without addressing that both parents need to agree according to CA evidence section 1118 and CA evidence code section 1121.

The other parent, for example, has numerous issues including a drug manufacturing felony which the court is aware of and refuses to address in the context of custody, and prolonged substance abuse, impacting on the custody time with children. Usually any attorney would address the credibility of a witness including their testimony according to evidence code section 788(a-d) which specifies as follows:

788. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown by the examination of the witness or by the record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a felony unless:

(a) A pardon based on his innocence has been granted to the witness by the jurisdiction in which he was convicted.

(b) A certificate of rehabilitation and pardon has been granted to the witness under the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code.

(c) The accusatory pleading against the witness has been dismissed under the provisions of Penal Code Section 1203.4, but this exception does not apply to any criminal trial where the witness is being prosecuted for a subsequent offense.

(d) The conviction was under the laws of another jurisdiction and the witness has been relieved of the penalties and disabilities arising from the conviction pursuant to a procedure substantially equivalent to that referred to in subdivision (b) or (c).

These cases escalate out of control as the court refuses to issue the correct rulings without four or five restraining orders that are issued over a specific time frame, demonstrating a track record of domestic violence, linked to the failure of the court to issue the court order from the beginning.

The relevant transcripts are listed below.



By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Elizabeth Lawrence, child support attorney, refuses to promote the settlement of a child support case

A child support case was initiated against a parent who is an immigrant. The San Bernardino court based upon the false presentation of the child support attorney, at that time initiated an order specifying that a child support obligation is to paid based upon the sponsorship amount owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent.

The other parent is listed as a party to the case and the basis of the child support order is the failure to pay, by the other parent, who was ordered by another court to pay an amount based upon a sponsorship contract, which is mandatory contract. This contract is intended to prevent that the immigrant is a public charge and is based upon a change of status based upon marriage. It is a mandatory process for any immigrant in the United States who marries a Unites States citizen and specifies that the amount is at least 125% of the poverty guidelines but the contract reads essentially “whatever support” is necessary.

The County initiated this process fully aware that any immigrant would be subject to being a public charge in any case based upon an income of at least 125% of the poverty guideline. This is the first case of its kind in the United States.

The child support Elizabeth Lawrence refuses to promote a settlement and a stipulation which was offered to the other parent which would have offset the entire amount owed. The child support department has made the immigrant parent their target, escalating the conflict and the domestic violence, in this case, refusing to promote the co-operation between the parties.

CA family code section 271 specifies that a party should promote the settlement of a case to prevent litigation which is not necessary and just burdens the court system unnecessarily. Otherwise that party can be subject to sanctions. In this case, the child support case has already been flagged for domestic violence, by the Department of Child Support, and the County refuses to cease their escalation of this case, refusing to promote co-operation between the parties.

An example of this escalation is the filing of Elizabeth Lawrence under the penalty of perjury, which specifies that the amount owed to the other parent based upon the other parent’s obligation to the immigrant parent is approximately $ 11,000, and that the remainder is based upon public reimbursement assistance.  None of the court orders in this case reflect that any child support obligation is based upon public reimbursement. The relevant court orders specify that the amount is based upon the amount owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent. The other parent has already specified at a court proceeding that payment has not occurred to the immigrant parent.

The filing of Elizabeth Lawrence was intended to escalate this case with a false representation that the other parent cannot sign a stipulation offsetting the entire amount, as Elizabeth Lawrence presented false information to the court about the nature of the alleged debt obligation. This false information was present with the intent to prevent the signing of a stipulation offsetting the entire amount based upon the debt owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent. The stipulation represented an offset without penalties or disadvantages to the other parent.

Elizabeth Lawrence refuses to provide the correct information to any parent at any meeting, specifying that the child support department is not aware as to what the original child support is based upon and presents false information to any parent and the court merely to escalate the court case.



By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

The mediator characters of the Indio Family law court

The court uses mediators that have several personal issues that affect their ability to act impartiality and to adhere to the CA rules of court and the domestic violence standard, mandated by CA family code section 3044. This advisory notice is routinely filed in all cases where mediation occurs. The mediators simply refuses to adhere to this notice. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Domestic violence defined for court proceedings.

The New Mexico Domestic Violence bench book has defined domestic violence in contrast to the CA judicial bench book in detail, (https://women.unm.edu/resources/New-Mexico-Domestic-Violence-Benchbook.pdf). The bench-book addresses some of the factors of domestic abuse and the impact on children. Abuse escalates and is present when the court fails to act. Some of the women who have experienced domestic abuse live with the failure of the court to act and the impact on their children and are very aware of the long term consequences of this impact. This abuse escalates if there is a refusal to accept a divorce. Some of the excerpts of the bench guide are listed below:

In whatever context it occurs, domestic violence presents the court with unique
concerns, the foremost of which is the safety of the litigants and court personnel. These
heightened safety concerns arise from the intimate relationship between the perpetrator and the victim of domestic violence. This relationship increases the potential for danger in the following ways: Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized


The Eviction Center located in Beaumont on 1051 E 1st St Beaumont, CA 92223 claims to be an unlawful detainer assistant qualified according to CA Business Professions Code section 6400-6415 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6400).

The Eviction Center is operated by Rudi Flores and Veronia Hollenbaugh who are behind the unlicensed and unbonded activities of this “Eviction Center”. Rudi Flores harasses parties who are involved in their unlawful litigation by obtaining court records that they do not have any right to have access to and harasses alleged defendants with unlawful statements through the Eviction Center.  They involve their so-called plaintiffs with their unlawful action with this type of manipulative behavior and portray defendant’s as the horrendous enemy of a court system to persuade plaintiffs to continue with their unlawful complaints. The Eviction Center refuses to dismiss any unlawful complaint despite being instructed to do by their so-called plaintiff who lists the Eviction Center’s business address as their own. This type of behavior, filing false complaints, refusing to dismiss and escalating the situation wastes an enormous of judicial enormous as both court systems have to deal with the result of their false complaints that are filed without the assistance of an attorney.

The Eviction Center uses the Eviction Center name to sign contracts even they are not registered as a legal  to sign contracts as.

The Eviction Center does not maintain an active business license within the City of Beaumont and has not registered a DBA with the City of in any other format.




The Eviction Center prepares court documents under the Eviction Center name claiming that they are an unlawful detainer assistant. The Center prepares documents without a valid legal claim, specifying that an an ulawful detainer action exists when such as an action does not exist. They provide a summons and complaint to be filed with a court specifying their name, allowing alleged pro per plaintiffs to use their alleged business address to obtain credibility with the court. These complaints only present a frivolous unlawful detainer lawsuit. They do not contain the actual plaintiff and they do not contain a valid legal notice (3 day notice to pay or surrender). The notices are not based on the actual facts of the case nor are they based on the terms of any written agreement or the amount due. These notices are signed by a person who is not an attorney and misrepresents themselves as the owner/agent of the property when the alleged written agreement contains a different name.
The complaints that are filed allege damages that occur only a month after the alleged invalid notice was served, with the incorrect amount and the date due, (see attached complaint with example of such a notice). In essence, the Eviction Center is filing complaints or allowing pro per litigants to file a complaint with their alleged business address prematurely. In other words, the complaint is filed in August for damages that are only alleged for September and are not even due yet. This business files complaints or allows pro per litigants to file complaints that do not contain a verification in violation of the unlawful detainer law (Code of Civil Procedure § 1166(a)(1), which specifies that complaints shall be verified. An example of such a complaint resulting in a frivolous unlawful detainer complaint is attached. The complaint does not list the true plaintiff, does not list the correct the legal address of the property, does not list the correct amount allegedly owed as the complaint specifies that damages are only due from the month of September, rather than the month of August, the dates contained in the relevant notice attached to the complaint. The company background can be traced back to a corporation called the Sabre Group, Inc, which is registered in CA as a Nevada corporation operating as the VALRON SYNDICATE.


The Valron syndicate advertisers itself as the Eviction Center on the internet.


The Sabre Group Inc. is listed in the City of Beaumont as a DBA called Frontline Property Maintenance.


The company is registered as a handyman service with the City of Beaumont and not the Evicton.

The Secretary of State corporations (statement of information) specifies that the company is doing business as the Valron Syndicate within the State of California. The corporate documents specify that the company is engaged in Security/Maintenance/Typing services, (see above corporate documents, statement of information).

This is not the true nature of their business as the adverts of the Valron Syndicate highlight that they specialize in evictions under the name of the Eviction Center (see above adverts and websites).

The company is not only misrepresenting their business activity to the Secretary of State but is misrepresenting their capacity for legal actions to pro per consumers and to the relevant Riverside and San Bernardino Superior Courts.

The Eviction Center advertises themselves as being bonded in both counties (Riverside and San Bernardino County, as required by CA Business Professions Code section 6400-6415. The process for an unlawful detainer assistant to engage in legal activity within the State of California. The company is not registered with the Riverside County clerk as required by CA Business Professions Code section 6400-6415.

A record search of the Riverside County recorders documents specifies that the Eviction Center does not have a registered bond nor does The Sabre Group Inc, or the Valron Syndicate and the address of a legally registered and bonded unlawful detainer assistant is not listed on the relevant court documents or on their advertisements and their websites.


The Eviction Center misrepresents themselves as an unlawful detainer assistant on court documents with an address that allegedly corresponds to a lawfully registered unlawful detainer assistant.

The Eviction Center is operating as an unlicensed and unregistered business within the State of California, misrepresenting their status as a bonded unlawful detainer assistant with both the Riverside and San Bernardino Superior Court, as well as the public.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Yucaipa Police Department, Deputy Rodriguez, harasses domestic violence victim with false court orders in mom’s custody time

The Yucaipa Police Department protects and serves the restrained party under a domestic violence restraining order. This department REFUSES to enforce the domestic violence restraining order with the mandatory action, i.e. arrest.

Various excuses are used and they range from the failure to provide an incident number, specifying that they refuse to enforce a Riverside Superior court domestic violence restraining order, the refusal to recognize a DV 130 as a protective order as the officers ask what type of protective order this was, the refusal to address any violation as they specify that it relates to custody issues, the referral to the San Bernardino Superior Court to obtain a restraining order from the San Bernardino Superior Court. Each and every instance of a request for enforcement is met with hostility and the portrayal of the protected party as the vindictive person who is setting up the restrained person. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized


Presiding Judge Height has made it a game to harass a domestic violence victim with false and frivolous court orders that do not reflect any new litigation to be filed. The Presiding judge of the San Bernardino Superior court has served two court orders by mail signed by Presiding Judge Haight. The orders are not filed in the corresponding family law case and merely serve to increase the domestic violence that the protected party under a restraining order is exposed to.

The “order” does not reference or refer to anY “new litigation” allegedly filed nor does the court docket of this case reference this specific order, maliciously served on the respondent in a civil case.

Presiding Judge Haight refuses to address the actions of the Riverside Superior Court and their notice to the judicial council to remove a plaintiff/petitioner from the vexatious litigant list which is listed in the court docket of an civil case. The alleged plaintiff is the respondent in a civil case. This notice is listed with date of 4/20/2015.


In addition, Presiding Judge Haight refuses to address the incorrect entries in a transferred civil case, where the court has entered false court orders with incorrect date to uphold an alleged vexatious litigant standing and refuses to address the correct domestic violence restraining order that only expires in 2019.

The basis of the transfer was the domestic violence standard created by the Riverside Superior Court and the refusal to address its abuse of the vexatious litigant law and fabrication of MC 701 and MC 702 forms to hide the domestic violence. The protected party has been exposed to repeated death threats and abusive interaction which escalates with every fabricated court document maliciously served by the court.  This escalating behavior also impacts and increases the domestic abuse against children and the hatred that they are exposed to on a daily basis.

Presiding Judge Haight prefers to play games with the lives of women and children and has served the restrained party under a restraining order with this order which does not refer to any “litigation” merely to increase the domestic violence against the protected person and the children involved in the civil case. This order does not list any party and is merely a blank court generated denial form, not filed in the court docket.

The San Bernadino Superior Court refuses to address the basis of the OSC to transfer venue filed by the Riverside Superior Court and the abuse of the vexatious litigant law, preferring to escalate a fabricated issue by Presiding Judge Haight.

The San Bernardino Superior Court refuses to address the defendant holding in a recent Supereme court case (notwithstanding the notice that is listed in the original transferred case), which specifies that a defendant/respondent in a civil action is not subject to a prefiling order.  John v. Superior Court 369 P.3d 238, 63 Cal. 4th 91, 201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459 (2016). CA law only defines actions as civil and criminal. Family law is considered a civil action and is defined as civil law (CA evidence code § 105, CCP § 24) and civil actions include civil proceedings (CA evidence code § 120).   CCP § 24 defines actions as two kinds, civil and criminal. The underlying action is the initial action filed by the plaintiff. The defendant merely responds to a civil action filed against him/her.

The fabrication of court orders, which are not filed in the corresponding court docket nor is the alleged “new litigation” filed in the court docket merely serve to harass the respondent with fabricated MC 702 forms, abusing judicial council forms for malicious harassment.



By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized



The San Bernardino Superior Court Presiding Judge Raymond L. Haight III refuses to file an exparte that was provided to the court on the 26th of April 2017 (SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT PRESIDING JUDGE EXPARTE). The Presiding Judge has refused to assign a judicial officer with a departmental assignment order according to CA rules of court 5.30 (a)(b) and CA rules of court 10.603 (b)(1)(B).  The Presiding Judge assigns cases to the relevant departments. The presiding judge of this court has made it clear that he fosters domestic violence and refuses to address any documents according to the relevant CA family code standard, specifying that it his way or the highway. The Presiding Judge of this court has made it clear that he will refuse to protect children in a domestic violence case including children who are enrolled in the CA Secretary of State Safe at Home Program. 

On 4/25/2017 the court filed a domestic violence restraining order; without issuing a TRO according to CA family code § 240, 241, 242 and 246. The court refuses to address domestic violence and the impact of such domestic violence on children.  The court refuses to address the immediate risk of physical harm and the immediate risk of children being removed from the State of CA, according to CA family code § 6323, which specifies that an exparte has to be considered according to CA family code § 3046. Both codes highlight the fact that the court has to consider an immediate risk factor for physical harm and a risk that children will be removed from this State.  The court has to prevent a written finding why children shall remain in a domestic violence household (CA family code 3011 (e), which also cites CA family code § 6323.

“(e) (1) Where allegations about a parent pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) have been brought to the attention of the court in the current proceeding, and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record. In these circumstances, the court shall ensure that any order regarding custody or visitation is specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child as set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 6323.”

In this instance the Riverside Superior court has transferred a domestic violence case without addressing the impact of domestic violence on children. The San Bernardino court refuses to address the correct orders that are listed in the Riverside Superior Court file, instead perpetuating and covering up the abuse, perpetuating further incidences of domestic violence that permeate the entire court file.  The court fixates on the female parent as the harassing party when the mother files a request for domestic violence restraining order to protect the children from further escalation and further abusive incidents which have occurred in the past when the other parent has escalated out of control.  The parent who has substantial experience with the psychopathic behavior and the resulting LONG term impact on children of course is not to be believed as the court prefers to adopt a wait and see approach until it is too late

The court does not have the capacity to deal with a psychopathic personality and in the court’s mind the fact that a mother has filed a request for domestic violence restraining order does not have any relevance as she was once married to the psychopathic personality.

The past and current abuse must be the preferred manner of living with this heinous scenario. This is even more heinous when a parent knows how innocent children really were and the impact of the past and current acts of abuse on said children.

As with the Riverside Superior Court the policy of the San Bernardino Superior court male judiciary is that if it does not affect their own children it does not have any relevance to a party or the children involved.

Women of course are not to be believed as in the mind of the San Bernardino Superior Court judiciary it is UNACCEPTABLE that women want to protect their children from abuse and refuse to have anything to do with the abusive ex-spouse.

Some parents are very familiar as to the impact of abuse and abusive interaction on a child’s formative years where children who are older than 10 already have the ingrained behavior of their abusive parent, especially when this abuse has occurred in front of these children for years and the court refuses to take action to protect these children.

It is unacceptable in the mind set of the male San Benrrardino Court judiciary that women are allowed to draw a line in any instance and say NO to the abuse of their children and themselves.

In the mind set of the San Bernardino Court judiciary a person just has to accept this abusive interaction at all cost including the violation of all court orders and the harassment , threats, and intimidation of governmental agencies, which occur in front of their children.

In the mind set of the San Bernardino court judiciary women and children are property of the abusive ex-husband and can be threatened, intimidated and harassed without any repercussions.

The court to date has refused to address all relevant documents that have been filed to address the fact that the court has refused to issue a TRO. The court refuses to adhere to CA rules of court and any relevant CA family code merely to perpetuate their vicious abuse of women and children in this court.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Marlo Guzman fired as mediator from an Indio Riverside Superior Court family law case by her supervisor


Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News


Ms. Guzman was removed from an Indio family law case by her supervisor Lisa Morris. Any parent may file a complaint against a mediator which needs to be addressed within 30 days.

The guidelines and ethics related to mediation are governed by California rules of Court 5.210 (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_210)  and the complaint specified that Ms. Guzman failed to adhere to any of the ethical guidelines mandated by rules of court and the best interest of the child standard. Indeed Ms. Guzman did not know the difference between the time period associated with sole physical and joint physical custody, failed to allow the mother ANY holiday time except for a few isolated hours during Christmas, failed to mention domestic abuse and wanted to allow the father to appoint a SUPERVISOR  to supervise the mother for no reason.  Secondly Ms. Guzman’s recommendation was in direct conflict with the existing permanent restraining order against…

View original post 67 more words

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Family members declare Judge Wells a con-man and a snake. History of illegal non-noticed expartes revealed. First ex-wife had to flea.

A comment on the Change.org petition for a forensic audit of Judge Wells and actions in family law reveals that a family member has surfaced to highlight why Judge Wells acts in such a corrupt,misogynistic, horrific manner; supporting the removal of Judge Wells from family law.


The family member, in pain, describes Judge Wells as a con-man and snake and reveals why Judge Wells horrifically batters women in his court of law as Judge Well’s first ex-wife had to flea to escape.

Judge Wells takes out every action against women that resemble certain ex-wives and viciously abuses a court of law to harass moms with non-noticed completely senseless expartes that fail to adhere to any standard of the law.

The trigger words for Judge Wells are “fear that the children will be taken out of state” when said children are still registered in school and have never left the state with their mom in any capacity in violation of any court order. Other trigger words are that SHE CANNOT BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDERS, (resembling the fixation against his ex-wife who failed to comply with a marriage), forcing Judge Wells to act on his compulsion to punish his first ex-wife for leaving him.

Moms are forcibly judicially harassed, viciously retaliated against and tied to Judge Wells’ department 2 J as Judge Wells cannot stand the thought that anyone would want to escape his insanity,  including the refusal to adhere to a granted disqualification signed by Judge Wells.

In Judge Wells’ mind there is a statutory exception not found in any code that allows a judge to act after a disqualification although CCP section 170.4 (d) specifies : ”Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined.”

Judge Wells is fixated on fathers and granting their every wish as his own biological children were removed from him.

A judicial officer with this kind of background, including three ex-wives, should never be allowed to go near a family law case.

The petition can be accessed at the following site: https://www.change.org/p/california-state-auditor-forensic-audit-judge-dale-wells-riverside-superior-court

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

The public lives in fear of Judge Dale Wells, one star rating as terrible judge.

A review published on gavelbangers highlights the fear of concerned fathers and husbands who have to deal with the repercussions of Judge Dale Wells actions in family law. Loving family members have to witness the torture that their wives and daughters are exposed to.

Litigants live in fear of waking up with another non-noticed exparte order, order to show cause or tyrannical ruling that fails to adhere to the law. Litigants live in fear of the absolute anarchy that Department 2 J represents to the court. Litigants live in fear of the absolute lack of accountability that is prevalent in Department 2 J. Judge Wells REFUSES to cease with his harassment and outrageous rulings of target parents while protecting the other parent at all cost, using a court of law to incite domestic violence.

Judge Wells is outraged if a judge issues any orders that deviate from his set path and fabricated pattern in a case that does not adhere to any evidence, testimony or witness testimony presented.  The court refuses to take action and place an impartial judge in

family law. Litigants fail to be treated with respect by a court of law.  Judge Wells has a one star rating on gavelbangers,  Gavelbangers one star rating


By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT FABRICATES FALSE MC 701 forms. Forms originate from Judge Wells’ department 2J.

The court has taken its vendetta to a new level and is fabricating MC 701 forms specifying that a party has allegedly FILED NEW LITIGATION when this is not the case. The court has inserted THREE forms on the same date rather than addressing a filed restraining order with children which has been pending since October 2015. The Restraining order was filed, the court refuses to address it and the restraining order is listed as active.

Each and every fabrication by this court increases the level of domestic violence as the court is the leading and instrumental factor in increasing the existing level of domestic violence.

The FORMS are blank, do not contain a name and specify that they are COURT GENERATED.  In other words not filed by a party and of course do not contain a reference to new litigation in any capacity.

The court refuses to address the fact that the court is fabricating FALSE COURT GENERATED MC 701 forms which are absolutely blank, to create a false record of alleged new filings and denials, merely to increase the domestic violence in this case.  The forms originate form JUDGE WELLS’ DEPARTMENT 2 J with instruction to Irene Ruiz, Indio family law clerk to file blank MC 701 forms. These actions are a blatant vindictive retaliation against the affected party as the court refuses to address the existing circumstances in this case. The court specifies that it is FITTING PUNISHMENT to be treated in this manner, increasing the level of domestic violence with fabricated forms rather than addressing the domestic violence in this case.





By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Judge Dale Wells issues standing orders to not set any hearing before Judge Sterling


Department 2J has orders not to set any matters before Judge Sterling, even though Judge Sterling has issued a number of orders in family law during his tenure in Department 2 J.  Judge Wells has a well known hatred of Judge Sterling and refuses to set any request for orders that are required to be addressed by the original judge (i.e. when a reconsideration is filed) or allow Judge Sterling to address orders issued by Judge Sterling based on his OSC re Contempt approved for filing or address violations of a restraining order issued by Judge Sterling.
 A number of denials for hearings before Judge Sterling are reflected in diverse minute orders and transcripts by various parties and attorneys.  Judge Wells truly believes that it is acceptable to contaminate the entire court with his disparaging remarks of judges in public proceedings before attorneys and litigants. Judge Wells did the same with a retired judge, Judge Norton. In this instance the denial was actually placed in a minuter order highlighting the bias and prejudice.
The judicial canon of ethics specify that a judge is to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and the judicial process. Highlighting the hatred and disparaging remarks against other judges in a court of law demeans the judicial office. Judge Wells is incapable of allowing Judge Sterling to address the orders issued by Judge Sterling in Department 2J.
The pubic, through the gavel bangers site, has expressed the fear and terror of being exposed to the monstrosity of Judge Wells’ department 2J.
Parties live in substantial terror of being exposed to Judge Wells in a court of law, when the court has a DUTY to serve the public, adhering to an equal protection of the law standard under the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment right to governmental redress.   Instead Judge Wells delights in causing fear; abusing a court of law for his own personal vendetta against parties, attorneys and judges.
Please sign and share to end the unholy reign of terror in Department 2 J, listing your own experiences, with the corresponding petition for forensic audit.
By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Riverside Superior Court ignores the directions of Presiding Justice Ramirez, Vendetta against litigants continue

A case in the Riverside Superior court mirrors and expresses the vindictiveness of the Riverside Superior court judiciary against women. In this instance the Riverside Superior court is being used as a platform to “prevail” against a party when the party had little success in another court,  the Orange County Superior Court. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Judge Harold Hopp makes history. Domestic violence restraining order with children filed on 10/13/2015 listed as ACTIVE without hearing FOR TWENTY DAYS.

A RESTRAINING ORDER WITH CHILDREN LISTED AS ACTIVE FOR TWENTY DAYS WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A TRO. JUDGE HOPP INSTRUCTS CLERKS AND JUDGES TO DELAY ANY AND ALL TRO. Judge Hopp has instructed every clerk in the Riverside Superior Court to forward any and all papers to the disqualified presiding judge’s office to prevent that any request for restraining order with children is addressed.

The disqualified presiding judge has issued instructions to clerks and judges of the Riverside Superior Court to refuse the filing and issuance of a TRO. The judicial vendetta is geared towards delaying any and all action in a family law case in violation of the law and to prevent that any writ proceeding is addressed by the Court of Appeal. Judge Hopp is quite clearly using the Riverside Superior court as his own malicious retaliation tool.

Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News

Judge Harold Hopp’s personal vendetta against a litigant in the Riverside Superior Court has outlined the outrageous and malicious nature of the Presiding Judge and his sentiments to domestic violence. October is Domestic Violence awareness month and the Presiding Judge in previous hearings had made it clear that Judge Harold Hopp does not consider restraining orders as domestic violence or abuse and influences the entire court with his outrageous sentiment in violation of all prevailing law.

View original post 534 more words

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Judge Harold Hopp makes history. Domestic violence restraining order with children filed on 10/13/2015 listed as ACTIVE without hearing.

Judge Harold Hopp’s personal vendetta against a litigant in the Riverside Superior Court has outlined the outrageous and malicious nature of the Presiding Judge and his sentiments to domestic violence. October is Domestic Violence awareness month and the Presiding Judge in previous hearings had made it clear that Judge Harold Hopp does not consider restraining orders as domestic violence or abuse and influences the entire court with his outrageous sentiment in violation of all prevailing law. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

California Whistleblower Protection Act protects officials and employees including anyone who is afraid of loosing their employment at the Riverside Superior Court.

The California Whistleblower Protection Act (the “Act”), which gives the California State Auditor the authority to receive and investigate complaints about improper governmental activities, also protects every state employee who files a complaint from suffering any retaliation by his or her state employer for having made the complaint. Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Riverside Superior court fosters domestic violence and abuse in homes.Statistics related to domestic violence and child abuse. Causing a whole new generation to be abusive; increasing the risk of future criminal behavior and substance abuse.

Several studies have documented the correlation between child abuse and future juvenile delinquency. Children who have experienced abuse are nine times more likely to become involved in criminal activities (Gold, Wolan Sullivan, & Lewis, 2011. The relation between abuse and violent delinquency: The conversion of shame to blame in juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(7), 459–467.) Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

PUBLISHED OPINION: Presiding Justice Ramirez reversed appeal. Restraining order void as there was no consent to having a commissioner hear the matter.

Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News

Litigants usually cite Yetenekian v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 3d 361, 189 Cal. Rptr. 458 (Ct. App. 1983) to object to having a commissioner hear a case. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/140/361.html

View original post 1,901 more words

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Remove a biased and prejudicial presiding judge from the Riverside Superior Court. The Riverside Superior Court requires a Presiding Judge who respects the independence and integrity of the judiciary.


Please sign and share widely.

The current Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge has used the Presiding Judge’s office to further his own vendetta and malice against litigants rather than adhering to the integrity and independence of the judicial system, influencing legal decisions to further a personal vendetta.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Court employees may claim mileage rate as detailed by the Judicial Council

Per the Trial Court Financial Policies and Procedures Manual, Policy no. FIN 8.03: “Personal
vehicle mileage is reimbursable at the current federal mileage reimbursement rate established by the
IRS that corresponds to the date/s of travel.” As a result, judicial officers and those judicial branch
employees authorized to use a personal vehicle on official business for travel occurring or after
January 1, 2014, may be reimbursed up to the new federal standard mileage rate. This change
supersedes Finance Memo TC 2012–001, which established a reimbursement rate of 56.5 cents
per mile” Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge Hopp instructs Judge Lucky Jackson not to issue TRO after filing a request for restraining order with children

Presiding Judge Harold Hopp after disqualifying himself from a family law case has taken to assigning random judges to a family law case, although there are several assignment orders in place referring to a specific department and is insisting that all documents are received and forwarded to the Presiding Judge’s office although there is a disqualification order in place.

A  parent filed a request for restraining order with children which is still listed as active. Judge Harold Hopp instructed a judge from another superior court division (Judge Lucky Jackson) to NOT issue the Temporary restraining order in an outrageous malicious action, as Judge Lucky Jackson is not assigned to the family law case in any capacity and there is no departmental assignment order to F 502.

Judge Lucky Jackson refused to issue the TRO under with the mandatory DV 110 and DV 109 forms, (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdfhttp://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv109.pdf)  instead using an optional MC 702 form which has no relevance as the Request for Restraining Order with Children is still listed as active in the relevant court case.  The court TO DATE has failed to issue the TRO on the mandatory forms in the mandatory time frame pursuant to CA family code 246 and CA family code 242.

The clerks of the Riverside Superior Court are providing legal advice to litigants based upon the instructions of Presiding Judge Hopp specifying that a litigant should file an EPO with the relevant police department or another Request for Restraining Order when the other one is still pending with the Riverside Superior Court. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar, (CA Business and ProfessionsCode section 6125).
 This occurs when a litigant follows up with the Riverside Superior Court as to the status of documents. The clerks are also specifying that a litigant cannot file any documents in the appropriate manner “as this is what YOU want” and instead insist on receiving and forwarding documents to the disqualified Presiding Judge and to the court executive office who cannot issue any legal rulings.



By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized


The judicial council has made an optional form available to anyone who has been declared vexatious specifying that a vexatious litigant may have the prefiling order lifted based upon a material change of facts UPON WHICH THE ORDER IS GRANTED and upon the interest of justice. The form can be found here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc703.pdf

The form does not specify any appeals to be listed.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

VLS statute abused in Riverside Superior court and Court of Appeal. Cry for help from concerned Dad.

I am involved in a divorce, my ex-wife took sole custody of our child (Jan 7th 2005).

1) Originally, she claimed that my house was unsafe and that I was tardy to daycare. I suspended the daycare records and filed a motion with the court showing she had lied about the time on every date listed in her complaint and that I was 10-15 minutes early on each.
2) I then filed a second motion showing that she had filed falsified and counterfeit bank records, while attempting to obtain property.
3) And I filed a motion to regain custody showing that I had purchased a brand new home, so that the original Final custodial order – which said that I would be held on professionally supervised visitation until I repaired my home – could be updated.

4) When all three of these motions had been dismissed, where I was never allowed to speak. I then filed an appeal to the issue of custody citing that I had met the requirements to a change in custody. Note: since I was not allowed to speak at the custody hearing not one word, the explanation of the new house was too vague. And her lawyer had my appellant arguments mentioning the new house stricken from the record. So I lost on the appeal.

5) I then filed my fifth motion seeking only reasonable visitation the commissioner stated that she was denying the motion, but ordering a mediation, a 730, and a trial, stating that at trial she would issue a final order. – But my ex-wife’s lawyer asked for five continuances, and then the commissioner that order the trial was replaced. The new commissioner Angel Bermudez, ordered a readiness hearing and then cancelled the trial, stating that I was not shown a significant change of circumstances.

At this point I had filed 5-mptions that had been denied. Therein I was declared a vexatious litigant. It is now Sept. 2015. I still remain on professionally supervised visitation at 6-hours a week. All of my motions and my appeals were all denied without being heard, because I was denied permission as a vexatious litigant.

I hired an attorney and filed motions with counsel, but the Hemet court says that even with an attorney I still need permission and they simply dismiss the motions without hearing them. I am not entitled to a hearing even with counsel as a vexatious litigant.

For almost 11-years now, I continue to pay for professionally supervised visitation, I pay $50 per hour to see my son, and while we visit he cries telling me that his mother gets drunk and punches on his face, he tells me that he has to keep it a secret because otherwise they will take him away and he doesn’t know where he would live. He asked me to help him (crying in front of the professional monitor). I have also found through child protective services that there have been 9-mandated CPS calls about abuse – less than half investigated with no results. My ex also enjoys using Facebook, she post funny messages about how she was so drunk that she was hospitalized and how to talks her way out of DUIs.

Every once in a while my ex-wife has to renew her restraining order, so I get to say a few words in court. During the last renewal, Commissioner Angel Bermudez stated that he would allow my ex-wife to testify without considering truth, and that he would not allow a trial to dispute the evidence. My ex-wife testified that she needed to renew the restraining order because almost a year after I was placed on supervised visitation that she claims that I brought my son into her place of business and that I tortured him in front of her. That she scram in terror and that police hunted me down. She also said that she left the police report at home. – Here I tried to explain to Bermudez that I was on professional supervised visitation at the time of the alleged assault and that the CLETS restraining order was in place at the time of the alleged assault. That I had a police clearance showing that I had never been arrested. I repeatedly asked for a trail so that I could show that she never called the police and that I never saw my son (not once in that entire year). Making the whole story an impossibility. But the judge refused to allow me a trial because he told me that I didn’t have Right’s because I was a vexatious litigant. I tried to appeal, the appellate court refused to her the appeal because I was a vexatious litigant.

I have only been to court on one issue (my one divorce), I was found to be a vexatious litigant based upon 5-motions that were dismissed. And even with an attorney I am still not allowed a hearing without permission, and I have never been granted permission.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

US court imprisons 9 year old child in a children’s camp for refusing to follow orders in a domestic violence case


The actions by Judge Lisa Gorcyca, of Oakland County, Michigan reflect how the U.S. is currently isolating children and violating every single international law that exists including the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

This is what occurs when children are exposed to the court on a repeated basis in a high conflict case, when children are fed up.  A child cannot be ordered to have a “healthy” relationship with a parent. The role is on the parent to develop that relationship fostered by the other parent without the brainwashing and manipulation of the other parent and detrimental language where the child is being coached to call the other parent “an asshole” or a “delusional piece of shit”  or where the children are being exposed to constant negative and detrimental portrayal of their parent by the other parent and third parties..

The entire childhood of these children is centered around an insane court and the insane actions of Judge Lisa Gorcya, who according to the report of Brian Silver Esq (http://www.defenseflorida.com/legal-blogs/) has since retracted the decision of a children’s camp and sent the son to a summer camp.

CA law specifies that the court has to consider which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the “non custodial” parent, which includes the parent who willfully violates court orders to prevent access to children. The onus is on the parent not the child. (CA family code 3040  (a))

 In making an order granting
custody to either parent, the court shall consider, among other
factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and
continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with
Sections 3011 and 3020,
By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Former Presiding Judge Cope loses control of his mental faculties, imposes sanctions for failure to appear without filed OSC . Additional OSC for sanctions for failure to appear set with $ 1500 in sanctions

On 9/1/2015 the court heard an additional OSC for failure to appear with $ 1500 in sanctions. The case notation specifies that $ 1500 in sanctions for failure to appear was issued on 7/30/2015 when there was no filed OSC on calender and the previous OSC with regard to this issue had been taken off calender.

On 7/30/2015 the court filed an additional OSC for failure to appear for $ 1500 in sanctions set for 9/1/2015. CCP § 177.5 specifies that the maximum sanctions award is $ 1500 and can only be issued upon notice and opportunity to be heard. It appears that Judge Mark Cope has enormous problems and is seriously confused as to issuing sanctions when there is no filed OSC on calender and as to the actual meaning and relevance of CCP § 177.5 and appears to issue $ 3000 in sanctions for the same offense.

The same occurred in another case also heard on 9/1/2015 where the court heard an OSC for sanctions for failure to appear when it had previously issued sanctions on 7/30/2015 without a filed OSC or notice. Two other cases heard on 9/1/2015 have the same sanctions issued without a filed OSC.

Due process generally originates from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States and the fundamental principle mandates that there has to be notice and an opportunity to be heard and EQUAL protection under the law. Due process is viewed as the gold standard in civil and criminal cases.

CCP § 177.5 specifies “A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both.
Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.”

– See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/1/2/4/s177.5#sthash.tUtO7ay4.dpuf


HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 09/01/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1

Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Why an additional $1500
sanction S/N be imposed for FTA as to JENNIFER BRADY.



To be determined by Judge


At hearing on 07/30/15, no appearance made by personal rep and
Court imposed $1500 in sanctions

This OSC re: additional sanctions then set


Examined by J. Real on 08/18/15.

Reviewed by J. Real on 08/27/15. No new documents filed.


Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Why Sanctions S/N be imposed
for failure to appear as to ALLAN RICHARD MARTIN.



To be determined by Judge


At hearing on 07/30/15, no appearance was made and Court imposed
$500 in sanctions and set this OSC
Superior Court of California – Countywide PROBATE
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov Page: 31

HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 09/01/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1

re: why additional sanctions should not be imposed


Examined by J. Real on 08/18/15.

Reviewed by J. Real on 08/27/15. No new documents filed.


By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Judge Otis Sterling specifies that he will speak to children in chambers without the consent of the other parent and refuses to address violations of a restraining order.

On 6/11/2015 Judge Sterling held a proceeding without the other parent present and promised the appearing parent that he would speak to the children in chambers.

This case has a history of children being brainwashed and dragged into court which this appearing parent relies on. The children in this case are very aware of who the Riverside Superior Court as the other parent has continually brainwashed two young children that they will be appearing in court.

Emails were presented to the court that quite clearly violate the permanent restraining order in place, including a threat that children will be taken to court, and Judge Sterling’s only concern was to promise something without addressing the utterly devastating impact this will have on young children who are living with the parent who has a history of domestic abuse, coercion, and blackmail and that the children could appear in the case without any protection, from the utterly devastating and cruel impact of court proceedings and the brainwashing actions of the coercive and abusive parent.

At a proceeding on 12/15/2014 Judge Sterling categorically stated that he NEVER hears children in chambers, and that only the mediators may interview children.

Judge Sterling on the court’s own motion took the above mentioned hearing off calendar, and there are no further proceedings in this case. Judge Sterling promised the parent with a domestic violence restraining order against him and who continually violates that restraining order that children could appear, instead of once again again addressing the facts of the case.

As a result the parent with the permanent restraining order which has a complete personal conduct order and a 100 yard stay away order sent the below email, once again violating the restraining order in place.

The “parent” below has all the relevant phone numbers and it’s the same behavior that has been going on for five years, where a psychopath fabricates material to use in court proceedings, after violating the permanent restraining order and keeps harassing another parent deliberately to interfere in that parent’s custodial time.

From: xxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxx

Subject: FW: wake up!

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:23:04 -0500

I have no current contact number for you or the children…. this is a violation of the court order and you will face contempt…… please provide contact numbers…… for you and the children or I will take you to court….. The judge agreed to talk to the children so please make sure they are present for your next court date

The court has failed to address the rebuttal presumption to custody in its entirety and failed to apply the correct legal standard as all of Judge Sterling’s cases have an order in place that a person who has a permanent restraining order in place needs to demonstrate that this person has to complete a 52 week batterers treatment program. The 52 week program is a mandatory requirement to combat the rebuttable presumption under CA family code 3044 (b). Just not in this case as this parent is protected by the Riverside Superior Court.

As a result and based on the promise of Judge Sterling, children will be subjected to severe harassment and brainwashing, rather than addressing the domestic violence restraining order in place. Precedent published family law cases have stated that exposing children to court proceedings is a basis to grant a restraining order against the offending party, IN RE MARRIAGE OF HARTMANN, (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1247

Family and juvenile courts routinely protect children from court exposure just not the Indio family law department. Mediators and evaluators are prohibited from pressuring children to state a custodial preference as it violates the California rules of court, California rules of Court 5.220 h (7), Not pressure children to state a custodial preference. The Riverside Superior Court has a a history of using mediators who ask children if they fear the other parent and to state a custodial preference and who misrepresent everything that is stated to conform to existing orders rather than addressing the facts of the case.

Interested parents would like to know how the court would like to accommodate the rampant desire of preferred parents who specialize in alienating their children from the other parent to drag children into court proceedings in a 10-15 minute hearing, with a judicial officer who has no training in child psychology and who will needlessly terrorize children.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Magarita Solazzo is treated by Eric Speare based on her defamation of business women

Eric Speare has continued with his harassing conduct and is treating Magarita Solazzo for her defamation of business women.

He is the same “medical doctor” that has treated Anne Lee for her suicide and obsessive thought patterns centered around her eating disorders.

The board that she is associated with believe that they can abuse women to accept their psychological abuse and stigmatization associated with their brainwashing attempts and denigration.  This stigmatization and brainwashing is based upon the dozens of complaints associated with the sub-standard care of their hospital. These complaints allege improper billing practices, fleecing of medical insurance based on a false diagnosis and sub-standard care associated with their hospital. These complaints that the sub-standard has resulted in a lack of treatment and double billing by providers that are located in the same hospital.

Eric Speare is well known for his obsessive conduct throughout Orange County and refuses to admit that his obsessive conduct is out of control.  He abuses his position to attempt to influence and brainwash women to accept his stigmatization and their alleged status based upon his abuse and harassment. They attempt to influence anyone who supports one of their victims with pitiful attempts centered around their stigmatizing brainwashing.

Magarita Solazzo has accepted the stigmatization and brainwashing of Eric Speare based upon the dozens of complaints that a person has documented against their substandard care hospital. She has requested further treatment and copies his obsessive conduct.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Mark Cope invents bulimia for domestic violence victims to support Ivanka Trump

Mark Cope claims to be the voice of reason but has fixated and has issues centered round a domestic violence victim  that do not exist.

He fixates on these issues to support the mental health problem of Ivanka Trump and her refusal to obtain treatment for her cocaine addiction and bulimia.

Mark Cope refuses to accept that he is obsessive and invents issues to affirm himself as judge of the Superior Court refusing to adhere to his alleged open state of mind. He is a court whore to Donald Trump and his obsessive facilitation of Ivanka’s Trump mental health issues. Mark Cope cannot say  no to his abuse of domestic violence victims and their children based on the criminal harassment of Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump.

Mark Cope fixates on the bulimic thought processes of Ivanka Trump and refuses to obtain counseling. He blames everyone else for these issues. As a father to a daughter he should know better but refuses to apply these thought processes in any capacity. He’s highly abusive and abuses domestic violence victims. He blames these victims for his out of control actions, harasses their children based on his inability to have an open state of mind, defaming these people at length. He is located in Department T1 of the Riverside Superior Court.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Timothy Ewanyshyn screams fucking hag at 3.00 am in the morning, displaying his obsession

Timothy Ewansyhsyn has an unhealthy obsession with a domestic violence victim. He wakes up at 3;00 am in the morning to scream fucking hag in his home at this domestic violence victim. He stalks this victim through his phone by wire tapping her in violation of CA penal code 632, a misdemeanor. He obsessively stares at her through his phone and his only goal is to ensure that she is as miserable as possible.

He refuses to be emotionally stable and escalates out of control on a daily basis with his obsession and stalking. He obsessively stares at this domestic violence victim for hours and refuses to engage with people in a positive health manner. His only focus is to stalk and harass the domestic violence victim to cause substantial emotional distress. He is upset if he does not achieve his desired goal and compares notes to the abusive ex-spouse to see if he can go further than the abusive ex-spouse. He has devoted six months to this futile exercise and refuses to accepts that the domestic violence does not want to have any contact with him in any capacity or with an abusive ex-spouse. He has involved everyone around him with his obsessive stalking and harassment, making them all accessories to his criminal conduct and obsessive behavior, claiming that he is out of control. In other words he blames the victim for his obsessive behavior, in the same way that a rape victim is blamed for rape.

He verbally abuses this victim based based upon his believe that he can emotionally wear this person down to accept his abuse and to harm her self-confidence as he cannot accept that a person ca live without his influence.  He has attempted to fill the entire world of this domestic violence with his abuse and refuses to obtain any help.  He has threatened to kill this person numerous based on his obsessive conduct alone.

He has repeatedly physically abused his daughter, based on his insane claims that she looks exactly like the domestic violence victim and has the same personality as the domestic violence. He is completely obsessed, dangerous and out of control and attempts to intimate with his obsessive stalking and harassment using cellphones, computers and unlawful wire tapping.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized

Court of Appeal affirmed move away. F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1 was not considered and the requirements associated with it. La Quinta Law Group was the appellant and Iris Joan Finsilver was the respondent.

The Court of Appeal declined to list F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1. and the associated requirements in the appeal although it is a Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E059672.PDF  Continue reading

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized