Due process violations alive and well in Department PS2 of the Riverside Superior Court.

The Riverside Superior Court has completely re-structured itself for reasons largely unknown to the general public.  All civil cases for example were moved to Palm Springs. One would assume that with the re-structuring and new judges that the law would prevail and be applied. Alas that is not the case.  A tentative decision in a civil case was very specific in its due process violations involving attorneys.

In INC 1205453 Dobbins v. Dobbins the court announced a tentative decision to sanction the attorneys for filing a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories. The reason cited was lack of justification for filing the motion, i.e. “Court finds that this motion was filed without substantial justification, and imposes  sanctions against the moving party in the amount of $750.00 payable to defense within  20 days. Prevailing party to give notice.”

Both parties in that case are represented by attorneys which requires that notice and opportunity to be heard  be provided before allocating sanctions to satisfy the legislative mandatory due process requirements. The relevant appeal cases have already addresses that issue:

Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980), 103 Cal..App.3d 317Corralejo v. Quiroga (1984), 152 Cal.App.3d 871 [notice for 128.5 sanctions against attorney required too satisfy due process].
 In another case the court denied an exparte citing an invalid proof of service when the notice of exparte hearing was mailed.
The manner of the notice is not specified and a party may notify another party by mail of an exparte hearing as long as the notification is before ten am the prior business day, pursuant to CA rule 3.1203
Perhaps the Court may want to familiarize itself with the law instead of allocating a belief standard to its rulings violating CA rules of court and the mandatory equal protection and legislative due process standard defined by the relevant statute.

Riverside Superior Court violates eighth amendment when setting bail/bond

In the recent case of Maha Abdel Rahim, who was arrested on the 10th of January 2013 in Puerto Rico, based on the arrest warrant issued by Judge Gary Tranberger, Judge Tranberger set the bond at $ 200,000. The warrant is based on the custody issues in her family law case, where Judge Wells presides.

The Riverside Superior Court’s bail schedule sets the predetermined amount that can be set for bail and can be accessed on the court’s website. http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/bailschedule.pdf

In Rahim’s case it is unclear as to whether the District Attorney’s office is charging her for a misdemeanor or a felony under penal code 278.5. It is clear however, that the bond amount is excessive in violation of the eighth amendment which prohibits cruel and usual punishment.

Riverside Superior Court implements removal of Minutes from Registers of Actions

The Court announced on its website that it would be removing the minutes from its Register of Actions.

Pursuant to the 2013 amended California Rules of Court 2.507, the Court has limited the public access to Electronic access to court calendars, indexes, and registers of actions.

Pursuant to California Rules of court Rule 2.550(a) all court records unless sealed by law are presumed public record and the court now charges for accessing minute orders that are a part of a case docket.

What this means to the general public is that there is a considerable lack of public transparency to the court’s actions.

Anyone who is a victim of court corruption and wishes to expose their minute orders documenting bias and corruption is welcome to email niewsviewsriverside@gmail.com, and we will publish them with the parties name withheld.

Judge Dale Wells rules an illegal gun is not an issue, Riverside Superior Court.

In the wake of the Newtown Connecticut school massacre of innocent children, every parent is  hyper vigilant of guns in the hands of a mentally unstable person, especially where that behavior is exacerbated by drugs.

However, Judge Dale Wells of the Riverside Superior Court at a custody trial found a parent least likely to share, precisely because said parent brought up the fact that an unregistered gun was hidden in the house that said parent had no knowledge of.

Judge Dale Wells in his statement of decisions did point out the fact that the father as a convicted felon could not have an unregistered gun.  The father has a history of having a loaded firearm in a house, which he was charged with as part of his prior drug manufacturing felony. But in the same vein as Judge Dale Wells’ statement that Alcohol is not a drug,  (https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourts.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/judge-dale-wells-rules-alcohol-is-not-a-drug-in-contrast-to-the-national-institue-on-alcohol-abuse-and-alcoholism/), Judge Wells allocated a least likely to share standard to the parent who brought up the fact that there was an illegal unregistered gun in the house, (confirmed by police officer testimony who specified that the handgun was handed back to the parent),  where young minor children lived. The gun was in the house without the other parent’s knowledge and not placed in a gun safe.



The Riverside Superior Court has taken a stand in its recent domestic violence summit and has squarely put the blame on the victim if the victim leaves.


With this viewpoint in mind one can safely assume that the Riverside Superior court expects victims to idly be held hostage and to be shot, because it would be a mistake to leave.

Public Opinion and Tales of Corruption of Riverside Superior Court Evaluator, Dr. Robert Suiter, PhD.

Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News

Dr. Suiter, who is currently listed on the Riverside Superior Court website, as one of the 3111 evaluators that the Court expects litigants to choose from, has the distinction of being one of the evaluators who has a long and illustrious history of complaints against him.  The complaints of the public and litigants that have been exposed to his actions include the following:

If you are sentenced to go to Suiter refuse and ask for another to be appointed. Suiter is CORRUPT and will take money for a report! RUN AWAY from this office. DO NOT let Suiter do your evaluation!!

August 09, 2012


“Dr.” Suiter is a corrupt, evil man. He is extremly biased and will twist your words. His main goal is to keep you fighting in…

View original post 3,301 more words

Judge Hopp awards $ 18 million judgment after jury trial.

In one of the largest judgments obtained in the Riverside Superior Court,  PLC litigators Laurie Murphy and Lynda Chung won an award of  $18,223,343 on behalf of their client, Brittnee Barnes, involving her father’s Trust. At issue in the case were the distributions and investments by Brittnee’s older half-siblings, Tom and Kristine Barnes, of funds derived from various business and real estate holdings their father, Thomas H. Barnes, amassed and acquired during his lifetime, including Tom’s Farms in Corona. The award was issued on February 1, 2012 by  Judge Harold W. Hopp at Riverside Superior Court in Indio, California. Having settled with Kristine Barnes, the case proceeded to trial against Tom Barnes only.

Children are Pawns

Children like every single human being have feelings and emotions. Children in a court of law; however, are not characterized as sentient beings. Far from it. They are considered property to be divided and are used as weapons and pawns by a Court of law and some attorneys to be used against a parent in a divorce situation.

Divorce occurs. People decide to separate and decide to move on their separate ways. However, parents decide how their children are used as pawns and weapons by a court.

So there are emergency hearings for example, where a parent in this case a father is sanctioned with a child, for example for allegedly taking a child out of school and allegedly bribing it with a puppy. There is no law that allows a parent to be sanctioned with their own child.

There are emergency hearings based on a court’s non noticed motion where a mother is deemed an immediate flight risk with two expired passports, although she had events planned a month in advance for both children and is actually sanctioned with her own children based on a court’s non noticed sanctions exparte. The mother happens to be a permanent legal resident in the US and issuing non noticed expartes is against the legislative intent of the relevant statute.

Both cases once again occurred in the Riverside Superior Court under Judge Dale Wells. Logic and Best interest of the child standard is not exactly a forte of the Riverside Superior court.

Parents of course use children as pawns and weapons against the other parent with gusto as well. For example some parents will cling to the absolute maximum minute of time of a court order, merely to obtain the maximum amount of child support. There is no concern for children in that scenario and that they love the other parent. Children are merely viewed as a cash cow in that scenario.

Other situations of course exist as well, where false and fraudulent accusations of child neglect are made. One particular favorite scenario in abuse cases is to call the other parent delusional and mentally ill without any evidence, merely to obtain an advantage in a custody proceeding.

Parents have a duty as parents to put their children first and not use them as pawns and weapons against each other. This is not a war where a child is a prize to be won at all costs no matter what harm and effect it has on the child. Any parent who actually cares about their children would see the devastating effects and consequences a particular behavior has on a child.

This country is in a crisis with a family law court system that has spiraled out of control, mainly due to a corrupt court system where the best interest of child system does not exist. Some of the players of the court, i.e. attorneys, evaluators and other involved personnel prefer to escalate the situation further and feed off the misery of the situation they cause.

Parents have the option of saying NO to a corrupt court system and dismissing the devastating consequences of an insane court, and doing what is best for their children by agreeing to an agreement that will work for their children. Stop feeding the system that over thirty years has devastated children and their families.