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

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

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

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

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