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

Grace Budka, Indio attorney

Grace Budka is a small town attorney and relies on the connections that she has in the Valley and to the court in Indio to proceed with her cases.

She forces clients to accept a baby step mentality browbeating them to accept that they cannot proceed according to the law.  This approach is designed to shred client’s credibility rather than focusing on the facts that exist.

This attorney does not provide client files to clients until they have paid. This contradicts the below CA bar association ethical guidelines and represents a violation of these ethics.

The Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to return all client papers and property to which the client is entitled. The complete original file belongs to the client, and the attorney may copy the file at his or her own expense,  http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct

This attorney proclaims that facts are correct without knowing the entire background and bases assumptions on these facts attempting to influence a court of law and other institutions. This attorney refuses to accept and consider any legal confidentiality of an attorney-client relationship.

By San Bernardino and Riverside Superior Court News Posted in Uncategorized


Valley Elementary in Yucaipa, has allowed a San Bernardino County agency to take children out of a school for the alleged purpose of interviewing said children without their parents being present.  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

The Toxic Ex In-laws

When dealing with an abusive ex-spouse, litigants are often forced to deal with in-laws who are toxic. Normal people cannot imagine the dimensions and the truly evil thought processes that are invo…

Source: The Toxic Ex In-laws

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