The belief Messiah, aka Judge Dale Wells strikes again, update Maha Abdel Rahim.

There was another hearing today in the ongoing saga of Maha Abdel Rahim and the Riverside Superior Court.  This hearing was brought to terminate Abdel Rahim’s right to see her son in  Puerto Rico.

Judge Dale Wells denied a notice and request for continuance by Abdel Rahim although she had presented that she could not appear and litigate on a pro per basis as she has no legal knowledge, she specified that the ACLU required more time in order to deal with the criminal charges against her in California and she specified that the extradition from Puerto Rico to California had been dismissed.  The court did not consider this relevant to proceedings.

The Riverside County District Attorney’s office was present at the hearing as well and the child recovery unit investigator testified that he had called Abdel Rahim requesting her to hand over her son in January of 2013 and was advised by her that the minor child could not travel as he was too ill. The District Attorney’s office mentioned how many times they had already been involved in this case.

Judge Dale Wells ordered sole legal and sole physical custody to the father with supervised visitation to the mother in the Coachella Valley by the father, a person he knows or by a professional at her expense, terminating the mother’s rights to her son. The father’s attorney had requested unsupervised visitation. Judge Wells also lamented the considerable media attention to this case and the misinformation by the Puerto Rico media and that he was not involved in the arrest of  Abdel Rahim.

After Judge Wells had created a new custody order,  Judge Wells went one step further and created a new issue that was not before the court as no order to show cause had been filed.

Judge Dale Wells specifically denies other litigants the right to bring up issues that are not before the court displaying his considerable bias and prejudice, but has no hesitation to bring up issues outside the scope of the set hearing. Judge Dale Wells specifically commented on how Abdel Rahim must feel, a mockery considering what has occurred in this case, and issued an order stating that the father has to hand over the child’s US passport to his attorney and cannot travel without the court’s consent.

This again was not an issue before the court and an empty gesture as Syria is one of the countries that does not require two party parental consent to obtain a child’s passport, a fact which is also specified on the US State Department website.

Judge Wells discriminates between US citizens who have active US passports and immigrants who have expired passports

Judge Wells discriminates. It is a fact.  His discrimination is extreme and against all immigrants who enter his court room. He claimed that a mother was a flight risk who has been in this country for over eleven years. Said mother has expired passports and cannot travel.  The US father who has an active passport and ties to other countries because of his immigrant ancestors nationality can travel.  There was no evidence ever presented of any flight risk, except Judge Wells’ belief. Judge Wells claimed to have understood the mothers presentation that she had been in the country for eleven years, but “BELIEF” ruled.

To any normal person, that conclusively would demonstrate that there is no flight risk. However, Judge Wells’ “BELIEF” prevails at all cost. Evidence does not have to be presented, bias, conjecture and Judge Wells own prejudice against immigrants is all that matters.  In this instance Judge Wells created a vexatious exparte on the court’s own motion based upon his own belief that the mother is flight risk and sanctioned the mother under CCP 177.5 with her children and removed them from her on the spot. CCP 177.5 sanctions folks are monetary in nature only.


Judge Wells:


Judge Dale Wells Abuses Discovery, Riverside Superior Court.

scale_pix3;lawandbeliefJudge Dale Wells of the Riverside Superior Court has decided to once again not adhere to the law. This is hardly surprising to the litigants that know the mannerisms of this 20 year preacher very well.

Law does not count, only “Belief”. So it is Judge Dale Wells’ “Belief” that he can deny discovery and abuse the law. Ho hum, another day in Judge Wells’ fiefdom.

In this particular instance, the opposing party was served with interrogatories. The opposing party did not answer the interrogatories. So a motion to compel answers to interrogatories was filed with a request for Family code section 271 sanctions as the opposing party was evading discovery.

At the hearing for the motion to compel, the responding party was ordered to sign the interrogatories on the spot and hand them over to the propounding party.

Then Judge Dale Wells decided to abuse discovery out of sheer malice and retaliation. Judge Wells ordered Family code section 271 sanctions without notice against the propounding party for serving interrogatories as part of discovery. Judge Wells labeled the actions of propounding interrogatories in family law an abuse of discovery.

Now if there is indeed an issue with discovery a litigant can serve objections to the  interrogatories or a litigant can file a motion for protective  order. None of these actions were taken by the responding party. Instead Judge Wells decided to litigate as the responding party’s attorney. To no one’s surprise the responding party is a father, and Judge Dale Wells had the obsessive compulsive urge to once again protect a father in his court room.

Let’s analyze prevailing discovery law. As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable, if it would  itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  [Ca Civ Pro § 2017.010] In marital proceedings, this general rule effectively means almost everything is discoverable (except to the extent compelled disclosure would unreasonably infringe on third party privacy rights).

For discovery purposes,  “relevancy” is tested by a much broader standard than  that applied at trial for the introduction of evidence. So long  as the information sought “appears reasonably calculated”   to reveal admissible evidence, it is within the allowable scope  of discovery. [Ca Civ Pro § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Super.Ct. (Schnabel), supra, 5 Cal.4th at 711, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d at 203].

So according to Judge Dale Wells these interrogatories served in family law are an abuse of discover, but not the non compliant answers.

Messiah Wells has an incredible fondness for illegally sanctioning litigants violating their fourteenth amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law. It is a matter of law that you cannot order family code section 271 sanctions against a party without notice. That strangely enough is even defined in legislature, in family code section 271 (b) which states:

“(b) An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.”

Apparently the law does not matter in Messiah Wells’ belief fiefdom where he thrives on abusing discovery to illegally sanction a litigant.

Judge Dale Wells denies Divorce because of Belief

Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News

Most of the litigants that have been exposed to the ten year reign of terror in the Riverside Superior Court are familiar with the absolute insanity of Judge Dale Wells’ rulings that mandate an immediate psychiatric evaluation by the Judicial Council, to determine fitness to act in a judicial capacity.  The evidence quite apparently demonstrates that his belief rulings are not based upon the existing law and statute.  The malicious persecution of certain litigants confirms that Judge Wells uses the law to retaliate in a vicious case of legal rape and battery.

Some litigants are baffled how one judicial officer has been allowed to run rampant for ten years with no oversight or accountability and  what makes such an individual “tick”.

According to Judge Wells’ own statements documented in a Riverside Bar Association interview conducted in 2004  he turned to law, when his first wife left him and he came…

View original post 236 more words