Riverside Superior Court blames the victim in its Domestic Violence Summit.

The Riverside Superior Court held its Domestic Violence Summit on the 4th of December 2012. Notably the public was not invited, nor were domestic violence victims. Participants were put through various domestic violence scenarios including homelessness if they left their abuser.

In that scenario participants who chose or were forced into homelessness lost custody of their children.

In a sweeping statement, that starkly emphasizes blame on the victim, outgoing Presiding Judge Ellsworth opined: “You have to understand that just by saying ‘leave,’ it’s not going to help anything”.

So folks lessons learned, the Riverside Superior Court emphasizes and encourages domestic abuse by automatically taking away your children if you are abused and choose to leave your abuser.

Source

http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20121204-riverside-avoiding-domestic-violence-a-complex-matter.ece

Judge Dale Wells judicially rapes and batters law enforcement as well.

Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Supreme Court News

Most of the litigants that appear in front of Judge Wells are used to his “belief” rulings and that law and evidence does not matter in his Court room where belief prevails.

There are cases in the Riverside Superior Court that have been languishing for years, where malicious legal rape and battery has occurred, including against law enforcement, as no one is safe from Judge Wells’ malevolence.

In this particular scenario, there is a father, who happens to be a highly decorated former law  enforcement officer who lost custody of his daughter as Judge Wells, termed him an angry and hostile man.

Now I would submit that any parent would be angry and hostile if they found child pornography on a computer that belongs to their child, when said child came for a visit to her father. There was a trial. Judge Wells dismissed the forensic evidence relating to child pornography, which…

View original post 784 more words

Public Confidence Appears to be Eroding in Judge Dale Wells

At today’s session in the infamous Department 2 J, under the supervision of preacher Wells, an amazing number of litigants simply did not appear. Now one or two missed appearances could be construed as a fluke, but 10-15 cases being dismissed in one go for non-appearance by both parties sends quite an audible signal to the Court.

The public confidence in the impartiality of Judge Dale Wells as a judicial officer capable of handling family law matters is non-existent. Indeed the current status quo suggests that public is exercising its very own version of a CCP 170.6 challenge by simply not appearing to litigate cases.

Children are Guineapigs Department 2 J, Judge Dale Wells.

Drug addicted meth addicts on active probation have more rights than mothers, as evidenced by a custody trial in Department 2J, where Judge Wells expressed serious concerns about the children’s activities with the mother which involved going to church, library and the children’s museum.

https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourts.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/judge-dale-wells-finds-a-parents-extracurricular-activities-to-be-of-concern/

In another case which highlights Judge Dale Wells lack of logic and desire to protect all fathers there was a case presented today where the child custody recommended counsellor made a recommendation. Both parents agreed to the recommendation. The father is actively on probation for a drug offense.

The mother brought up as a concern the father’s drug activity and asked the Court what she should do if the father should start using drugs again, since there is a 6 month old baby at issue and the father according to the recommendation has a substantial amount of unsupervised time with the children. Judge Wells requested that the father produce evidence of drug tests. The father produced evidence of submitting to drug tests which involved one missed drug tests and a positive test for methamphetamine. No evidence of any negative drug test was presented.

Judge Wells argued with the mother and stated that the father has every incentive to not test positive as his probation would be revoked. Apparently Judge Wells did not consider the fact that the father by his own admission and evidence presented had tested positive and his probation had not been revoked.  Logic appears to be an insurmountable problem in Department 2 J.

So Judge Wells made an order, where the mother had the authority to contact law enforcement if she so desired, to have the father undergo a field sobriety test before any visitation, completely ignoring the fact that no evidence of any negative drug tests had been presented at any stage.

Next came the question of where the father was living. He claimed 0 income as a handyman and painter, living with either his sister or mother, effectively squatting somewhere.

No concern was expressed as to how he intended to provide for the children or where the children, including a 6 month old baby would be sleeping. Judge Wells merely told the mother, “Yes he will have to take care of the children when they are with him”.

Judge Dale Wells Commits fraud

So folks we have a situation in the Riverside Superior Court where Judge Dale Wells commits fraud.
In a statement of decision, (excerpt pasted below), he stated that both litigants had sent abusive emails to disguise the fact that Daddy had sent abusive email which was authenticated by another witness.
The relevance was that there was a restraining order against Daddy for harassing and abusive emails, the emails continue to this day and the trial established that these emails were sent by Daddy and they were authenticated by a witness.
Daddy attempted to present emails claiming that they were sent by the mother, which was not true and the emails were not authenticated and they originated from Daddy.
When a valid objection was raised Judge Wells to no one’s surprise again lost it.
Judge Dale Wells vacated an order admitting evidence when a litigant exercised her 14th amendment right to due process to object to the authenticity of the evidence as the emails did not come from her.  Then Judge Wells decided to berate the mother for exercising her right to object and vacated the order admitting authenticated evidence.
This was then also used as the least likely to share standard against the mother in Judge Dale Well’s statement of decision, (consisting of a compilation of perjuries), which Dale Wells could not have done as he threw out the emails from both sides.

 

Link

Judge Dale Wells, Tale of two hats, Hypocrisy from the Bench

http://www.thurmanarnold.com/documents/JUNE-2012-EDITION.pdf

Judge Dale Wells in the latest issue from the Desert bar association wrote a “From the Bench” epistle, where he strongly suggested how attorneys are supposed to conduct themselves at certain proceedings in his court room:

“Resist pandering to your client. He/she is looking for an effective advocate. He/she may be momentarily blinded by emotion and outrage, but that is the very reason the client has hired you to put their case before the court persuasively. If you simply channel their venom, you will likely be no more effective than they would be if they had been self-represented. If you engage in inflammatory posturing and bombastic bluster, you may impress your client for the moment with your aggressiveness. But in the end, you will likely lose your real audience – the judge! Never forget that it is you who is the professional, not your client. You, as the Barrister, are supposed to be the cool voice of reason convincing the judge to reach the right result, not the client’s alter ego. The difference is easy for bench officers to spot.

Clients come and go, but your professional reputation will accompany you to court for years to come. Is it really worth sullying your credibility by approaching every court appearance with a flamethrower? You can do yourself and your clients a great benefit if you remember that in your office you may be a Solicitor, but in court you are a Barrister. You also give honor to the profession.”

This notice serves as a warning to any attorney representing clients in the Coachella Valley that if they effectively attempt to litigate their case on behalf of their clients that they will be judicially retaliated against “as their professional reputation” will be sullied.

As a litigant who has experienced the judicial retaliation and judicial malfeasance of Judge Dale Wells at every hearing and ruling, which does not abide by the law I can only marvel at the hypocrisy displayed in this “speech”.

I have personally witnessed hearings in Judge Dale Wells’ court room where attorneys have made effective representations. They abide by the law, they remind Judge Dale Wells of the law and object, for example that a mediator’s recommendation, cannot be adopted as an order over objection.

Judge Wells, however, has judicially retaliated against attorneys who have effectively managed to present their case and ruled against the law.

The repercussions are enormous. First of all the Best Interest of the Child standard is not adhered to, if an order is adopted against the prevailing statute and law. Secondly, Judge Wells removes evidence and litigates cases on behalf of the father. An appeal will take a year or two, providing of course that litigants can afford to pay their attorneys $ 5000- $ 10,000 for an appeal and in that time, a child has lost their mother and father.  Perhaps Judge Dale Wells can quantify the amount of damages that he would allocate for his judicial malfeasance and malevolence and now the warning to attorneys “shut up and don’t anger the judge” or you will not be able to retain clients.

Judge Wells in his sermons at the Church of Christ in Palm Desert preaches about doing the right thing.
http://http://www.slideshare.net/pdcoc92255/080525-doing-the-right-thing-john-7-25-53-dale-wells-presentation

Judge Wells in his sermons reminds his congregation that God is with them:

ACTS 18: 9-10  “Do not be afraid …….. for I am with you and no one is going to attack and harm you ……..”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H1s5ug4MPg&feature=relmfu

Yet Judge Dale Wells harms parents and their children on a daily basis, used children as punitive sanctions against this mother and has yet to make any rulings where this litigant is involved in that abide by the law.

Perhaps Judge Wells should be reminded, rather than offering meaningless speeches  to act as a Judge in the Best Interest of the Child, to ABIDE BY THE LAW and TO DO NO HARM.