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

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

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

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

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

Riverside Superior Court announces intent to close Temecula and Blythe Courthouses

The Court published its announcement on the 20th of May, and is seeking input from the public to address its intent to close the Temecula and Blythe Courthouses.

Any interested person or entity who wishes to comment may send the comment to the court in writing or electronically. Written comments can be directed to the court at P.O Box 1547, Riverside, CA 92502. Those interested in submitting comments electronically should e-mail them to webassistance@riverside.courts.ca.gov.  The deadline for comment submission is 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, in order to be considered as part of the final administrative decision.

http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/publicnotice_blytheclosure.pdf

http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/publicnotice_temeculaclosure.pdf

“Among the matters she would like to take up is identifying high-risk cases and assigning them to specialized judges.”

The task of identifying high risk cases and assigning them to specialized judges was an endeavor envisioned by former Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth as reported in a 2010 Press Enterprise article,  http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20100901-riverside-countys-next-top-judge-envisions-changes.ece

Two years later and with a new Presiding Judge the concerned family law public is still waiting for specialized judges to be appointed.  Instead the court has allowed the malevolent judicial rape and battery of Judge Dale Wells in family law to continue unchecked and unabated, despite public outrage and protest.

With the recent announcement that Judge Wells is leaving family law that does not solve the dilemma of parents and their children, that almost none of Judge Wells’ rulings have adhered to the relevant family law standard and that his rulings have caused tremendous suffering and placed children in harms way.

Perhaps the Riverside Superior Court would be kind enough to demonstrate that they have the public’s best interest at heart, encouraging the integrity and impartiality of the Riverside Superior Court judiciary and compensate the public for allowing such an individual to preside over family law by appointing a specialized judge to review all his case.

Judge Dale Wells, Riverside Superior Court, is leaving family law.

Sources have confirmed that Judge Wells announced during court proceedings last week that he will be leaving family law. He will be resuming his duties as a criminal law judicial officer in June.  There has been an overwhelming public demand by California taxpayers, who have experienced Judge Wells’ malicious family law rulings, that he be removed from the bench.  A petition has gathered more than 1300 signatures and complaints about his judicial conduct on the bench have been sent to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

Litigants are encouraged to keep filing their complaint with the CJP.   http://cjp.ca.gov/

 

Riverside Superior Court Reporter Lay off.

The Superior court in response to AOC budget cuts is in the process of implementing wide spread budget cuts including removing court reporters from family law, civil law and probate proceedings.  Court reporters were salaried court employees, with litigants being charged $ 60, per hearing if they didn’t have a fee waiver.  It is unclear how the court cannot afford court reporters if their salary is being reimbursed by the fees that litigants pay to the court.   Court reporters are mandated for criminal and juvenile proceedings, and those are not affected. If the layoffs occur, civil litigants will have to hire reporters if they want a transcript of trials or other proceedings. Current costs for situations in which court reporters are hired per diem have a price tag of $518 a day.

Litigants will have to prepare themselves for proceedings where objections and judicial notices are not listed on the court record as the reporter’s transcript will not be available to preserve those objections. Litigants will  have to prepare themselves for judicial officers who suppress evidence, where the evidence is not listed in the minute order as having been offered with a burden of proof.  What will occur is that the court will have free license to continue with the judicial rape and battery against parents and their children with no record of  the violation of judicial canon of ethics, that govern the standard of judicial officers.

The San Bernardino Superior Court will still implement court reporters on a pooled assignment basis.

Most litigants will be unable to hire court reporters to transcribe proceedings and the transcript of proceedings will be eliminated all together, allowing further rampant judicial malfeasance to continue.  Since the Court has announced that it will be eliminating court reporters perhaps the court will announce a mechanism for litigants to preserve their objections to evidence and inadmissible testimony on the minute order record.

Another alternative would be to allow the electronic record of proceedings, (video and audio), to be made available to litigants.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20130411-riverside-county-court-intends-to-lay-off-25-stenographers.ece

THE monkey wrench in the system, JUDGE DALE WELLS.

Every litigant that has had the considerable misfortune of experiencing Judge Wells of the Riverside Superior Court has opined a collective “OI VEY”.

Judge Wells presented a speech at the recently held domestic violence summit in Riverside which was covered by the Press Enterprise and discussed monkey wrenches in the system. The article can be accessed here: http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-public-safety-headlines/20121204-riverside-domestic-violence-summit-aims-at-options-safety.ece

Judge Wells has played a revolving hopscotch with domestic violence restraining orders refusing to grant them when there is evidence of domestic abuse and then granting them preferentially based on the attorney who is presenting them with the exact same circumstances  that he has denied others on.

In other cases he grants domestic violence restraining orders but doesn’t allow the person who is the subject of the restraining order to move out of the household. One such circumstance was presented at a hearing on 4/42013. The mother in that case had asked plaintively when the Court would request the father to move out since Judge Wells had mentioned that the father could not move during a restraining order.   That particular hearing that was on calender on 4/4/2013 was for spousal and child support.   Now DV orders do allow for temporary support orders to be made, but since Judge Wells does not believe in divorce no matter what the circumstances are, it follows he does not believe in allowing the DV  perp to move out of the house.

Judge Wells in this instance asked how long it would take for the father to move out and conditioned his spousal and child support order upon the date of move out.

Attorney who was deemed vexatious files Class Action Lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of the vexatious statute application in family law proceedings. The lawsuit lists a class of Plaintiffs who are parents in on-going custody disputes, and who are bringing this class action against Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and the Judicial Council in the hope of overturning California’s Vexatious Litigant Statute (VLS) as it applies to family law litigants, particularly parents caught in protracted custody battles.

Mr. Cunningham who filed the lawsuit is an attorney who has been declared vexatious himself, impacting detrimentally on family court custody proceedings.  The class action complaint can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaaUtxYW9ZQTNiSUU/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

The Mystery of the missing CCP 170.6 challenge, Judge Dale Wells

So folks we have a situation in Dept 2 J, where Judge Wells presides. A peremptory challenge went missing, and did a great Houdini, being held kept captive in the walls of the Riverside Superior Court.   A minute order references that the court, aka Judge Wells, was in receipt of a CCP 170.6 challenge and that he would rule on it.

He never did.  A CCP 170.6 challenge according to the statute cannot be struck. It can only be denied as untimely or granted.  Soooooooooo technically Judge Wells has been acting the entire time during a disqualification period as he never ruled on the CCP 170.6 challenge.

Section 170.6 bars judicial officers from acting in civil or criminal actions if a peremptory challenge is filed pursuant to the statute by any “party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.” (§ 170.6, subd. (a)(1).)

Minute Order

Case INDxxxxx-  xxxxxxxxxx

EX-PARTE HEARING RE: OSC MOD VISITATION/ PASSPORTS FILED BY XXXXXX REPRESENTED BY PRO/PER.

05/12/2011 8:15 AM DEPT. 2J

HONORABLE JUDGE DALE R. WELLS PRESIDING.

CLERK: R. AGUILASOCHO

COURT REPORTER: K.CAGNEY

XXXXXX PRESENT IN COURT PRO PER.

XXXXXXX PRESENT IN COURT PRO PER.

BOTH PARTIES SWORN EN MASSE AND EXAMINED

ORAL MOTION BY XXXXXXX FOR JUDGE TO RECUSE HIMSELF.

ORAL REQUEST FOR JUDGES RECUSAL IS DENIED

COURT INDICATES IT IS IN RECEIPT OF XXXXXX DECLARATION PURS 170.1 AND 170.6;

COURT CONFIRMS THERE WILL BE A TIMELY RESPONSE

AS TO THE EX PARTE SET FOR TODAY:

ISSUES ARGUED BY BOTH SIDES.

COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: EX PARTE RELIEF IS DENIED.

NO FUTURE HEARING TO BE SET

THE COURT PREPARED A FINDINGS AND ORDER AFTER HEARING FOR THE DATES OF 05/02/11; 05/03/11;

05/04/11 AND 05/05/11. THE FINDINGS AND ORDER AFTER HEARING IS ORDERED FILED. PARTIES ARE

SERVED BY THE DEPUTY IN OPEN COURT A CONFORMED COPY OF THE FINDINGS AND ORDER AFTER HEARING.

EX PARTE HEARING IS CONCLUDED.

The VEXATIOUS Parent

Some parents have the “honor” of being labeled vexatious. The pattern in the Riverside Superior Court is to label those parents vexatious who attempt to correct court atrocities and who rigorously object to their children being held hostage by a court system.

The common denominator in all cases involving vexatious parents are atrocious rulings that are against the law and where children have been placed in an impossible situation against the best interest of the child. The Court attempts to shut down and muzzle that parent who objects to the inhumane treatment of parent and child.

The term vexatious is usually misused to allocate harassment or malice towards the other parent, which in almost every case is far from the truth. Some parents have no other choice but to go through a court, as the other parent is unreasonable, rigid, inflexible and uses children as weapons to torture the other parent.

Some attorneys who have represented themselves have also been labelled vexatious, and have not been able to file any motion, even when represented by another attorney who was deemed vexatious by association.  It is an abuse of process to cover up court atrocities and prevent their first amendment right to governmental redress.

However, even if you are “deemed” vexatious that does not end litigation, It merely means that there are extra hoops to jump through as the presiding judge has to subjectively approve the merit of litigation according to  CCP 391.7  (b) which specifies that the presiding judge shall permit the filing of litigation only if it appears to have merit. A presiding judge cannot adjudicate the case but can only approve a filing if it has merit.

The term merit signifies that the pleading is justified and has legal significance, although of course some judicial officers want to debate the concept of merit at actual hearings and deny that a presiding judge approved a filing because of merit.  A dictionary might be extremely helpful in those instances.

Riverside Superior Court harms children during mediation.

Mediation or the newer child recommending counseling services as it is called is a nightmare for parents and torture for children.

The only function this ludicrous service has is to mediate an agreement between the parties. If there is no agreement no recommendation can be provided pursuant to family code section 3183.

This, however; does not stop the Court and mediators employed by the Riverside Superior Court to provide proposed orders to the Court when there has been no agreement and in violation of evidence code section 1118 and 1121.

The heinous acts that are committed to children are, however; much more serious. Mediators are supposed to adhere to a code of ethics under California Rules of Court 5.210, (described below), where their conduct is very well defined.

However, the function of the mediators especially in the Riverside Superior Court is not to mediate but to cover up the heinous atrocities that are committed by the Court. There is no best interest of the child standard. Mediators pressure children to state a custodial preference which violates California rules of court 5.10 (h) (8). They actually ask children if they fear their parents. A concept that violates any facilitation of a parent child relationship, displays the lack of impartiality a court has, and is geared towards the targeted parent who the Court wants to continue to judicially rape and batter.

The Riverside Superior Court has demonstrated time and time again that its only function is to torture children and their parents alike, as they use litigants as pawns in an escalating game of judicial retaliation.  Children do not understand how they are being used by a Court to continue with vindictive and malicious court services, designed to continuously batter litigants at all cost.

2013 California Rules of Court

Rule 5.210. Court-connected child custody mediation

(a) Authority

This rule of court is adopted under article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution and Family Code sections 211, 3160, and 3162(a).

(b) Purpose

This rule sets forth standards of practice and administration for court-connected child custody mediation services that are consistent with the requirements of Family Code section 3161.

(c) Definitions

(1)“Best interest of the child” is defined in Family Code section 3011.

(2)“Parenting plan” is a plan describing how parents or other appropriate parties will share and divide their decision making and caretaking responsibilities to protect the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of each child who is a subject of the proceedings.

(d) Responsibility for mediation services

(1)Each court must ensure that:

(A)Mediators are impartial, competent, and uphold the standards of practice contained in this rule of court.

(B)Mediation services and case management procedures implement state law and allow sufficient time for parties to receive orientation, participate fully in mediation, and develop a comprehensive parenting plan without unduly compromising each party’s right to due process and a timely resolution of the issues.

(C)Mediation services demonstrate accountability by:

(i)Providing for acceptance of and response to complaints about a mediator’s performance;

(ii)Participating in statewide data collection efforts; and

(iii)Disclosing the use of interns to provide mediation services.

(D)The mediation program uses a detailed intake process that screens for, and informs the mediator about, any restraining orders or safety-related issues affecting any party or child named in the proceedings to allow compliance with relevant law or court rules before mediation begins.

(E)Whenever possible, mediation is available from bilingual mediators or other interpreter services that meet the requirements of Evidence Code sections 754(f) and 755(a) and section 18 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration.

(F)Mediation services protect, in accordance with existing law, party confidentiality in:

(i)Storage and disposal of records and any personal information accumulated during the mediation process;

(ii)Interagency coordination or cooperation regarding a particular family or case; and

(iii)Management of child abuse reports and related documents.

(G)Mediation services provide a written description of limitations on the confidentiality of the process.

(H)Within one year of the adoption of this rule, the court adopts a local court rule regarding ex parte communications.

(2)Each court-connected mediator must:

(A)Maintain an overriding concern to integrate the child’s best interest within the family context;

(B)Inform the parties and any counsel for a minor child if the mediator will make a recommendation to the court as provided under Family Code section 3184; and

(C)Use reasonable efforts and consider safety issues to:

(i)Facilitate the family’s transition and reduce acrimony by helping the parties improve their communication skills, focus on the child’s needs and areas of stability, identify the family’s strengths, and locate counseling or other services;

(ii)Develop a comprehensive parenting agreement that addresses each child’s current and future developmental needs; and

(iii)Control for potential power imbalances between the parties during mediation.

(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2003.)

(e) Mediation process

All court-connected mediation processes must be conducted in accordance with state law and include:

(1)Review of the intake form and court file, if available, before the start of mediation;

(2)Oral or written orientation or parent education that facilitates the parties’ informed and self-determined decision making about:

(A)The types of disputed issues generally discussed in mediation and the range of possible outcomes from the mediation process;

(B)The mediation process, including the mediator’s role; the circumstances that may lead the mediator to make a particular recommendation to the court; limitations on the confidentiality of the process; and access to information communicated by the parties or included in the mediation file;

(C)How to make best use of information drawn from current research and professional experience to facilitate the mediation process, parties’ communication, and co-parenting relationship; and

(D)How to address each child’s current and future developmental needs;

(3)Interviews with children at the mediator’s discretion and consistent with Family Code section 3180(a). The mediator may interview the child alone or together with other interested parties, including stepparents, siblings, new or step-siblings, or other family members significant to the child. If interviewing a child, the mediator must:

(A)Inform the child in an age-appropriate way of the mediator’s obligation to disclose suspected child abuse and neglect and the local policies concerning disclosure of the child’s statements to the court; and

(B)With parental consent, coordinate interview and information exchange among agency or private professionals to reduce the number of interviews a child might experience;

(4)Assistance to the parties, without undue influence or personal bias, in developing a parenting plan that protects the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child and that optimizes the child’s relationship with each party by including, as appropriate, provisions for supervised visitation in high-risk cases; designations for legal and physical custody; a description of each party’s authority to make decisions that affect the child; language that minimizes legal, mental health, or other jargon; and a detailed schedule of the time a child is to spend with each party, including vacations, holidays, and special occasions, and times when the child’s contact with a party may be interrupted;

(5)Extension of time to allow the parties to gather additional information if the mediator determines that such information will help the discussion proceed in a fair and orderly manner or facilitate an agreement;

(6)Suspension or discontinuance of mediation if allegations of child abuse or neglect are made until a designated agency performs an investigation and reports a case determination to the mediator;

(7)Termination of mediation if the mediator believes that he or she is unable to achieve a balanced discussion between the parties;

(8)Conclusion of mediation with:

(A)A written parenting plan summarizing the parties’ agreement or mediator’s recommendation that is given to counsel or the parties before the recommendation is presented to the court; and

(B)A written or oral description of any subsequent case management or court procedures for resolving one or more outstanding custody or visitation issues, including instructions for obtaining temporary orders;

(9)Return to mediation to resolve future custody or visitation disputes.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2003.)

(f) Training, continuing education, and experience requirements for mediator, mediation supervisor, and family court services director

As specified in Family Code sections 1815 and 1816:

(1)All mediators, mediation supervisors, and family court service directors must:

(A)Complete a minimum of 40 hours of custody and visitation mediation training within the first six months of initial employment as a court-connected mediator;

(B)Annually complete 8 hours of related continuing education programs, conferences, and workshops. This requirement is in addition to the annual 4-hour domestic violence update training described in rule 5.215; and

(C)Participate in performance supervision and peer review.

(2)Each mediation supervisor and family court services director must complete at least 24 hours of additional training each calendar year. This requirement may be satisfied in part by the domestic violence training required by Family Code section 1816.

(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2005; previously amended effective January 1, 2003.)

(g) Education and training providers

Only education and training acquired from eligible providers meet the requirements of this rule. “Eligible providers” includes the Administrative Office of the Courts and may include educational institutions, professional associations, professional continuing education groups, public or private for-profit or not-for-profit groups, and court-connected groups.

(1)Eligible providers must:

(A)Ensure that the training instructors or consultants delivering the education and training programs either meet the requirements of this rule or are experts in the subject matter;

(B)Monitor and evaluate the quality of courses, curricula, training, instructors, and consultants;

(C)Emphasize the importance of focusing child custody mediations on the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child;

(D)Develop a procedure to verify that participants complete the education and training program; and

(E)Distribute a certificate of completion to each person who has completed the training. The certificate must document the number of hours of training offered, the number of hours the person completed, the dates of the training, and the name of the training provider.

(2)Effective July 1, 2005, all education and training programs must be approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(Subd (g) adopted effective January 1, 2005.)

(h) Ethics

Mediation must be conducted in an atmosphere that encourages trust in the process and a perception of fairness. To that end, mediators must:

(1)Meet the practice and ethical standards of the Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California and of related law;

(2)Maintain objectivity, provide and gather balanced information for both parties, and control for bias;

(3)Protect the confidentiality of the parties and the child in making any collateral contacts and not release information about the case to any individual except as authorized by the court or statute;

(4)Not offer any recommendations about a party unless that party has been evaluated directly or in consultation with another qualified neutral professional;

(5)Consider the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child in all phases of the process, including interviews with parents, extended family members, counsel for the child, and other interested parties or collateral contacts;

(6)Strive to maintain the confidential relationship between the child who is the subject of an evaluation and his or her treating psychotherapist;

(7)Operate within the limits of his or her training and experience and disclose any limitations or bias that would affect his or her ability to conduct the mediation;

(8)Not require children to state a custodial preference;

(9)Not disclose any recommendations to the parties, their attorneys, or the attorney for the child before having gathered the information necessary to support the conclusion;

(10)Disclose to the court, parties, attorneys for the parties, and attorney for the child conflicts of interest or dual relationships and not accept any appointment except by court order or the parties’ stipulation;

(11)Be sensitive to the parties’ socioeconomic status, gender, race, ethnicity, cultural values, religion, family structures, and developmental characteristics; and

(12)Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest, the mediator must suspend mediation and meet and confer in an effort to resolve the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of all parties or according to local court rules. The court may order mediation to continue with another mediator or offer the parties alternatives. The mediator cannot continue unless the parties agree in writing to continue mediation despite the disclosed conflict of interest.

The Belief Fixation of Judge Dale Wells

Judge Dale Wells is fixated, rigid and inflexible. There are no other words to describe his belief rulings. He judicially retaliates against certain privileged litigants harming them and their children at length and refuses to address any rulings according to the law.

Indeed Judge Dale Wells manipulates the Court system to uphold his malicious rulings to perpetuate malicious judicial rape and battery and declares other Governmental agencies and state agencies as not credible, exceeding his role as a judge.

Judge Dale Wells escalates the situation between litigants and causes children further harm, due to the acrimony he causes and the chaos he fabricates in cases, while citing his belief at length.

Messiah Wells has expressed his malicious intent in his own sermons that he delivers at his church: “Romans 7:21-25 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in Gods law; but I see another law at work in the my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
http://www.slideshare.net/pdcoc92255/111023-the-big-ten-12-making-the-big-ten-personal

Perhaps the Riverside Superior Court would be kind enough to put litigants and the Court out of the misery of Judge Wells’ belief rulings, that harm parents and children, as he quite plainly is not equipped to deal with family law cases,  and uses the law as a maniuplative tool to play ping pong with litigants lives utilzing them as pawns in a  game of judicial retaliation and legal battery.

 

 

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.

Maha Abdel Rahim will not be extradited to California.

The Puerto Rico ACLU just hours ago released a statement specifying that Abdel Rahim will not be extradited to California.

Justice Isabel Llopmert-Zeno, has issued an order dismissing the Puerto Rico’s Department’s petition for an extradition order based on the Governor of California not signing an extradition request.

Maha Abdel Rahim was arrested on the 10th of January 2013 based on an arrest warrant issued by the Riverside Superior Court, with a $ 200,000 bond, and spent 6 days in jail until the ACLU was able to secure her release without bail. 

The arrest warrant was issued by Judge Gary Tranberger of the Riverside Superior Court, based on the alleged failure by Abdel Rahim to hand over her son. The Riverside Superior Court District Attorney’s office only filed a complaint on 1/31/2013 and amended the complaint on 2/11/2013.

The question remains who will compensate Abdel Rahim for her pain and suffering due to false arrest, imprisonment and a clear case of malicious prosecution.

Maha Abdel Rahim extradition hearing continued until April 4th 2013.

Maha Abel Rahim faced an extradition hearing today in Puerto Rico on 2/21/2013. The hearing was as a result of an arrest warrant issued by Judge Gary Tranberger of the Riverside Superior Court on 1/9/2013, in case RIF 130021, who accused Ms. Rahim of allegedly failing to hand over her son.  Abdel Rahim is facing a felony kidnapping charge under CA penal code 278.5. Judge Tranberger issued a $ 200,000 bond with the arrest warrant which violated her right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment, demonstrating his malicious intent and was excessive by the Riverside Superior Court standard bail practices.

Judge Becky Dugan of the Riverside Superior Court has in the meantime modified the bond to $ 100,000 and the District Attorney has filed an amended complain on 2/11/2013. The initial complaint was only filed on 1/31/2011.

She was released from jail in Puerto Rico without bail pending an extradition hearing to California scheduled for today.  The ACLU,  Puerto Rican defense team, represents Abdel Rahim and the extradition hearing was continued until April 4th 2013.  The burden of proof is on the Riverside District Attorney’s office who has to prove malice to substantiate any conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.   The case against Eva Ruiz-Gomez  was dropped after a two year battle as the District Attorney in that case failed to prove malice, and the criminal judge cited family law issues.  https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourts.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/after-a-two-year-batttle-the-charges-for-felony-kidnapping-against-eva-ruiz-gomez-were-dismissed-due-to-confusing-court-orders-a-case-for-family-law/

Mass protest against Abdel Rahim’s arrest warrant has been accumulating and the petition to halt the extradition of Maha Abdel Rahim to the Governor of Puerto Rico has gathered 6546 signatures http://www.change.org/petitions/gobierno-de-puerto-rico-gobernador-garc%C3%ADa-padilla-no-firme-la-orden-de-extradici%C3%B3n-de-maha-abdel-rahim

Abdel Rahim is of Syrian and Palestinian descent. The Riverside Superior Court has repeatedly discriminated against a mother’s immigration and national status and has discriminated on the application of penal code 278.5 in cases where the mother could conclusively demonstrate a malicious custodial deprivation standard under CA penal code 278.5.  https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourts.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/1378/

Appellate division of the Riverside Superior Court applies an incorrect standard of law to uphold an illegal eviction.

Malicious retaliation in the Riverside Superior court is not a new concept. Those litigants that expose the Court’s blatantly wrong and malicious rulings are very familiar with the oppressive and despicable retaliation.  In this case, however; the Riverside Superior Court appellate division has out done itself to rubber stamp an incorrect judgment of the Riverside Superior Court unlawful detainer court. The reason is simple enough, namely to perpetuate malicious, oppressive and despicable retaliation against one litigant, rather than upholding the law.

Not only did the appellate division judges invent a new standard of evidence that doesn’t exist when deciding civil unlawful detainer cases, they invented and fabricated evidence that was not presented by either party to uphold an illegal eviction.

At heart of this case is that a preliminary injunction was in place halting the sale of joint community of title property. There was an appeal pending at the same time. The trustee, in this case Recontrust Company NA, went ahead and sold the property without notice to the joint title of community property owners.

The new owners filed an unlawful detainer actions and proceeded with an illegal eviction. It does not come as a surprise that numerous procedural and substantive due process violations occurred in this case, as after all retaliation is the law that exists in the Riverside Superior Court.

A motion was on calendar to rescind the sale of the property in the case that granted the preliminary injunction but the owners were granted a trial with a mere two days verbal notice after an exparte application was already previously granted to allow the motion to rescind the sale of the property to proceed.

At the trial evidence of a preliminary injunction halting the sale of the property was presented as well as evidence of an appeal and that Recontrust company NA was notified to halt the sale of the property.  The trial court went ahead anyway and awarded judgment to the owners with the words “but you can appeal the decision”.  An appeal was indeed filed.

Enter the Appellate Division of the Riverside Superior Court who in their opinion, decided to invent a new standard of evidence that does not apply to civil cases,  with a reverse application on the burden of proof and found that the Riverside Superior Court orders and 4th District of Appeal court orders are not credible when it comes to proving the fact that a preliminary injunction existed. They also fabricated evidence relating to the bond of the property in question that was never presented by either party and which cannot be brought up by an appellate court and blatantly misstated the facts of the case. The petition for rehearing was denied yesterday as Judge Hopp, Judge Waters and Judge Prevost who coined the opinion cannot admit that they made a mistake, to perpetuate a malicious retaliatory eviction of the Riverside Superior Court.  Judge Hopp also has a conflict of interest in presiding on the Appellate panel of the Superior Court, as he presides over the civil case that deals with the property after Judge Waters transferred the case to Indio.

The petition for rehearing, with the Appellate Judges’ opinion can be accessed here,  http://www.scribd.com/doc/125510212/Petition-3.

California taxpayers can absolutely rely on the fact that this court is incapable of impartial rulings and addressing the law.

Ho Hum Judge Dale Wells plays God, Riverside Superior Court

In this specific case, a 4 year old boy was living with his mother who was the primary care taker; the mediator recommended that she be left as the primary care taker and Judge Wells plays “God” ordering that a child be moved to a different county, in a different location without examining the repercussions of a move away. Yes that is right folks, Judge Wells plays God with the lives of children committing the ultimate blasphemy.However, Judge Wells has already made his state of mind and the recognition of the sin that he commits clear in his own words:“Romans 7:21-25 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in Gods law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!” http://www.slideshare.net/pdcoc92255/111023-the-big-ten-12-making-the-big-ten-personalS

via Ho Hum Judge Dale Wells plays God, Riverside Superior Court.

via Ho Hum Judge Dale Wells plays God, Riverside Superior Court.

Law offices of Sam Chandra manipulate vindictive ex to maintain illegal eviction in the Riverside Superior Court.

So-called officers of the Court make a mockery of the Riverside Superior Court justice system.

 

Law offices of Sam Chandra manipulate vindictive ex to maintain illegal eviction in the Riverside Superior Court..

via Law offices of Sam Chandra manipulate vindictive ex to maintain illegal eviction in the Riverside Superior Court..

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.

wells8bb

Judge Wells:

wells85c