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
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.
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.
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT MEDIATOR FAILS TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HARMS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
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
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
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
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.
A case in the Riverside Superior court mirrors and expresses the vindictiveness of the Riverside Superior court judiciary against women. In this instance the Riverside Superior court is being used as a platform to “prevail” against a party when the party had little success in another court, the Orange County Superior Court. Continue reading
A RESTRAINING ORDER WITH CHILDREN LISTED AS ACTIVE FOR TWENTY DAYS WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A TRO. JUDGE HOPP INSTRUCTS CLERKS AND JUDGES TO DELAY ANY AND ALL TRO. Judge Hopp has instructed every clerk in the Riverside Superior Court to forward any and all papers to the disqualified presiding judge’s office to prevent that any request for restraining order with children is addressed.
The disqualified presiding judge has issued instructions to clerks and judges of the Riverside Superior Court to refuse the filing and issuance of a TRO. The judicial vendetta is geared towards delaying any and all action in a family law case in violation of the law and to prevent that any writ proceeding is addressed by the Court of Appeal. Judge Hopp is quite clearly using the Riverside Superior court as his own malicious retaliation tool.
Judge Harold Hopp’s personal vendetta against a litigant in the Riverside Superior Court has outlined the outrageous and malicious nature of the Presiding Judge and his sentiments to domestic violence. October is Domestic Violence awareness month and the Presiding Judge in previous hearings had made it clear that Judge Harold Hopp does not consider restraining orders as domestic violence or abuse and influences the entire court with his outrageous sentiment in violation of all prevailing law.
View original post 534 more words
The “honorable” Judge Mark Cope is using an outrageous coercive control technique to get litigants and attorneys to comply with OSCs set by Judge Cope, who obviously has no other issues to address in court hearings. Continue reading
Judge Harold Hopp’s personal vendetta against a litigant in the Riverside Superior Court has outlined the outrageous and malicious nature of the Presiding Judge and his sentiments to domestic violence. October is Domestic Violence awareness month and the Presiding Judge in previous hearings had made it clear that Judge Harold Hopp does not consider restraining orders as domestic violence or abuse and influences the entire court with his outrageous sentiment in violation of all prevailing law. Continue reading
The California Whistleblower Protection Act (the “Act”), which gives the California State Auditor the authority to receive and investigate complaints about improper governmental activities, also protects every state employee who files a complaint from suffering any retaliation by his or her state employer for having made the complaint. Continue reading
California Commission on Judicial Performance
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Fax: (415) 557-1266 Continue reading
Several studies have documented the correlation between child abuse and future juvenile delinquency. Children who have experienced abuse are nine times more likely to become involved in criminal activities (Gold, Wolan Sullivan, & Lewis, 2011. The relation between abuse and violent delinquency: The conversion of shame to blame in juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(7), 459–467.) Continue reading
Litigants usually cite Yetenekian v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 3d 361, 189 Cal. Rptr. 458 (Ct. App. 1983) to object to having a commissioner hear a case. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/140/361.html
View original post 1,901 more words
Please sign and share widely.
The current Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge has used the Presiding Judge’s office to further his own vendetta and malice against litigants rather than adhering to the integrity and independence of the judicial system, influencing legal decisions to further a personal vendetta.
Per the Trial Court Financial Policies and Procedures Manual, Policy no. FIN 8.03: “Personal
vehicle mileage is reimbursable at the current federal mileage reimbursement rate established by the
IRS that corresponds to the date/s of travel.” As a result, judicial officers and those judicial branch
employees authorized to use a personal vehicle on official business for travel occurring or after
January 1, 2014, may be reimbursed up to the new federal standard mileage rate. This change
supersedes Finance Memo TC 2012–001, which established a reimbursement rate of 56.5 cents
per mile” Continue reading
California rules of court allow for the removal of a Presiding Judge if the Presiding Judge is a disgrace to the relevant Superior court, disgraces the independent nature of the judiciary and does not promote public confidence in the judiciary. Continue reading
Presiding Judge Harold Hopp after disqualifying himself from a family law case has taken to assigning random judges to a family law case, although there are several assignment orders in place referring to a specific department and is insisting that all documents are received and forwarded to the Presiding Judge’s office although there is a disqualification order in place.
A parent filed a request for restraining order with children which is still listed as active. Judge Harold Hopp instructed a judge from another superior court division (Judge Lucky Jackson) to NOT issue the Temporary restraining order in an outrageous malicious action, as Judge Lucky Jackson is not assigned to the family law case in any capacity and there is no departmental assignment order to F 502.
Judge Lucky Jackson refused to issue the TRO under with the mandatory DV 110 and DV 109 forms, (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf; http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv109.pdf) instead using an optional MC 702 form which has no relevance as the Request for Restraining Order with Children is still listed as active in the relevant court case. The court TO DATE has failed to issue the TRO on the mandatory forms in the mandatory time frame pursuant to CA family code 246 and CA family code 242.
The clerks of the Riverside Superior Court are providing legal advice to litigants based upon the instructions of Presiding Judge Hopp specifying that a litigant should file an EPO with the relevant police department or another Request for Restraining Order when the other one is still pending with the Riverside Superior Court. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar, (CA Business and ProfessionsCode section 6125).
This occurs when a litigant follows up with the Riverside Superior Court as to the status of documents. The clerks are also specifying that a litigant cannot file any documents in the appropriate manner “as this is what YOU want” and instead insist on receiving and forwarding documents to the disqualified Presiding Judge and to the court executive office who cannot issue any legal rulings.
HONORABLE JUDGE HAROLD W. HOPP PRESIDING. Minute order: 5/13/2015
CLERK: M. PETTIE
COURT REPORTER: NONE
ON COURT’S OWN MOTION:
JUDGE HOPP IS DISQUALIFIED FROM REVIEWING OR HEARING ANY ISSUES RELATED TO xxxxxxxxx AS A
The judicial council has made an optional form available to anyone who has been declared vexatious specifying that a vexatious litigant may have the prefiling order lifted based upon a material change of facts UPON WHICH THE ORDER IS GRANTED and upon the interest of justice. The form can be found here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc703.pdf
The form does not specify any appeals to be listed.
I am involved in a divorce, my ex-wife took sole custody of our child (Jan 7th 2005).
1) Originally, she claimed that my house was unsafe and that I was tardy to daycare. I suspended the daycare records and filed a motion with the court showing she had lied about the time on every date listed in her complaint and that I was 10-15 minutes early on each.
2) I then filed a second motion showing that she had filed falsified and counterfeit bank records, while attempting to obtain property.
3) And I filed a motion to regain custody showing that I had purchased a brand new home, so that the original Final custodial order – which said that I would be held on professionally supervised visitation until I repaired my home – could be updated.
4) When all three of these motions had been dismissed, where I was never allowed to speak. I then filed an appeal to the issue of custody citing that I had met the requirements to a change in custody. Note: since I was not allowed to speak at the custody hearing not one word, the explanation of the new house was too vague. And her lawyer had my appellant arguments mentioning the new house stricken from the record. So I lost on the appeal.
5) I then filed my fifth motion seeking only reasonable visitation the commissioner stated that she was denying the motion, but ordering a mediation, a 730, and a trial, stating that at trial she would issue a final order. – But my ex-wife’s lawyer asked for five continuances, and then the commissioner that order the trial was replaced. The new commissioner Angel Bermudez, ordered a readiness hearing and then cancelled the trial, stating that I was not shown a significant change of circumstances.
At this point I had filed 5-mptions that had been denied. Therein I was declared a vexatious litigant. It is now Sept. 2015. I still remain on professionally supervised visitation at 6-hours a week. All of my motions and my appeals were all denied without being heard, because I was denied permission as a vexatious litigant.
I hired an attorney and filed motions with counsel, but the Hemet court says that even with an attorney I still need permission and they simply dismiss the motions without hearing them. I am not entitled to a hearing even with counsel as a vexatious litigant.
For almost 11-years now, I continue to pay for professionally supervised visitation, I pay $50 per hour to see my son, and while we visit he cries telling me that his mother gets drunk and punches on his face, he tells me that he has to keep it a secret because otherwise they will take him away and he doesn’t know where he would live. He asked me to help him (crying in front of the professional monitor). I have also found through child protective services that there have been 9-mandated CPS calls about abuse – less than half investigated with no results. My ex also enjoys using Facebook, she post funny messages about how she was so drunk that she was hospitalized and how to talks her way out of DUIs.
Every once in a while my ex-wife has to renew her restraining order, so I get to say a few words in court. During the last renewal, Commissioner Angel Bermudez stated that he would allow my ex-wife to testify without considering truth, and that he would not allow a trial to dispute the evidence. My ex-wife testified that she needed to renew the restraining order because almost a year after I was placed on supervised visitation that she claims that I brought my son into her place of business and that I tortured him in front of her. That she scram in terror and that police hunted me down. She also said that she left the police report at home. – Here I tried to explain to Bermudez that I was on professional supervised visitation at the time of the alleged assault and that the CLETS restraining order was in place at the time of the alleged assault. That I had a police clearance showing that I had never been arrested. I repeatedly asked for a trail so that I could show that she never called the police and that I never saw my son (not once in that entire year). Making the whole story an impossibility. But the judge refused to allow me a trial because he told me that I didn’t have Right’s because I was a vexatious litigant. I tried to appeal, the appellate court refused to her the appeal because I was a vexatious litigant.
I have only been to court on one issue (my one divorce), I was found to be a vexatious litigant based upon 5-motions that were dismissed. And even with an attorney I am still not allowed a hearing without permission, and I have never been granted permission.
The actions by Judge Lisa Gorcyca, of Oakland County, Michigan reflect how the U.S. is currently isolating children and violating every single international law that exists including the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
This is what occurs when children are exposed to the court on a repeated basis in a high conflict case, when children are fed up. A child cannot be ordered to have a “healthy” relationship with a parent. The role is on the parent to develop that relationship fostered by the other parent without the brainwashing and manipulation of the other parent and detrimental language where the child is being coached to call the other parent “an asshole” or a “delusional piece of shit” or where the children are being exposed to constant negative and detrimental portrayal of their parent by the other parent and third parties..
The entire childhood of these children is centered around an insane court and the insane actions of Judge Lisa Gorcya, who according to the report of Brian Silver Esq (http://www.defenseflorida.com/legal-blogs/) has since retracted the decision of a children’s camp and sent the son to a summer camp.
CA law specifies that the court has to consider which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the “non custodial” parent, which includes the parent who willfully violates court orders to prevent access to children. The onus is on the parent not the child. (CA family code 3040 (a))
In making an order granting custody to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with Sections 3011 and 3020,
On 9/1/2015 the court heard an additional OSC for failure to appear with $ 1500 in sanctions. The case notation specifies that $ 1500 in sanctions for failure to appear was issued on 7/30/2015 when there was no filed OSC on calender and the previous OSC with regard to this issue had been taken off calender.
On 7/30/2015 the court filed an additional OSC for failure to appear for $ 1500 in sanctions set for 9/1/2015. CCP § 177.5 specifies that the maximum sanctions award is $ 1500 and can only be issued upon notice and opportunity to be heard. It appears that Judge Mark Cope has enormous problems and is seriously confused as to issuing sanctions when there is no filed OSC on calender and as to the actual meaning and relevance of CCP § 177.5 and appears to issue $ 3000 in sanctions for the same offense.
The same occurred in another case also heard on 9/1/2015 where the court heard an OSC for sanctions for failure to appear when it had previously issued sanctions on 7/30/2015 without a filed OSC or notice. Two other cases heard on 9/1/2015 have the same sanctions issued without a filed OSC.
Due process generally originates from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States and the fundamental principle mandates that there has to be notice and an opportunity to be heard and EQUAL protection under the law. Due process is viewed as the gold standard in civil and criminal cases.
CCP § 177.5 specifies “A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both.
Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.”
HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 09/01/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1
6. MCP1300180 ESTATE OF MALINDA ANNE HORSLEY COLLINS
Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Why an additional $1500
sanction S/N be imposed for FTA as to JENNIFER BRADY.
JENNIFER BRADY Administrator PRO/PER
MALINDA ANNE HORSLEY COLLINS Decedent
JENNIFER BRADY Petitioner RAXTER LAW
MALINDA ANNE HORSLEY COLLINS Decedent
JENNIFER BRADY Petitioner RAXTER LAW
MALINDA ANNE HORSLEY COLLINS Decedent
To be determined by Judge
At hearing on 07/30/15, no appearance made by personal rep and
Court imposed $1500 in sanctions
This OSC re: additional sanctions then set
Examined by J. Real on 08/18/15.
Reviewed by J. Real on 08/27/15. No new documents filed.
14. MCP1300724 ESTATE OF RICHARD DOUGLAS MARTIN
Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Why Sanctions S/N be imposed
for failure to appear as to ALLAN RICHARD MARTIN.
ALLAN RICHARD MARTIN Executor LAW OFFICE OF RONALD E. DO
RICHARD DOUGLAS MARTIN Decedent
ALLAN RICHARD MARTIN Petitioner LAW OFFICE OF RONALD E. DO
RICHARD DOUGLAS MARTIN Decedent
To be determined by Judge
At hearing on 07/30/15, no appearance was made and Court imposed
$500 in sanctions and set this OSC
Superior Court of California – Countywide PROBATE
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov Page: 31
HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 09/01/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1
re: why additional sanctions should not be imposed
Examined by J. Real on 08/18/15.
Reviewed by J. Real on 08/27/15. No new documents filed.
Department 2 J has two family law matters on calendar on 8/13/2015. Both matters have been set without a filed Order to Show Cause and without the mandatory notice required by law. The hearings are to address why the respondent’s pleadings should not be struck for failure to comply. Continue reading
Ron Pierce testified in front of the judicial council last year. There was a limited amount of time to present the issues. Ron detailed the problems that litigants face when trying to access the court system. Instead of merely providing a platform for litigants to voice their opinion in less than 1 minute, litigants should have a legal recourse available to them as provided by the first amendment right to governmental recourse. The United States claims to provide a home for the free and the brave, instead the U.S. judiciary has shackled litigants by prohibiting that they exercise their constitutional rights and there is NO EQUAL PROTECTION STANDARD UNDER THE LAW AS PROVIDED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. To date the judicial council has not implemented any steps based on the feedback they obtained from litigants or attorneys.
These are the profound words of the former Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge, Mark Cope.
“People have a civil right, and therefore a constitutional right to have
their issues resolved in a fair way,” the presiding judge in Riverside
County, Mark Cope, said. “When they can’t get into court to have those
issues heard … it’s a violation of those rights.”
The above statement was part of a comment on the current budget crisis in the Riverside Superior Court, published in the Gavel Grab.
On his online running platform, under justice, Judge Cope advocates that “The role of a judge is not to make law, but to apply it”. http://www.democracy.com/JudgeCope/issues.aspx?Tag=Justice
Although as litigants we truly appreciate the sentiment, the reality that parents and children deal with in the Riverside Superior Court is very different. Our cases are not heard and most of us have our constitutional rights violated on a day to day basis, with cases languishing for years as the Court refuses to address the legal standard required to overturn heinous criminal custody orders where parents and their children alike suffer and are tormented. The sentiment is to sweep everything under a rug hoping that we will go away or to perpetuate the malicious legal rape and battery that has become the norm. For most of us giving up on our children is not a possibility, as our children as parents are all we care about, and the Court is our only option.
Our constitution in this country guarantees that the relationship between parents and their children is accorded a protected preferential status and we have the first amendment right to have our cases addressed. The fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to a protected familial parent child relationship was already recognized in IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir. Nev. 1988) and Carey v.Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-685 (1977), where the United States Supreme Court repeatedly teaches that there is “a right of personal privacy” which includes “family relationships,” and child rearing and education.
We expect justice and we expect that the court addresses the law and that our protected rights under the constitution be treated that way. That scenario does not exist in the Riverside Superior Court. Why for example is a litigant denied access to the Court system for a year, while their paperwork vegetates on a desk somewhere? https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/riverside-superior-court-sabotages-litigation-against-the-best-interest-of-the-child-by-filing-a-document-one-year-later-after-it-was-received-ppeal/
Why are our children forced to suffer due to the heinous orders initiated by a court that violated all due process accorded by the relevant statute and the fourteenth amendment equal protection standard, merely as the relevant judicial officer wanted to teach a parent a lesson and was fixated on punishing a litigant with his/her children?
Why can none of us obtain the legal relief in the interest of justice that we are entitled to under the statute as there was a blatant miscarriage of justice which the court can correct pursuant to CCP section 128.(a)(8) and CA family code section 3022 and the Court refuses that we file the appropriate and necessary litigation to address these orders?
Words, your Honor are meaningless, unless the appropriate action mirroring those words is implemented, and we are accorded the relief that we are constitutionally entitled to.
The current Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge, (Judge Harold Hopp) and the Assistant Presiding Judge, (Judge Becky Dugan), now hide the request for orders and paperwork that have been presented to the court and instruct judicial bench officers not to address proposed orders or amended proposed orders. None of the request for orders are addressed in a timely manner and the court refuses to address them in any capacity.
Litigants usually cite Yetenekian v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 3d 361, 189 Cal. Rptr. 458 (Ct. App. 1983) to object to having a commissioner hear a case. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/140/361.html Continue reading
The probate department appears to be violating the applicable law as it relates to issuing and setting hearings for sanctions. CCP 177.5 is very clear that there needs to be a noticed hearing and opportunity to be heard. Judge Cope’s department repeatedly sets hearings for an OSC for sanctions without a FILED OSC. The same hearing was continued twice already.
The Riverside Superior Court and courts across the state are attempting to conserve judicial resources. The judicial council even advises the courts that they need to cut back on the resources used and increase their fees. Judge Cope’s Probate department has a habit of granting continuances 3-5 times for the same proceeding so that the cases drag on for months at a time.
Judge Cope even sets a separate hearing to simply FILE A SIGNED ORDER WITH THE CLERK’S office and continues a hearing to sign the order and file it with the clerk’s office.
Normally judges simply sign the order and serve it on the parties of the case. No separate hearing is required to simply FILE AN ORDER with the clerk’s office.
If one adds up the cost for the probate support staff to review cases for additional filed documents, and the cost of the court reporter, the clerk and the judicial officer it appears that Judge Cope’s department is wasting considerable court resources.
HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 08/04/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1
18. MCP1500284 MATTER OF MOISES ESPINOZA
Hearing re: Review re: Proof of Blocked Account
MARIA ASUNCION CAMARILLO Petitioner LAW OFFICES OF MORTON J GR
MOISES ESPINOZA Minor LAW OFFICES OF MORTON J GR
Continue for signed order to be filed at clerk’s office.
At hearing on 06/02/15, Court approved minor’s compromise and
ordered $16,008 deposited into blocked account
Receipt filed 07/22/15
Judge Becky Dugan is the new Assistant Presiding Judge of the Riverside Superior Court. The Riverside Superior Court for the first time in history is refusing to address proposed orders after instructing the relevant judge to look for it and instructing the litigant to resubmit it. Continue reading
The probate department has a habit of issuing sanctions without notice or filing an order to show cause for sanctions. As an example the court has set a review hearing for proof of blocked account. The recommendation is to issue sanctions. There is no proof of service that the “parties” were advised of the recommendation nor was an order to show cause for sanctions filed.
CCP 177.5 requires NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
CCP 177.5. A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable
money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for
any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good
cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to
advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this
section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s
attorney, or both.
Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on
notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the
court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An
order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in
detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.
HONORABLE Judge Mark A Cope
DATE: 08/06/15 TIME: 8:30 DEPT: T1
6. MCP1500252 Matter of REGINA ERAZO
Hearing re: Review re: Proof of Blocked Account
AURELIA ERAZO Petitioner LAW OFFICES OF BRENT A DUQ
REGINA ERAZO Minor LAW OFFICES OF BRENT A DUQ
Recommend sanctions issue if receipt is not filed
Court approved petition for compromise and ordered $7514.60
deposited into a blocked account
Order to deposit filed 07/06/15
No receipt for blocked account filed
Examined by J. Real on 06/05/15.
Updated by J Real on 06/22/15.
Reviewed by J. Real on 07/01/15. No new documents filed.
Updated by J Real on 07/23/15.
On 6/11/2015 Judge Sterling held a proceeding without the other parent present and promised the appearing parent that he would speak to the children in chambers.
This case has a history of children being brainwashed and dragged into court which this appearing parent relies on. The children in this case are very aware of who the Riverside Superior Court as the other parent has continually brainwashed two young children that they will be appearing in court.
Emails were presented to the court that quite clearly violate the permanent restraining order in place, including a threat that children will be taken to court, and Judge Sterling’s only concern was to promise something without addressing the utterly devastating impact this will have on young children who are living with the parent who has a history of domestic abuse, coercion, and blackmail and that the children could appear in the case without any protection, from the utterly devastating and cruel impact of court proceedings and the brainwashing actions of the coercive and abusive parent.
At a proceeding on 12/15/2014 Judge Sterling categorically stated that he NEVER hears children in chambers, and that only the mediators may interview children.
Judge Sterling on the court’s own motion took the above mentioned hearing off calendar, and there are no further proceedings in this case. Judge Sterling promised the parent with a domestic violence restraining order against him and who continually violates that restraining order that children could appear, instead of once again again addressing the facts of the case.
As a result the parent with the permanent restraining order which has a complete personal conduct order and a 100 yard stay away order sent the below email, once again violating the restraining order in place.
The “parent” below has all the relevant phone numbers and it’s the same behavior that has been going on for five years, where a psychopath fabricates material to use in court proceedings, after violating the permanent restraining order and keeps harassing another parent deliberately to interfere in that parent’s custodial time.
Subject: FW: wake up!
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:23:04 -0500
I have no current contact number for you or the children…. this is a violation of the court order and you will face contempt…… please provide contact numbers…… for you and the children or I will take you to court….. The judge agreed to talk to the children so please make sure they are present for your next court date
The court has failed to address the rebuttal presumption to custody in its entirety and failed to apply the correct legal standard as all of Judge Sterling’s cases have an order in place that a person who has a permanent restraining order in place needs to demonstrate that this person has to complete a 52 week batterers treatment program. The 52 week program is a mandatory requirement to combat the rebuttable presumption under CA family code 3044 (b). Just not in this case as this parent is protected by the Riverside Superior Court.
As a result and based on the promise of Judge Sterling, children will be subjected to severe harassment and brainwashing, rather than addressing the domestic violence restraining order in place. Precedent published family law cases have stated that exposing children to court proceedings is a basis to grant a restraining order against the offending party, IN RE MARRIAGE OF HARTMANN, (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1247
Family and juvenile courts routinely protect children from court exposure just not the Indio family law department. Mediators and evaluators are prohibited from pressuring children to state a custodial preference as it violates the California rules of court, California rules of Court 5.220 h (7), Not pressure children to state a custodial preference. The Riverside Superior Court has a a history of using mediators who ask children if they fear the other parent and to state a custodial preference and who misrepresent everything that is stated to conform to existing orders rather than addressing the facts of the case.
Interested parents would like to know how the court would like to accommodate the rampant desire of preferred parents who specialize in alienating their children from the other parent to drag children into court proceedings in a 10-15 minute hearing, with a judicial officer who has no training in child psychology and who will needlessly terrorize children.
An Order to show cause (OSC) for contempt was FILED by the Indio Family Law Department of the Riverside Superior Court, in Department 2 J. Once the OSC for contempt has been approved it is up to the adversarial party to serve the OSC on the person allegedly guilty of contempt proceedings. The docket shows that the contempt of court hearing was continued with a mailed proof of service. Continue reading
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARIAN K. KEEGAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
Defendant and Respondent.
(Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00338176)
O P I N I O N Continue reading
The case docket reveals that a dissolution action was dismissed after Judge xxxx filed an Order to Show Cause RE Non Proof of Service pursuant to CCP 583 et seq. The hearing for failure to file a proof of service was set within 30 days from the date that the action was filed on the date that the dissolution summons was filed.
On 4/20/2015 Judge xxxxx issued the OSC. The court docket does not show that a proof of service was filed for the OSC and there was no notice of court hearing normally served by a clerk, just a notice of assignment to Judge xxxxx.
Normally a summons and complaint needs to be served within 60 days from the date it is filed, (if the court participates in the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act), and answered within 30 days once served.
Proof of service needs to be filed with the court within 60 days after the time the summons must be served upon the defendant. The relevant law is posted below. However, in the proceeding held on 5/27/2015 which was not even properly placed on the court’s calendar the court dismissed the entire action.
A search of the local rules of court reveals that the Riverside Superior Court does not have any rules addressing the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/localrules/localrules.shtml. Those rules need to be implemented by the Presiding Judge of the Riverside Superior Court pursuant to Title 2 rules of court.
California Title 2 rules of court addresses the Case management and delay reduction-statement of general principles and the Presiding Judge’s role in implementing the expeditious resolution of cases as follows:
Standard 2.1 (c) Presiding judge’s role (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=standards&linkid=standard2_1)
The presiding judge of each court should take an active role in advancing the goals of delay reduction and in formulating and implementing local rules and procedures to accomplish the following:
(1)The expeditious and timely resolution of cases, after full and careful consideration consistent with the ends of justice;
(2)The identification and elimination of local rules, forms, practices, and procedures that are obstacles to delay reduction, are inconsistent with statewide case management rules, or prevent the court from effectively managing its cases;
(3)The formulation and implementation of a system of tracking cases from filing to disposition; and
(4)The training of judges and nonjudicial administrative personnel in delay reduction rules and procedures adopted in the local jurisdiction.
The recommended goals for case disposition is defined under California Rules of Court Standard 2.2. Trial court case disposition time goals (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=standards&linkid=standard2_2)
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
583.210. (a) The summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. For the purpose of this subdivision, an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed. (b) Proof of service of the summons shall be filed within 60 days after the time the summons and complaint must be served upon a defendant. 583.220. The time within which service must be made pursuant to this article does not apply if the defendant enters into a stipulation in writing or does another act that constitutes a general appearance in the action. For the purpose of this section none of the following constitutes a general appearance in the action: (a) A stipulation pursuant to Section 583.230 extending the time within which service must be made. (b) A motion to dismiss made pursuant to this chapter, whether joined with a motion to quash service or a motion to set aside a default judgment, or otherwise. (c) An extension of time to plead after a motion to dismiss made pursuant to this chapter. 583.230. The parties may extend the time within which service must be made pursuant to this article by the following means: (a) By written stipulation. The stipulation need not be filed but, if it is not filed, the stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the court if relevant to a motion for dismissal. (b) By oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made. 583.240. In computing the time within which service must be made pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) The defendant was not amenable to the process of the court. (b) The prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service. (c) The validity of service was the subject of litigation by the parties. (d) Service, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond the plaintiff's control. Failure to discover relevant facts or evidence is not a cause beyond the plaintiff's control for the purpose of this subdivision. 583.250. (a) If service is not made in an action within the time prescribed in this article: (1) The action shall not be further prosecuted and no further proceedings shall be held in the action. (2) The action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of any person interested in the action, whether named as a party or not, after notice to the parties. (b) The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute.
CAL. GOV. CODE § 68616 : California Code – Section 68616
Delay reduction rules shall not require shorter time periods than as follows:
(a) Service of the complaint within 60 days after filing. Exceptions, for longer periods of time, (1) may be granted as authorized by local rule, and (2) shall be granted on a showing that service could not reasonably be achieved within the time required with the exercise of due diligence, consistent with the amount in controversy.
(b) Service of responsive pleadings within 30 days after service of the complaint. The parties may stipulate to an additional 15 days. Exceptions, for longer periods of time, may be granted as authorized by local rule.
(c) Time for service of notice or other paper under Sections 1005 and 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and time to plead after service of summons under Section 412.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall not be shortened, except as provided in those sections.
(d) Within 30 days of service of the responsive pleadings, the parties may, by stipulation filed with the court, agree to a single continuance not to exceed 30 days.
It is the intent of the Legislature that these stipulations not detract from the efforts of the courts to comply with standards of timely disposition. To this extent, the Judicial Council shall develop statistics that distinguish between cases involving, and not involving, these stipulations.
(e) A status conference, or similar event, other than a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court, shall not be required to be conducted sooner than 30 days after service of the first responsive pleadings, or 30 days after expiration of a stipulated continuance, if any, pursuant to subdivision (d).
(f) Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall govern discovery, except in arbitration proceedings.
(g) A case shall not be referred to arbitration prior to 210 days after the filing of the complaint, exclusive of the stipulated period provided for in subdivision (d). Any rule adopted pursuant to this article shall not contravene Sections 638 and 639 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(h) Unnamed (DOE) defendants shall not be dismissed or severed prior to the conclusion of the introduction of evidence at trial, except upon stipulation or motion of the parties.
In general criminal trials are speedily disposed of as the criminal defendant has the right to a speedy trial. However, In Maha Abdel Rahim’s case her criminal case has been pending for over two years after the initial complaint was filed on 1/9/2013 by the Riverside County District Attorney’s office, for Felony violation of CA penal code 278.5. The docket shows 5 trial court readiness hearings, 2 preliminary hearings, and 2 felony settlement conferences.
In addition, Judge Becky Dugan, set a trial on 02/23/2015, it was vacated and another trial court readiness conference was set in violation of CA penal code section 1382 (a)(2)(b) which states that the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.
(B) The defendant requests or consents to the setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period. In the absence of an express general time waiver from the defendant, or upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver, the court shall set a trial date. Whenever a case is set for trial beyond the 60-day period by request or consent, expressed or implied, of the defendant without a general waiver, the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.
Under California law a delay of one year can create a presumption of prejudice. (Id. at pp. 655-656; People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 234-235 [seven year delay in bringing a capital case was presumptively prejudicial].(http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/jg14.pdf).
CA penal code section 1382 (a)(2)(A) specifies that unless the defendant enters a 60 day trial waiver the sanction of dismissal may apply.
(A) The defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement. A general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement entitles the superior court to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial. If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, later withdraws, in open court, his or her waiver in the superior court, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days of the date of that withdrawal. Upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver in open court, a trial date shall be set and all parties shall be properly notified of that date. If a general time waiver is not expressly entered, subparagraph (B) shall apply.
Maha has not seen her son in over two years due to the unreasonable and prejudicial delay of the criminal case. Any parent can identify with that pain and suffering. The Eighth Amendment of the US constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGE’S QUASI-JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF
5 CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS
7 A. Extrajudicial Activities in General
9 A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not
11 (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially;*
13 (2) demean the judicial office;
15 (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; or
17 (4) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge.
19 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
20 Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither
21 possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in
22 which he or she lives. Expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside
23 the judge’s judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity
24 to act impartially* as a judge. Expressions that may do so include inappropriate
25 use of humor or the use of demeaning remarks. See Canon 2C and accompanying
27 Because a judge’s judicial duties take precedence over all other activities
28 (see Canon 3A), a judge must avoid extrajudicial activities that might reasonably
29 result in the judge being disqualified.
Of the four privacy torts identified by Prosser, the tort of intrusion into private places, conversations or matter is perhaps the one that best captures the common understanding of an “invasion of privacy.” It encompasses unconsented-to physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or [18 Cal.4th 231] other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying. (See Rest.2d Torts, § 652B, com. b., pp. 378-379, and illustrations.) It is in the intrusion cases that invasion of privacy is most clearly seen as an affront to individual dignity. “[A] measure of personal isolation and personal control over the conditions of its abandonment is of the very essence of personal freedom and dignity, is part of what our culture means by these concepts. A man whose home may be entered at the will of another, whose conversations may be overheard at the will of another, whose marital and familial intimacies may be overseen at the will of another, is less of a man, has less human dignity, on that account. He who may intrude upon another at will is the master of the other and, in fact, intrusion is a primary weapon of the tyrant.” (Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser (1964) 39 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 962, 973-974, fn. omitted.)
Despite its conceptual centrality, the intrusion tort has received less judicial attention than the private facts tort, and its parameters are less clearly defined. The leading California decision is Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 187 Cal.App.3d 1463 (Miller). Miller, which like the present case involved a news organization’s videotaping the work of emergency medical personnel, adopted the Restatement’s formulation of the cause of action: “One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 652B; Miller, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 1482.) The tort is proven only if the plaintiff had an objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude in the place, conversation or data source. (Rest.2d Torts, § 652B, com. c., p. 379; see, e.g., PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd. (1995) 111 Nev. 615 [895 P.2d 1269, 1280-1281]
Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) – 18 Cal.4th 200, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 955 P.2d 469.
The certified baseline budget is made available by the Judicial Council. The Riverside Superior Court Budget is available at the Judicial Council website: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Riverside-Sch1-1415.pdf
The budget reveals $ 4,319,851.00 profit.
The salary schedule for the Riverside Superior Court employees has also been certified by the court executive officer and released by the judicial council and is available at the following site: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7A-1415-Riverside.pdf
The VLS statute specifies that there is no defined time period for filing motions, which mirrors the Shalant holding that motions in one civil case do not qualify as new litigation as defined pursuant to CCP 391.(a).
A new published case by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, has allocated a new meaning to the mandatory time frame for deciding any motion for new trial once filed as the time limit in section 660 is jurisdictional. Consequently an order granting a motion for new trial beyond the relevant 60 day time period is void.
The case has relevance for any civil family law proceeding where litigation has been received and forwarded and file stamped as received. Pursuant to California rules of court 1.20 (a) litigation is deemed filed once it has been received by the clerk.
“The power of a trial court to rule on a motion for a new trial expires 60 days after (1) the clerk mails the notice of entry of judgment, or (2) a party serves written notice of entry of judgment on the party moving for a new trial, whichever is earlier, or if no such notice is given, then 60 days after filing of the first notice of intent to move for a new trial. (§ 660.) If the motion for a new trial is not ruled upon within the 60-day time period, then ‘the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.’ (§ 660.) The 60-day time limit provided in section 660 is jurisdictional. Consequently, an order granting a motion for a new trial beyond the relevant 60-day time period is void for lack of jurisdiction.” (Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 493, 500; see Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 123; Siegal v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 97, 101.)
Section 659, governing new trial motions, provides in part: “(a) The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of his or her intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either: [¶] (1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment. [¶] (2) Within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon him or her by any party of written notice of entry of judgment . . . .”
“[C]ompliance with the 15-day requirement of section 659 is jurisdictional,” and absent compliance a trial court is “without power to entertain the motion.” (Tri-County Elevator Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 271, 277.)
One again the Presiding Judge of the Riverside Superior Court flipp flopps from existing orders in a case.
Presiding Judge Cope in December of 2014 had appointed the current family law judge in this case as the designate to hear any litigation pursuant to CA family code 391.7 (e).
Based upon a filed request for a reconsideration of Judge Hopps flipp flopping decisions on 4/20/2015 where he approved and granted the request to remove a vexatious litigant from the judicial council list twice, which was sent to his office on 4/29/2015, he disqualified himself on 5//13/2015. The reconsideration was file stamped on 4/29/2015 and has yet to be acted on within the 10 day frame required for a reconsideration litigation. https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/riverside-superior-kangeroo-court-emerges-with-a-vengance-judge-hopps-initiation-as-presiding-judge-begins-with-a-bang/
The malice displayed by his insane decisions heightens the bias and prejudice displayed by the Riverside Superior Court and that this court cannot conduct any proceedings that comply with the law as the court failed to once again address the request for order in the mandatory time frame, based upon its vendetta; against ONE certain litigant. Judge Hopp assigned the case to a judge who is responsible for criminal law and is not assigned to any cases in Riverside family law.
HONORABLE JUDGE HAROLD W. HOPP PRESIDING. Minute order: 5/13/2015
CLERK: M. PETTIE
COURT REPORTER: NONE
ON COURT’S OWN MOTION:
JUDGE HOPP IS DISQUALIFIED FROM REVIEWING OR HEARING ANY ISSUES RELATED TO xxxxxxxxx AS A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. JUDGE DUGAN IS DESIGNATED TO REVIEW ANY REQUESTS TO FILE NEW LITIGATION BY
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 391.7(E).
NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY CLERK
HONORABLE JUDGE MARK A COPE PRESIDING. Minute order dated: 11/04/2014
CLERK: M. R. MARTINEZ
COURT REPORTER: NONE
ON COURT’S OWN MOTION:
IN THE CASE OF xxxxxx ND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 391.7(E)
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
PROVIDED UNDER SUBDIVISIONS (A) THROUGH (C) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 391.7..
NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY CLERK.
The CA department of fair housing and employment regulates the definition of sexual harassment and the damages awarded for emotional distress.
All employers are prohibited from harassing their employees including through physical, verbal and visual conduct. Exposure to various kinds of behavior or to unwanted sexual advances alone may constitute harassment. http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm
Fair Employment and Housing – Sexual Harassment
Another day in Paradise of the most revered law institute in Riverside County. Presiding Judge Hopp has initiated his term as Presiding Judge by once again flipp flopping from one decision to the next, without adhering to the law. Kangaroo court’s unite would be appropriate but there is only one kangaroo court in Riverside county.
In his latest insanity, Judge Harold Hopp GRANTED litigation TWICE, on 3/20/2015 and 4/20/2015 and ordered the JUDICIAL COUNCIL on 4/20/2015 to remove a “vexatious litigant” from the vexatious litigant list.
HOWEVER, Judge Hopp actually failed to grant the application to remove A vexatious litigant from the vexatious litigant list.
Flipp flopping does not describe the malicious vendetta of the Riverside Superior Court. When a litigant requests reconsideration of Judge Hopp’s conflicted decision, the court INSISTS ON the filing of OPTIONAL MC 701 and MC 702 forms BEFORE addressing the request for order addressing his conflicted decision. However, strangely enough these forms were not required to FILE the actual application which resulted in TWO orders granting the application.
There are no words to describe the malicious snickering actions of this court and the heinous nature of the flipp flopping decisions of this court and the legal relevance. The truly disgusting nature as to what this institution of law has actually become and the prejudicial and hostile State of Mind towards a litigant is reflected by an email received from Presiding Judge Hopp’s office.
The complaint as to actions of the Presiding Judge and the request to file the litigation in this case, which was cc’d to the Presiding Judge was returned with an email from Presiding Judge Harold Hopp as follows:
> To: xxxxxx
> CC: Virginia.Magana@riverside.courts.ca.gov; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Request for order IND xxxxx Reconsideration and Motion to Quash/Dismiss Judge Hopp’s order dated 4/20/2015.
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 23:16:18 +0000
> She’s lying. I never granted her request to be removed from the vexatious litigant list. Never will!
> Harold W. Hopp
> Presiding Judge
> Riverside County Superior Court
> > On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:06 PMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Sir/Madam,
> > Please see the below complaint with the attached litigation in question.
> > Sincerely,
Judge Hopp attempted to recall his email:
> From: Harold.Hopp@riverside.courts.ca.gov
> To: xxxxxx
> CC: Virginia.Magana@riverside.courts.ca.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Recall: Request for order IND xxxxx Reconsideration and Motion to Quash/Dismiss Judge Hopp’s order dated 4/20/2015.
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 23:37:39 +0000
> Hopp, Harold would like to recall the message, “Request for order IND 098669 Reconsideration and Motion to Quash/Dismiss Judge Hopp’s order dated 4/20/2015.”.
All of the invitations to comment are available on the Judicial Council website: http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm Continue reading
Some relevant excerpts are included below:
“The adversarial setting of a custody dispute tends to magnify the inherent inclination to disregard, discount, or reject allegations of abhorrent acts when those allegations are made by one litigating parent against the other litigating parent. See Getting to the Truth at 123-24; Lundy Bancroft et al., The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics 154 (2d ed. 2012) (“Family courts and child protective services often appear skeptical of domestic violence or child abuse allegations brought by women in custody and visitation litigation, believing that such reports are exaggerated for strategic purposes.”). “[B]ecause the [custody] court is hearing only from two warring parents, . . . courts become deaf to mothers’ claims that they are advocating for the best interest of their children.” Joan S. Meier, Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solution, 11 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 657, 717 (2003) (Understanding Judicial Resistance) (“Many judges’ and mental health professionals’ resistance to taking seriously a battered mother’s claims of risk to children is driven, at least in part, by the fact that she is a litigant with a presumed self-interested bias against the opposing party, which casts doubt on all of her claims about the children’s welfare.”). The tendency of courts to discount abuse claims made by one parent against the other may be revealed, for example, when a judge indicates from the 0 bench that he intends to discredit reports of child maltreatment merely because it was reported “by the mother.” See id. at 665 (describing case in which judge disparaged attorney’s allegations of the child’s destructive behaviors after visits with the child’s father).
. A recent study considered 27 custody cases involving parental allegations of child abuse initially determined to be false, resulting in an order granting 2 custody to the alleged abuser. The allegations were later found to be valid and, in a subsequent proceeding, the child was protected from unsafe contact with the abusive parent. In analyzing the factors that caused the incorrect initial determinations, the authors found one significant problem to be that the “[f]amily courts were highly suspicious of mother’s motives for being concerned with abuse.”
Mediation confidentiality is codified in Evidence Code section 1115 et seq.3 “With specified statutory exceptions, neither ‘evidence of anything said,’ nor any ‘writing,’ is discoverable or admissible ‘in any arbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminal proceeding in which . . . testimony can be compelled to be given,’ if the statement was made, or the writing was prepared, ‘for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .’ ” (Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, 117 (Cassel), quoting § 1119, subds. (a), (b).) Even after mediation ends, communications and writings protected by the statutes are to remain confidential. (§ 1126.)
Our Supreme Court has broadly applied the mediation confidentiality statutes and all but categorically prohibited judicially crafted exceptions, even in situations where justice seems to call for a different result. (Cassel, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 118; see Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137, 152 (Wimsatt).) “To carry out the purpose of encouraging mediation by ensuring confidentiality, the statutory scheme . . . unqualifiedly bars disclosure of communications made during mediation absent an express statutory exception.” (Foxgate Homeowners’ Assn. v. Bramalea California, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1, 15 (Foxgate); accord, Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407, 416; Fair v. Bakhtiari (2006) 40 Cal.4th 189, 194.) “Judicial construction, and judicially crafted exceptions, are permitted only where due process is implicated, or where literal construction would produce absurd results, thus clearly violating the Legislature’s presumed intent. Otherwise, the mediation confidentiality statutes must be applied in strict accordance with their plain terms. Where competing policy concerns are present, it is for the Legislature to resolve them.” (Cassel, at p. 124; Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 582-583; Foxgate, at pp. 14-17.)
The Riverside Superior Court has a history of cultivating Judges and Presiding Judges that have a Mormon faith and background. A prior federal lawsuit filed by Jon Clements revealed how pervasive the influence of the church was on legal proceedings. In his complaint he alleged that he received a phone call from one of the judges on his case specifying that his daughter would be fine as she attends the Mormon church, where this judge was a member. The case goes back ten years. Custody was granted on an exparte basis, based upon a move away exparte from the father to the mother, when a prior evaluation specified that due to her long term alcoholism she should have no overnight visits until there was extensive rehabilitation. The mother at that time had just hired one of the more favored attorneys in the court. The court banned Mr. Clements from filing any litigation to redress the situation, in another order that had no legal basis.
Some of the prior Presiding Judges in the Riverside Superior Court, are devout Mormons with the corresponding attitude that their religion teaches them. That is why patriarchy in this court runs rampant and mothers and children are treated as second class citizens with no rights, where invidious oppression is the norm in this court, and where women in particular are unable to obtain a divorce if they legally request one. Rampant abuse is accepted as the “norm” that women and children have to be subjected to.
Patriarchy reigns supreme in this court, stigmatized by the belief that the father in the clan or family is supreme where women and children are supposed to be legally dependent, fostering a culture where women are not treated as equals, rather as submissive vessels where abuse is perfectly accepted as it falls within the realms of subservience. HE knows how to handle them is the refrain that is bandied about by patriarchal judges who have no clue about the impact of leaving children in an abusive environment and what the long term repercussions are to these children and the mothers involved and that it TEACHES another generation that abuse is acceptable. Of course as litigants we are supposed to accept a Judge’s BELIEF as law; we are supposed to cater to the perception that we are possessions of the abusive ex-spouse deserving of years of abuse and that our children are taught the same behavior. After all in the mind set of the judiciary involved, mothers have to be subjugated at all cost and our cases have to be directed and controlled by the court to allow the relevant law not to be applied. Coercion is the norm to intimidate parents to agree to something that is against the law and proceedings take the vein of either you agree OR I will order an evaluation, appoint a GAL etc etc so parents incur an enormous costs forced by the court rather than applying the law as TESTIMONY and presented evidence is not enough. Orders are made that do not adhere to the law in any capacity when it involves children as it is just EASIER to leave them in the abusive environment rather than addressing the long term cost of such abuse and that it would not have been factor IF the court had actually acted when these abusive issued were raised years ago. Any mother who has been exposed to this situation knows how to DEAL with these children, and that raising another generation of children exposed to abuse is not in their interest; after all most of us raised our children in their formative years and there is a bond that neither the court nor the abusive ex can destroy. It is not normal to BELIEVE that children exposed to abuse are deserving of that abuse as is the other parent on the receiving end as the court BELIEVES an instigated and fabricated YOU GUYS scenario to cover up for their own corruption.
The Ruben Clark Law Society which several judges and attorneys in the Riverside Superior Court community belong to has a strong religious affiliation with the Mormon faith; where faith based community service of members of the LDS church is advocated. The LDS church refers to Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The memorandum of this particular law society is filled with religious beliefs and prophecies and how belief can be applied to law, regardless of the fact that the U.S. has a strict separation of church and state. http://www.jrcls.org/clark_memo/issues/cmS07.pdf
“The Law Society strongly endorses one of the noblest traditions of the legal profession – the legal representation of those in society who otherwise do not have equal access to protection of the law. This tradition has special meaning for attorneys loyal to the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints whose faith leads them to give freely of their time, skills and means to the Lord’s storehouse. “The Lord’s storehouse includes the time, talents, skills, compassion, consecrated material and financial means of faithful Church members. These resources are available to the bishop in assisting those in need.” ” http://www.jrcls.org/?folder=pro_bono&page=service_church
Events hosted by the Society advocate the influence of virtue in the court and were attended by members of the Riverside Superior Court judiciary, who have an LDS faith: http://www.jrcls.org/events/view_event.php?id=171
Justice Douglas P. Miller
Judge Sherrill A. Ellsworth
Judge Mark A. Cope
Judge Kelly L. Hansen
Judge Michael J. Rushton
Judge Gordon R. Burkhardt
Commissioner Bradley O. Snell
Former Presiding Judge Ellsworth commented at an event held this year that she as an LDS woman is more qualified to preside over child molestation cases due to her religious background.
“Who better than me, a mother of six, to sort out the complex issues of high-conflict custody battles? Who better than me, an LDS woman, to preside over child molestation cases where the victims and the juries need a gentle touch? Who better than me to handle domestic violence cases?
Mormonism teaches that opposition towards men is tantamount to arguing with God. The Mormon religion makes no distinction between clergy and laity, at least with regard to men (Laake 9). All Mormon men are ordained as members of the “priesthood,” with the absolute authority to preach the gospel, bestow blessings, prophecy, perform healings and baptisms, and generally speak for God. “Their priesthood gives them the right to advise and instruct the Saints (i.e., Mormons), and their jurisdiction extends over all things spiritual and temporal” (Snowden 134).
At age twelve, boys become members of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, and at nineteen become eligible for the Melchezedek, or higher priesthood. Members of either priesthood are higher authorities on everything than are non-members. Women are, of course, excluded from the priesthood. This practice in effect says that a woman’s prepubescent son is more qualified to advise her than she is to advise him.
Because of the doctrine of celestial marriage, it is very difficult for Mormon women to obtain divorces in the church. Women are told that “divorce is usually the result of one or both not living the gospel”, and that a woman who wants a divorce is “untrue to the covenants she has made in the house of the Lord” (Laake 176). Legal divorces are no problem to obtain, but they create many problems in the religious life of a Mormon; a church divorce is almost impossible. After a civil divorce, a woman’s temple recommend is rescinded (Laake 193). In other words, she is considered unworthy to enter the temple, until she can prove to the heads of the church that the divorce was not caused by adultery.
Mormon women today are still brought up to believe that the most important thing they can do is “to marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority” (McConkie 118). Deborah Laake, who was excommunicated in 1993 for writing Secret Ceremonies, states that “it had been repeatedly impressed on me that if I failed to marry a faithful Mormon man…in a Mormon temple, I would be denied access to the highest level of Mormon heaven” (Laake 4). The temple marriage is so important “that a longing for romance on earth should not be allowed to interfere with it” (Laake 77).
Girls and boys are also told that a good and proper Mormon home is a patriarchal one. A handbook written for fourteen year old boys states that, “The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity” (Laake 39). Husbands conduct family prayers, bless their wives and children, and generally control the household. They also are in charge of “family home evening”, one night per week set aside for family prayer and togetherness. The Mormon belief is that Eve’s roles in life, those of help-meet and child-bearer, set the pattern for all of her daughters (McConkie 844). Girls are told that God wants them at home (Laake 153), and boys are never taught to clean up after themselves, since when their mothers stop doing it for them, their wives will take over the job. These ideas, at least, have not changed at all since the nineteenth century.
The Mormon church of today is still clinging to the patriarchal beliefs of the nineteenth century; ideas which are becoming more outmoded every day. A few women in the Mormon church are trying to make a difference, but they are usually swiftly excommunicated (Laake 342; Johnson 351). In Mormon magazines, which are full of advice for women from the heads of the church, the message has changed in response to the feminist movement. In 1964, advice on marriage and divorce was fairly dispassionate; by 1972, these topics were addressed with increasing panic and harshness (Laake 175). Feminists are described as “the Pied Pipers of sin who have led women away from the divine role of womanhood down the pathway of error” (Laake 176).
The oppression of women is intertwined with the Mormon faith and that is the pervasive belief that exists in the Riverside Superior Court, where a culture has been allowed to develop where attorneys and the judiciary who advocate the LDS faith are accorded preferential status in the court. The Supreme Court has already ruled that religious paraphernalia cannot be posted in a court house in its ten commandment ruling (MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. (03-1693) 545 U.S. 844 (2005), 354 F.3d 438), and has already ruled on allowing religious practices in a Court and has specified that the separation of church and state exists and that discrimination of one religious practice over another violates the first amendment establishment clause which certainly includes a presiding judge and judiciary who cannot separate their belief from judicial rulings and belief policies and procedures that have no bearing on the actual law.
The Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1981. First English edition, 1830.
Fife, Austin and Fife, Alta Saints of Sage and Saddle. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 1980.
Green, N. W. Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie Smith. Hartford, Belknap & Bliss, 1870.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Four Major Cults. Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.
Johnson, Sonia From Housewife to Heretic. Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.
Laake, Deborah Secret Ceremonies, a Mormon Woman’s Intimate Diary or Marriage and Beyond. New York, Dell Publishing, 1993.
McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City, Bookcraft Inc., 1966.
Smith, Joseph The Prophet Joseph Smith’s Testimony. Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Snowden, James H. The Truth About Mormonism. New York, George H. Doran Co., 1926.
Wallace, Irving The Twenty-seventh Wife. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1961.
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
Republished from the Chieftain: Opinion of retired judge Hon. Judge Victor Reyes. Stop hitting, stop threatening, stop raping, stop beating, stop following, stop demanding, stop feeling entitled, s…
In the mind set of the Riverside Superior court judiciary we exist. We are characterized by definition as “an immoral woman who deceives people in order to get what she wants”. There ar…
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Act), a ballot initiative passed by California voters in 1974 as Proposition 9. The FDPPC has entered…
Well folks we have a situation where the father repeatedly alleges that the mother is a flight risk with no evidence to substantiate those factors. The mother has not even left the county in twelve years. In other cases where the mother has alleged that the father is a flight risk she was immediately labelled the least likely to share by Judge Wells of the Riverside Superior Court.
So an exparte was filed by “daddy” on 5/12/2011 once again withholding children against a court order and specifying that the mother is a flight risk where Judge Wells specified the following:
At a hearing to set aside a statement of decision of a trial based upon the fact that Judge Wells removed evidence of Daddy’s abuse against the mother and the children, declined to take into consideration that daddy’s allegations of an alleged flight risk status are unsubstantiated, declined to take…
View original post 397 more words
In the mind set of the Riverside Superior court judiciary we exist. We are characterized by definition as “an immoral woman who deceives people in order to get what she wants”. There are certain cases that all have one common denominator. Mothers who object to their children being abused and provided to drug/alcohol addicts and felon, where our only crime is to engage in healthy holistic activities with our children, where concern is expressed by the court as to the activities that said mother engages in, (see below excerpt from a custody trial and tentative statement of decision). No such concern is of course expressed for the fact that children are placed with alcoholics or drug addicts where pervasive rampant abuse is the norm; who conceal children from the other parent and disappear with them on a constant basis.
These are not isolated cases. There is a pattern, going back…
View original post 322 more words
I am an alienator. You know me well. You lived with me once and you witnessed my behavior patterns but you did not spend time studying and internalizing them. I know your behavior patterns better than you know them yourself. I know how to measure you, test you and control you. I know what your hooks are and I know that the depth of the love for your children is a weakness I can exploit. I am an emotional terrorist. I will terrify you into submission. You will do as I tell you to do, if you do not, I will take your children away. Continue reading