Judge Wells scribbles sanctions on a litigant’s motion in violation of CA rule of court 3.20

sanctions

Judge Wells did not think it was enough to sanction her mother with her children; see previous posting regarding using children as punitive sanctions against a parent. Judge Wells, the local judicial weapon of mass destruction of the Riverside Superior Court, continues with his violation of law, rules and procedure by scribbling sanctions on a litigants Exparte Motion that was filed that specifically addresses his conflicting sanctions order from the 5th of August 2011. The Sanctions to be addressed at the hearing pertain to Riverside Superior Court local rule 5.165 for filing an exparte.

However, this “notice” violates CA rules of court 3.20 and CA rules of Court 3.120-3.1207 as Judge Dale Wells appears to be unaware of the fact that CA rules of court 3.20 prevail and a scribbled request for sanctions by Judge Dale Wells certainly does not conform to CA rules of court or Judicial council requirements. It merely illustrates how far this court is willing to illegally  sanction a litigant who refuses to have her children allocated as sanctions against her.

Specifically, CA rules of court 3.20 states “ The Judicial Council has preempted all local rules relating to pleadings, demurrers, ex parte applications, motions, discovery, provisional remedies, and the form and format of papers. No trial court, or any division or branch of a trial court, may enact or enforce any local rule concerning these fields. All local rules concerning these fields are null and void unless otherwise permitted or required by a statute or a rule in the California Rules of Court.

CA rule of court 3.120-1.207 does not contain a provision for sanctioning a litigant for filing an exparte for good cause.

CCP 575.1(a) authorizes “local rules designed to expedite and facilitate the business of the court.”   Local rules are valid only to the extent that they do not conflict with statutes and the CRC. (See, e.g., 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Courts, §§ 186, 201 and 204;  Gov.Code § 68070(a).)  

 

Advertisements

2 comments on “Judge Wells scribbles sanctions on a litigant’s motion in violation of CA rule of court 3.20

  1. And would someone please enlighten both the Presiding Judge Ellsworth of the Riverside Superior Court and Judge Dale Wells who bases his vexatious and unlawful decisions on his own subjective “belief” that there is no such thing as JUDICIAL DISCRETION, as under the Supreme Law of the Land “courts are the mere instruments of the law and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere LEGAL discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by LAW, and when that is discerned it is the DUTY of the court to follow it. JUDICIAL POWER IS NEVER EXERCISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE WILL OF THE JUDGE;always exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).

    By willfully violating all prevailing laws, statutes, judicial canons, evidence codes, judicial custody bench guides, human, civil, constitutional rights, notably litigants’ Fourth and Fifteenth Amendment Rights, discriminating against them because of their socioeconomic status, national status, country of origin and even their religion, Judge Dale Wells violates his oath of office and thus commits treason against the Constitution.

    May I remind this court that contrary to Mr. Gross’ ludicrous assumption, who has been inciting this court since December 2009 against the “foreigner” and “blood-sucking immigrant” to whom he has been married for 10 years and shamelessly exploited as a lucrative meal ticket and incubator, that because of his US citizenship and endowment with a penis – the latter clearly considered the most important parameter on which custody decisions are based by judicial officers practising medieval patriarchy – he has a right to OWN and ABUSE the children and treat them as chattel, the Supreme Court most certainly does not condone Well’s outrageous violations of my daughter’s rights. In fact, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that ” “The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s