Judge Dale Wells, Indio family law department, Riverside Superior Court cannot contain himself. This is the fourth time that he attempted to sanction a litigant proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he abuses his judicial robe to conduct a vindictive, malicious and malevolent witch-hunt against this litigant in case IND 098669.
For Judge Dale Wells, it wasn’t enough to maliciously sanction this litigant with her children as documented in this transcript. https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/judge-dale-wells-issues-children-as-sanctions-against-a-parent/
Judge Wells attempted to sanction this litigant by scribbling sanctions on the motion that was filed, against the prevailing rules of Court. https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/judge-wells-scribbles-sanctions-on-a-litigants-motion-in-violation-of-ca-rule-of-court-3-200/
Now at today’s hearing Judge Wells couldn’t contain his obsessive, malicious sanctioning disorder and once again issued sanctions without notice, violating due process requirements once again, in his stampeding haste to judicially retaliate against this litigant and acting as the father’s attorney. A motion to compel was filed as the other party had not complied with a discovery request. Judge Wells managed to turn this once again into a non-noticed sanctions motion against this litigant demonstrating conclusively that he cannot adhere to the law and that he malevolently retaliates at all costs and that he is an embarrassment to the institution of law. The latest minute order from today is pasted below.
HONORABLE JUDGE DALE R. WELLS PRESIDING.
CLERK: R. AGUILASOCHO
COURT REPORTER: T. DIBLE
____________ PRESENT IN COURT PRO PER.
XXXXXXXXX PRESENT IN COURT PRO PER.
PARTIES SWORN ENMASSE.
NOTICE GIVEN/ATTEMPTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
ISSUES ARGUED BY BOTH SIDES.
COURT MAKES NO ORDER AS TO MOTION TO COMPEL; THERE IS NOTHING PENDING AT THIS TIME.
COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FC 271 AS TO ____________ DENIED.
COURT FINDS THAT XXXXXX HAS ABUSED DISCOVERY AS INDICATED ON THE RECORD.
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $200.00 IMPOSED ON XXXXXXX PAYABLE TO ______ ON OR BEFORE 10/01/12
IF THE COURT BECOMES AWARE THAT XXXXXX HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER TO PAY $200.00;
THIS COURT MAY ISSUE A FURTHER OSC RE SANCTIONS UNDER CCP 177.5 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY. SANCTIONS
UNDER CCP 177.5 COULD BE IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $1500.00.
MINUTE ENTRY COMPLETED.
Sanctions cannot be awarded against litigants without notice on an oral basis as it violates due process requirements, which was also addressed in Kleytman v. Pechonkina, Case No. A130779 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 24, 2012) where, ex-husband was assessed $1,500 in attorney’s fees as a Family Code section 271 sanction for filing a motion for reconsideration that was denied. The fee request as in this case was made by the judge, not the litigant, orally at the hearing in violation of due process. Other appeal cases have followed the same ruling, (Trail v. Cornwell (1984), 161 Cal.App.3d 477 [written noticed motion required]; Blumenthal v. Superior Court(1980), 103 Cal..App.3d 317 [trial court rev’d for awarding sanctions against attorney when no notice was given that sanctions would be sought against the attorney and attorney did not appear at the hearing]; Corralejo v. Quiroga (1984), 152 Cal.App.3d 871 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 733 [128.5 sanctions];
Jones v. Otero (1984), 156 Cal.App.3d 754 [Request at trial without notice & in absence of opposing attorney; dismissal request solicited by judge for attorney failure to pay $], that notice is a mandatory requirement, just not in Judge Dale Wells court room, where the pattern of vindictive, vexatious and malicious judicial harassment against this litigant prevails.