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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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