Reports are cropping up that Presiding Judge Cope of the Riverside Superior Court, is creating his own laws in violation of the relevant statute.
One such scenario concerns a CCP 170.1 challenge that Presiding Judge Cope ruled on.
Once a 170.1 challenge has been filed, the responsible judicial officer has to notify the presiding judge that there is a disqualification proceeding. However, in the case described here, http://intellihub.com/2013/06/06/theres-a-reason-they-are-called-courts/ presiding Judge Mark Cope took it upon himself to rule on the disqualification challenge, exceeding his role of presiding judge and from all reports the ruling disappeared for two weeks, to prevent a writ of mandate being filed.
The disqualification according to the CCP 170.3 statute shall be decided in the following manner: Under CCP 170.3 5, a judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
The Riverside Superior Court public is quite clearly not being served in the appropriate manner by this court and Presiding Judge Cope quite clearly is instrumental in covering up for the court’s mistakes even going so far as to instruct the clerks of the Superior Court not to file litigation and declarations of certain litigants.
Presiding Judges are normally supposed to be elected by the other judicial officers in the court according to title ten rules; however, over the last 6 years the assistant presiding judges have automatically assumed the role of presiding judge when the 2 year presiding judge term has expired. It does not appear that the court actually holds the procedures required to appoint a presiding judge, http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/localrules/title10.pdf. The public does have the right to recourse over a corrupt presiding judge, who quite apparently is more interested in covering up for the court’s pervasive and malicious rulings. One recourse is through petitioning the judicial council to remove the Presiding Judge if he/she consistently abuses his presiding judge role clearly defined by statute.
The 4th District division 2 appeals court is the other resource that litigants have, IF they know how to petition the appeal court.