For those of us familiar with different cultures there is a strong familiarity with the Indian caste system that used to segregate the population into different classes.
The same concept exists in the CA judiciary, as only judicial officers according to prevailing belief are allowed to be parents. The rest of us are viewed as “vermin” and litigants and not parents. The Superior Court including the Riverside Superior court and the relevant court of appeal have developed a whole new “class” of individuals a concept that is not based on any law but a “belief”.
Under this concept, parents are “entitled” to be abused. The children in diverse cases deserve to be exposed to sheer hatred and insanity against the other parent with no relief in sight as they are viewed as IT entities, with no feelings or their RIGHT to a childhood. Indeed it is only the diverse judicial officers who are allocated the constitutional right to be a parent as demonstrated by former Presiding Judge Ellsworth who was hailed as a devoted mother in the media. However, she had no compunction in harming other mothers and their children where the court still covers up for rulings that occurred in certain cases.
The Riverside Superior Court and the Appeal Court have gone so far as to develop a new caste system, for the parents described above, labeled as the vexatious parent. There are no laws and procedures enshrined in the legislature that allows a court of appeal and the superior court to sit on family law litigation and to place an indefinite stay on proceedings. Indeed nowhere in the section 391 statute does it specify anywhere that a STAY can be placed on proceedings in any capacity. Instead California rules of court 1.20a specifically states: “Unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is received by the court clerk”. By definition it does not matter if the court files it; the filing date is DEEMED when the court clerk receives it and needs to be addressed by the judicial officer involved in the time manner prescribed by statute. The Supreme Court has already struck down the invidious discrimination displayed by a court of appeal and a district court who engages in caste discrimination in the case of In Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), where the Supreme Court struck down a procedure where the petitioners seeking to reinstate an appeal were required to state what issues would be raised on appeal and to show that the previous denial of the appeal had been prejudicial to them.
A similar concept regarding stay provisions was addressed in a published opinion of a writ of supersedeas, which specified the following: “Special proceedings are subject to the stay provisions of Part 2 ONLY if the statute creating the special proceeding expressly incorporates them.”The court held that the order was not automatically stayed because the proceeding wasn’t really an “action” for purposes of the rules governing stays and undertakings on appeal in a civil “action.” (Code Civ. Proc. secs. 22-23.) In fact, the parties agreed that the involuntary dissolution suit was a “special proceeding” under Code of Civil Procedure section 23. Since the stay provisions (Code of Civil Procedure sections 916 et seq.) of Part 2 of the Code apply only in civil actions, the decree was not automatically stayed; Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc., case no. G041305 (4th Dist. Jan. 15, 2009). The same concept applies to the stay system that the appeal court has creatively implemented with anyone that has been declared vexatious. First of all by implementing a stay the court of appeal recognizes the automatic stay provision of CCP section 916. More importantly the vexatious litigant statute quite categorically does not provide for a stay mechanism of an appeal, suggesting a fundamental violation of due process and equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment.
However, this does not stop these courts in engaging in sheer judicial battery and malfeasance abusing the law to retaliate against certain litigants. After all it’s just a game to the judiciary involved where children are viewed as nothing but trash to be discarded at will.
Perhaps presiding Judge Cope of the Riverside Superior Court can spare the litigants who are familiar with the Riverside Superior Court the sheer mockery of his statement: “This courthouse will stand as a beautiful metaphor and a beautiful symbol of the rule of law,” http://www.courts.ca.gov/17280.htm. The Riverside Superior court has demonstrated time and time again in its long history that the LAW does not exist in this court.