The length of judicial carnage that the Riverside Superior Court will stoop to never ceases. The driving force currently is Presiding Judge Cope who prevents perfectly valid litigation to be filed in order to cover up for the rampant judicial malfeasance and malevolence.
As an example there was a hearing on the 26th of December 2013 which legally required that it be granted. To no one’s surprise the relevant judicial officer screwed up in a number of ways and did not address the relevant legal standard of the hearing or the best interest of the child standard mandated by statute.
Normally any litigant has the legal right to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of any ruling pointing out new facts, circumstances or new law pursuant to CCP section 1008.
Just not select litigants in the Riverside Superior court where Presiding Judge Cope is instrumental in preventing that the law is addressed.
So a parent filed a motion for reconsideration and change of custody and visitation on an exparte basis as the screw up on the 26th had some serious consequences for both the parent and the children in this case and absolutely did not meet the legal standard REQUIRED for that hearing.
Presiding Judge Cope instructed the clerk of the court not to file the litigation and it was receive stamped.
The judicial officer responsible for the order or the court that rendered the decision is responsible for the reconsideration pursuant to CCP 1008, which needs to be filed within 10 days of the date of the order requiring reconsideration.
The request for order was filed as an exparte before 12 pm, which again required the court to file it immediately pursuant to CA rule of court 1.20 a, and Rule 3.1205. which specifies:
Notwithstanding the failure of an applicant to comply with the requirements of rule 3.1203, the clerk must not reject an exparte application for filing and must promptly present the application to the appropriate judicial officer for consideration. Promptly means immediately on the same date that it is filed and to the judicial officer assigned to the case.
Presiding Judge Cope decided to deny the litigation on 12/30/2013 on an MC 701 form. The problem with that scenario is that none was filed by the litigant and it requires a signature of said litigant and is an optional form. That of course doesn’t matter to the court, where the litigation was deemed filed by the court when the clerk received it pursuant to CA rules of court 1.20 (a).
Then one day later a second form materializes; the MC 702 form denying the MC 701 form that the litigant did not file, but which the presiding judge did.
A few hours later the MC 702 and MC 701 form were replaced with an order denying the litigation. It is very apparent that Presiding Judge Cope will do everything he can to cover up and deny perfectly valid litigation to deny that anyone address the judicial malfeasance and malevolence that is rampant in the Riverside Superior Court.