The 4th District division 2 appeal court has decided to legislate from the bench, and usurp the CA legislature and title eight rules of court which is strictly prohibited by CA rules of court 8.20 as California rules of court prevail.
Presiding Judge Ramirez has invented new rules and procedures not contained in CA rules of court or in the body of law that controls the court’s interpretation of the law. The expectation of any litigant is that the court of appeal will actually address the abuse of discretion rulings of the trial court. That simply is not the case when the court of appeal itself abuses its position to appoint itself as the CA legislature.
Presiding Justice Ramirez has invented a “policy” of insisting that litigants who have been declared “vexatious” need to “APPLY” for an appeal with a written application once a notice of appeal has been filed. In fact Presiding Justice Ramirez actually issues an order, like the one below, staying said appeal, until the application has been filed and ruled upon.
“1/10/2014 Stay order filed. Applnt to file on or before 10 days, a rqst for permission to file the appeal & a correctly completed civil case info statement.”
Once that has been done the court sits on the appeal for months on end. The court is unable to produce the title eight rules of court or the piece of legislature that it relies upon to issue the vexatious order insisting on an application.
A gander into the CA legislature actually points out that the word application is not listed in the CCP § 391 Statute, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/3A/s391.7 and is not incorporated by reference in any capacity as an application that an allegedly “vexatious” litigant has to submit to the court. The only filing that is referenced in the vexatious statute is whether the action to be filed has merit and the resulting order from the presiding justice pursuant to CCP § 391.7. Similarly, there is no terminology contained in the vexatious statute that allows a court to decide the merit of an application, (which is not referenced in any capacity in the VLS statute), before it has been filed and reject it when it was received pursuant to California rules of court 1.20a. There is also no terminology in the VLS that specifies that a court can implement a malicious stay until the merit of the filing has been “recognized”, subjecting a parent and his/her children to further irreparable harm, nor is a time frame of months to decide an application referenced. Pursuant to California rules of court 1.20 a,and title rule 8.25 (b) a document is deemed filed on the date when it is received by the clerk. The time frame for the filing is governed by the underlying action of the litigation presented.
Once the application has been filed Presiding Justice Ramirez has instructed the Clerks of the court to return all litigation including motions to consolidate said applications that deal with similar actions again usurping the role of the CA legislature as nowhere does it specify that a litigant may not file a motion to consolidate the vexatious applications that the court insists on for actions that are similar in nature and content and in the interest of judicial economy.
01/24/2014 Returned document for non-conformance. Applnt’s motion to consolidate Exxxxx with Exxxxx. Motion is premature. No ruling on application for appeal as of this date.
Indeed CA rules of court 1.20(a) specifies that the document is deemed filed when the clerk receives it and the court has filed prior motions to consolidate. Not in the mindset of the CA appeal court judiciary who goes so far as to create vexatious rules and procedures not defined in any statute or body of law, legislating from the bench. Nowhere in the CA legislature is it specified that a notice of appeal is even considered to be ‘new litigation’
The court is unable to produce a single title rule of court or ANY law to allow for the malicious procedures that are capriciously invented on the spur of the moment, quite clearly demonstrating its vexatious discrimination that violate the 14th amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law and the 1st amendment right to governmental redress.
Pursuant to Rule 8.20 California rules of court prevail and a court of appeal MUST accept for filing a record, brief or other document that complies with the California rules of court . Unilaterally imposed local rules of court have no relevance.