Fictitious abduction risk of the “Foreigner”.

 The definition of abduction is defined in CA family code 6420 section (c) which defines abduction as follows:

"Abduct" means take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal.

So imagine a scenario where a parent repeatedly screams from the rooftops that the other parent is a foreigner. Said foreigner has not left the country in 14 years, has never purchased flight tickets, has never withheld or concealed the children or traveled with the children out of state, has expired passports and is a PERMANENT legal resident. However, the other parent with his family who are US citizens have left the state with the children, refused to inform the foreigner parent where they were, have repeatedly concealed the children from their foreigner mother and have repeatedly withheld the children at length, delighting in the fact that they are U.S. citizens and above the law and that the trial court protects them.

At an exparte filed by the parent who screams foreigner at every proceeding Judge Dale Wells had the following to say regarding the “evidence” presented by the father as to the alleged abduction risk:

There are a few unpublished decisions that have dealt with the flight risk allegations. In a writ proceeding in GAS v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2007 the 4th district specifically commented on the fact that the court used an illegal exparte procedure which violated all due process and reversed the trial court order on an expedited basis as SOME courts do act in an expeditious manner so that the parent/child relationship is preserved, rather than torturing a parent and children for years.

The Fourth District court specifically commented as follows:

The trial court did not follow proper ex parte procedure. Rule 5.3.14 applies to ex parte requests to change a minor’s vacation, or change the holiday visitation schedule or the school the minor attends. Strictly speaking, the rule does not apply to this case because, on the record before us, there is no “change” of the vacation, holiday visitation schedule or school. Even if we assume it arguably applies, rule 5.3.14 “disfavor[s]” ex parte requests in such situations and directs that these matters be heard on the regular motion calendar on shortened time.

The application of rule 5.3.13 is even more perplexing. The rule provides in part: “Pursuant to Family Code section 3064, other than stipulated orders, ex parte orders regarding child custody and visitation will be granted only upon a clear showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California.” Family Code section 3064 prohibits the court from making any order “granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California.”[4] Facially, the statute and rule do not apply because it was mother who had sole legal and physical custody of S. under the court’s June 18 order, and it was father who was seeking a modification of custody and attempting to remove S. from the state.

We conclude the court violated mother’s procedural rights by allowing S. to travel to Jordan and requiring mother to relinquish S.’s passport to father’s counsel.[5] Because the relevant facts are not in dispute, the law is clear, and the matter is urgent requiring acceleration of resolution, we conclude a peremptory writ in the first instance is proper. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223, disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hosp. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.)

In another case, Di Napoli v. Di Napoli, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 6th Div. 2012, the court specifically allowed the mother, a Taiwan and US citizen, to move to Taiwan, a country that is not part of the Hague convention. The court specifically refrained from referring to the mother as a flight risk and merely ordered that she post a $ 10,000 bond as a condition for her move to Taiwan with the child.


One comment on “Fictitious abduction risk of the “Foreigner”.

  1. Judge Dale Wells blatantly committed fraud and lied in open court, in fact there is not one judicial canon, amendment right, statute, evidence code, CA rule of court, etc. this aberrant megalomaniac wielder of power has not violated. He single-handedly managed to put the notorious Riverside Superior Court on the global map as a kangaroo court and organized crime entity, confirming international perception that the US judiciary, particularly family court judges, are the most corrupt in the world. Wells committed a CRIME and WILL be held criminally and financially liable for the horrific human rights abuses and torture inflicted on parents and their children! This also applies to the respective presiding judges, covering up Wells’ multiple impeachable acts of judicial malfeasance, and to his unqualified, corrupt Pavlovian sycophants (mediators, custody evaluators) who in blind obedience to their FÜHRER ruthlessly commit perjury “in the best interest of the child”. Wells is a disgrace to the judiciary and a menace to society, which justifies an urgent call for new legislation – MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING OF JUDGES before rogue judges like him, who willfully and maliciously endangers the health and life of children, are let loose in family courts.

    Wells and cohorts, triumphantly riding on the wave of fictitious immunity, will soon find out that the tide has turned when a tsunami comes crushing down on them.

    Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge’s connivance with, aiding and abetting, another judge’s criminal activity.

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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