Some of the litigants that experience this court are quite familiar with the cover up that occurs to protect the trial court. Opinions are rendered where anyone with any common sense and the grasp of the English language applauds the latest fiction as worthy of being published as a new fiction novella. There is no application of law in the opinions that are produced.
Justice Richli for example denied a perfectly valid writ proceeding citing an “alleged” exparte.
The problem is that the exparte took place. Any person observing these proceedings could also reasonably infer that the court displays considerable bias and prejudice towards the litigant by using “alleged” as alleged implies that something is unfounded, not true. It must be a pink elephant figment of the litigant’s imagination. The record has EXPARTE screamed from the roof tops of the judge issuing said “alleged” exparte. Substantive and procedural due process mandates that the court examine the mechanism by which an order was issued as it a question of law of undisputed facts.
There are several instances which the court of appeal has presided over where they have combined both writs and appeals as it is common practice. One such case is a juvenile case recently decided: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E059401.PDF
There are several instances where the court has reached a decision on restraining orders affirming them where considerably less abuse was presented in these proceedings than has been presented in the appeals of one litigant.
Pending appeal: https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/fourth-district-division-two-court-still-has-to-issue-an-opinion-in-a-restraining-order-where-the-respondent-agreed-to-the-stay-away-order-of-a-restraining-order/
The Fourth District San Diego division highlighted some of the emails in its opinion upholding the restraining order decision http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D064014.PDF which mirror the emails, text messages and public statements that have been allowed to escalate out of control in a case where the trial court refuses to act and where the appeal court refuses to issue an opinion, believing that a case is frozen in time when an appeal is filed and where a custody appeal is dragged out for over 1020 days.
The point folks is a cover up as a different standard of law is applied to certain select litigants who have been selected for that privilege.