Cover up for the Riverside Superior court by the Fourth District Division Two appeal court.

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:

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:

The Fourth District San Diego division highlighted some of the emails in its opinion upholding the restraining order decision 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.


One comment on “Cover up for the Riverside Superior court by the Fourth District Division Two appeal court.

  1. Given the fact that some of these taxpayer-funded state actors, clinging like Velcro to the bench, are past their retirement age,some of their meritless, unintelligible and frivolous subjective “opinions”, rife with factual and legal errors, reserved for selected litigants who dare to appeal the gross human, civil and constitutional rights abuses inflicted on them by aberrant wielders of power in the lower court, are of immense concern to the public and bode the urgent question whether these public servants are flirting with dementia or are committing a crime as defined in Section 242 of Title 18 under the guise of fictitious “judicial discretion” and fictitious “immunity”, which in both cases warrants their immediate removal from the bench.

    Furthermore, since judges are not elected on merit but solely by virtue of their political affiliation and blatant cronyism, some of them are not the brightest bulb either and clearly have missed this particular memo:

    ” When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
    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.”

    In this context, the “honorable” JUSTICE MCKINSTER of the Fourth District Court of Appeal Div 2, committed a Title 18 crime by INVENTING phone calls a mother allegedly made to her children in accordance with a phone-contact order, which NEVER OCCURRED, substantiated by her phone records, to uphold a “harassment” charge, thus conniving,aiding and abetting the criminal activity of another judge ( in this case an unqualified commissioner Lawrence P.Best, who had not even filed his mandatory oath of office with the Secretary of State) who in turn connived with, aided and abetted the other “parent” to fabricate a “deportable offense” to eradicate the LEGAL immigrant mother from her children’s life.

    The international community who has been following this horrific case with growing anger and horror and termed it a Nazi-style witch hunt, persecution and “final solution” extermination of a legal immigrant mother whose only “crime” is her German and South African nationality, which “warranted” the brutal separation from her children, is waiting with bated breath for the next illegal manoeuvrings concocted by these “eminent” xenophobic pillars of society.

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