Presiding Judge Cope has previously advocated that litigants have the constitutional right to access a court system, confirming that his words are utterly meaningless when it comes to his own actions in this court.
I am hereby lodging a complaint to the CJP against Presiding Judge Cope due to the willful and prejudicial delay in addressing a contempt of court matter which was received by the Court on 4/25/2014 (enclosed). Presiding Judge Cope has initiated a policy of mandating that all documents need to be received and forwarded to him as he refuses to lift a vexatious litigant prefiling order that was initiated in a family law case against this litigant and against the Supreme Court policy defined in Shalant v. Girardi, (2011) 51 CAL. 4TH 1164, 253 P.3D 266, 126 CAL. RPTR. 3D 98, which specifies that the vexatious litigant statute cannot be applied to individual motions or pleadings in ONE case. As of this date no action has been taken on the contempt of court matter, exceeding ninety days, which quite clearly details only some of the violation of all prevailing court orders by the other party in this case. According to California rules of court 10.603 (3) The presiding judge must supervise and monitor the number of causes under submission before the judges of the court and ensure that no cause under submission remains undecided and pending for longer than 90 days.
Presiding Judge Cope’s actions violate CA Government code section 68210 which states that no judge of a court of record shall receive his salary unless he shall make and subscribe before an officer entitled to administer oaths, an affidavit stating that no cause before him remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision. The CA government government code is based on California Constitution Article VI Judicial Section 19 which specifies that a judge of a court of record may not receive the salary for the judicial office held by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision, Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1985) 40 Cal.3d 473, 477, fn. 4 [220 Cal.Rptr. 833, 709 P.2d 852] (Mardikian).
The Riverside Superior Court has made it clear that it protects the outrageous and malicious actions of the other parent in this case at all cost. Judge Cope’s actions involve violations of Canons 3A (judicial duties to take precedence over other matters) and 3B(8) (judge to dispose of matters promptly), canons 1 (independence and integrity of judiciary) and 2A (judges to respect and comply with the law so as to promote public confidence) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
An objective observer would be shocked by the lengthy decision delays in family law cases which has an adverse impact on the administration of justice in Riverside County. This Commission has cited judges repeatedly for length delays that exceed the ninety day period, In re McCullough (1987) 43 Cal.3d 534,. 535 , Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1985) 40 Cal.3d 473, 477, fn. , In re Jensen (1978) 24 Cal.3d 72, 73 [154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 593 P.2d 200], In re Creede (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1098, 1099 , Public Admonishment of Judge Robert H. Oliver (1998), Public Reproval of Judge Thomas Breen (1995).