Shared parenting during a divorce.

Shared parenting, on paper, is a good concept as both parents under California law have the right to children, (and vice versa);  and the right to a parent child relationship is protected under our fourteenth amendment. Our constitution in this country guarantees that the relationship between parents and their children is accorded a protected preferential status.The fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to a protected familial parent child relationship was already recognized in IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir. Nev. 1988) and Carey v.Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-685 (1977), where the United States Supreme Court repeatedly teaches that there is “a right of personal privacy” which includes “family relationships,” and child rearing and education.   Our California legislature recognizes shared parenting as a mandatory right according  to CA family code section 3020  (b) which specifies :

(b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public
policy of this state to assure that children have frequent and
continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated
or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and to
encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child
rearing in order to effect this policy, except where the contact
would not be in the best interest of the child, as provided in
Section 3011.

Continue reading

Calling for legislative changes to the VLS statute.

Most CA family law parents who have been muzzled by a trial court have been deemed vexatious. The purpose is to place a legal gag order on parents as generally in most cases there is court corruption or heinous rulings that the court desperately wants to cover up, hence the legal muzzling.

Originally the vexatious litigant statute (VLS) in CA was intended to apply to litigants who sued judges; and upon a proposal by the Los Angeles county bar association the VLS statute in CA was born.

The court’s ability to make such a determination originated from an obscure and little-known state statute. In 1963, the California legislature passed the Vexatious Litigant Statute (“VLS”), defining and regulating vexatious litigants. In 1990, the California Legislature amended the VLS to provide state court judges the power to issue “prefiling orders,” which, once issued, bar individuals previously or contemporaneously classified as vexatious litigants from filing additional complaints without first obtaining leave from the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. The VLS is relatively unique among state statutes. Over the years the judicial council has amended its application to include family law proceedings where it  cannot be applied as family law is dynamic and the underlying family law or appeal case litigation is not addressed in the VLS statute. The review process and changes by the judicial council can be viewed in previous changes to the statute.  http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/20101214item3.pdf

Our California Supreme Court has specified that the vexatious litigant application cannot be applied in one CIVIL case as defined in the Shalant court. For the purposes of defining civil law, family law is contained in Civil law as helpfully specified by the legal aid society. Civil law refers to almost all other disputes—these are the rules that apply when one  person sues another person, a business or agency. This can cover a housing case such as
for eviction or foreclosure, a family case such as divorce or custody, consumer problems  such as debt or bankruptcy, or when someone sues for money because of damage to  property or personal harm. All of these cases go to a Civil Court.

The Shalant opinion specified:  “Reading the vexatious litigant statutes as a collective whole, defendants’ construction is not a plausible one. If “litigation” as defined in section 391, subdivision (a) included every motion or other procedural step taken during an action or special proceeding, and that definition were applied throughout the vexatious litigant statutes, several provisions would take on absurd, unworkable, or clearly unintended meanings. Under section 391, subdivision (b)(1), a person could be declared a vexatious litigant for losing five motions—all of which might have been filed in the same lawsuit—in a seven-year period. Section 391, subdivision (b)(3)’s reference to “motions, pleadings, or other papers” filed in the course of a litigation would make little sense if every motion, pleading, or paper filed was itself a new litigation. Under section 391.1, the defendant could move for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security each time the plaintiff filed a motion or took any other procedural step. The trial court would then have to hold a hearing—separate from any hearing on the motion itself—and determine whether the plaintiff was reasonably likely to prevail on the motion or other procedural step. (§ 391.2.) On a negative finding, the court would then be required to order the plaintiff to furnish security, presumably cumulative to any ordered at earlier stages of the action. (§ 391.3.) If the plaintiff failed to provide the security, the action would, according to section 391.4, be “dismissed,” though the negative ruling on a motion is ordinarily referred to as a “denial” rather than a “dismissal.”

Under section 391.7 itself, defendants’ construction of “litigation” would be unworkable. A vexatious litigant in Shalant’s position, having filed the action through counsel but then having lost representation, would be required to seek permission of the presiding judge before filing any motion or other paper. The presiding judge of the court would thus be placed in the position of overseeing each procedural step of an action pending in another department and deciding in each instance whether the particular motion, pleading, or paper had “merit.” (§ 391.7, subd. (b).)[5] If the clerk inadvertently filed any motion or other paper from the plaintiff, a notice from any other party that the plaintiff was subject to a prefiling order would automatically stay the “litigation” (§ 391.7, subd. (c))—that is, the particular motion filed or other procedural step taken—but the rest of the action would not necessarily be stayed at the same time. Pretrial and trial proceedings would be constantly interrupted for trips to the presiding judge’s department; an orderly and efficient trial would be impossible. Again, the statute provides that if permission is not granted, an inadvertently filed litigation is to be “dismissed” (ib id.), indicating the drafters did not intend each motion, which would ordinarily be granted or denied, but not “dismissed,” to be considered a separate “litigation.”

(11) Section 391.7, then, is not reasonably susceptible to a reading under which a prefiling order would bar the vexatious litigant from filing motions or other papers in propria persona even when the action (or special proceeding (see §§ 22, 23)) was itself properly filed through counsel. Any ambiguity on this point, moreover, would be dispelled by examination of the legislative history behind section 391.7’s enactment, which shows a clear focus on precluding vexatious litigants from filing in propria persona unmeritorious new “actions” or “lawsuits.”[7] Nowhere in this history is there any suggestion the new section would bar vexatious litigants from filing motions or papers in pending litigation.

The additional remedy provided by section 391.7 was, instead, “directed at precluding the initiation of a meritless lawsuit and the costs associated with defending such litigation.” (Bravo v. Ismaj, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 222, italics added.); Shalant v. Girardi, (2011) 253 P. 3d 266).

Technically assuming that the legal construction of the VLS statute holds as outlined in the Shalant court, the VLS statute cannot be applied to family law cases as a person would have to be married and divorced 5 times in seven year to qualify as a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP § 391 (a). California has a mandatory six months waiting period before a dissolution judgment can be granted once a divorce petition has been filed therefore it is a legal impossibility to remarry and divorce 5 times in seven years.

The specific reason why the VLS statute cannot be applied in family law cases and in appellate case has been detailed below. Continue reading

Appellate division of the Riverside Superior court reverses illegal injunction filing order but upholds illegal eviction.

The appellate division of the Superior Court issued its opinion relating to a filing injunction and relating to the illegal eviction in an unlawful detainer case. The court reversed the filing injunction but declined to take into consideration the fact that the co-defendant in this case was never served and alleged that the appellant had never presented why she had standing to bring this issue up as a witness to the lack of service, defendant and joint title holder of the property. The appellant had indeed brought this very issue up in her opening brief and cited a case that was to the point of the unlawful detainer lack of service where the appellate court in that case reversed. Indeed the unlawful detainer court initially refused to set the matter for trial as the co-defendant was never served.

The appellate division as basis for it decision instead cited a Federal case that has no relevance to an unlawful detainer case, as it deals with jury selection and certainly does not refer to third party standing in an unlawful detainer case. The case cited was Powers v. Ohio – 499 U.S. 400 (1991) a jury selection case that dealt with race issues in peremptory challenges.

“During jury selection at his state court trial for aggravated murder and related offenses, petitioner Powers, a white man, objected to the State’s use of peremptory challenges to remove seven black venirepersons from the jury. Powers’ objections, which were based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, were overruled, the impaneled jury convicted him on several counts, and he was sentenced to prison. On appeal, he contended that the State’s discriminatory use of peremptories violated, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and that his own race was irrelevant to the right to object to the peremptories. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Held: Under the Equal Protection Clause, a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded jurors share the same race. Pp. 499 U. S. 404-416.”

The opinion and opening brief have been included below. Of course the fact that one of the judges on the unlawful detainer appellate panel has a conflict of interest as he refused to rescind the sale of the joint community property case in a related foreclosure action has no “relevance”. Continue reading

Due process violations alive and well in Department PS2 of the Riverside Superior Court.

The Riverside Superior Court has completely re-structured itself for reasons largely unknown to the general public.  All civil cases for example were moved to Palm Springs. One would assume that with the re-structuring and new judges that the law would prevail and be applied. Alas that is not the case.  A tentative decision in a civil case was very specific in its due process violations involving attorneys.

In INC 1205453 Dobbins v. Dobbins the court announced a tentative decision to sanction the attorneys for filing a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories. The reason cited was lack of justification for filing the motion, i.e. “Court finds that this motion was filed without substantial justification, and imposes  sanctions against the moving party in the amount of $750.00 payable to defense within  20 days. Prevailing party to give notice.”

Both parties in that case are represented by attorneys which requires that notice and opportunity to be heard  be provided before allocating sanctions to satisfy the legislative mandatory due process requirements. The relevant appeal cases have already addresses that issue:

Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980), 103 Cal..App.3d 317Corralejo v. Quiroga (1984), 152 Cal.App.3d 871 [notice for 128.5 sanctions against attorney required too satisfy due process].
 In another case the court denied an exparte citing an invalid proof of service when the notice of exparte hearing was mailed.
The manner of the notice is not specified and a party may notify another party by mail of an exparte hearing as long as the notification is before ten am the prior business day, pursuant to CA rule 3.1203
Perhaps the Court may want to familiarize itself with the law instead of allocating a belief standard to its rulings violating CA rules of court and the mandatory equal protection and legislative due process standard defined by the relevant statute.

Comments on VLS petition demonstrate its malevolent abuse by the CA judiciary.

A petition to abolish the vexatious litigant statute application in family law, http://www.change.org/petitions/steven-jahr-director-of-the-aoc-abolish-the-vexatious-litigant-statute-in-family-law-cases-in-california,  has gathered quite a few comments demonstrating the malicious abuse of the CA judiciary in family law proceedings.

Litigants have been declared vexatious by simply filing a response to an order to show cause and attorneys have been declared vexatious by simply providing legal advice rather than actively representing their clients in a case.

The comments have been included below:

Donna Farris Greenfield, ME 2013-09-04 Parental Rights are essential to protecting our precious children.

Denise Ellen Austin Australia 2013-09-05 Justice for all, not just a few.

Ana Cuebas Catano, Puerto Rico 2013-09-05 If there is one area of law that requires the parties to be heard that area is family law. We are talking about the destiny of our nation, our children.

Jorge Ambert san juan, Puerto Rico 2013-09-05 real justice should be served

Ingrid Blank Merrivale, South Africa 2013-09-06 California family courts in particular must be a breeding ground for “delusional” and “vexatious” parents, who all have one common denominator – their human, civil and constitutional rights have been grossly violated by incompetent and morally delinquent commissioners/judges, who courtordered their children into custody of batterers and molesters or their kidnapping and trafficking by CPS. The courts are banking on the fact that parents will keep fighting to get their children back, thus providing a bottomless source of income for judges and the associated “cottage industry”, i.e. unqualified and corrupt mediators/evaluators who can safely be compared to Pavlov’s dogs responding to the ringing bell of unethical wielders of power on the bench, attorneys and other corrupt individuals, feeding on the misery of parents and children. Pro Per litigants, especially those exposing the unbelievable carnage and anarchy in family courts, are effectively silenced by UNLAWFULLY declaring them “vexatious litigants”, whereas parents with a fat bank account and substantial assets are milked as “cash cows” until their children age out of the system.
A prime example of aberrant black-robed wielders of power running amok is Case IND 098669
and INC 10002737 in the RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT, which already caused global outrage.
The judicial officers, notably JUDGE DALE WELLS, conspiring under the color of law with one of
the vilest, narcissistic abusers imaginable to eradicate a protective mother from her children’s
lives single handedly managed to put the Riverside Superior Court on the global map as a
kangaroo court and organized crime entity, as documented on this petition:
<a href=”http://www.change.org/petitions/california-state-auditor-forensic-audit-judge-dale-wellsriverside-superior-court&#8221; rel=”nofollow”>http://www.change.org/petitions/california-state-auditorforensic-audit-judge-dale-wells-riverside-superior-court</a&gt;
The respective presiding judges – first Judge Cahraman, then Judge Ellsworth and now Judge
Cope – miserably and intentionally failed to perform their duty as a presiding judge by refusing to investigate the multiple IMPEACHABLE acts of judicial malfeasance and blatant fraud upon the court committed by the judicial officers involved in the above case, instead they excused and covered up these heinous human, civil and constitutional rights abuses and torture with an
“exercise of judicial discretion” which does not even exist as under the Supreme Law of the Land “courts are the mere instruments of the law and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere LEGAL discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by LAW, and when that is discerned it is the DUTY of the court to follow it. JUDICIAL POWER IS NEVER EXERCISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE WILL OF THE JUDGE;always exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v.Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).
Millions of parents in each and every state are rising up, demanding JUSTICE and the removal of black-robed child torturers from the bench who don’t give a rat’s behind about the suffering of little children. The “in the best interest of the child” is a foreign concept to them and has clearly been replaced by “the best interest of the judge and associated cottage industry”.
Children are treated as non-sentient beings on par with animals, although the latter enjoy even
more protection under the law as the most vulnerable of society – our children and grandchildren.
A nation that allows morally delinquent judges to torture and destroy the lives of loving parents
and their children has lost its moral compass. Unethical presiding judges and appellate court judges who violate their oath of office by covering up the judicial malfeasance of their colleagues must likewise be removed from the bench and replaced by ethical judges who actually KNOW and ABIDE BY THE LAW. California Taxpayers are no longer prepared to pay the obscene salaries of corrupt judges for the “privilege” of being judicially battered and raped.

Nancy Witherell Redding, CA 2013-09-07 Whie abolishing statutes that support the ongoing destruction of the lives of children and families, please don’t leave out the worst one of all – confidentiality which primarily protects and hides the horrific lies and manipulations
perpetrated by the “agency” and the courts. Someday they will look upon this time and these practices as we look at Nazi, Germany. So much for the protection of the people and for the constitution and the bill of rights. All just empty words and promises. We might as well be living in a communist country – the corruption runs so deep it has become normal and acceptable.
Each time a social worker lies (which usually happens when their lips are moving), they know they doing something illegal but but somehow have come to believe that they are sacrificing for the protection of the children from their :”Bio Parents” (a title said with disdain and disgust).

Karen Ellis Encinitas, CA 2013-09-08 My kids were WRONGLY and ILLEGALLY kidnapped from me by the San Diego Vista County Court Judges and made to live with their RAPIST (sperm
donor father)

Dixianne Hawks Chico, CA 2013-09-08 I have seen this law at work and it is an evil law that is used by the attorneys and the courts to avoid justice.

Dixianne Hawks Chico, CA 2013-09-09 There is money being made by taking these children and obviously the attorneys and the courts are in on the take. Fraud pure and simple, at they
expense of our children and their security. There are many reasons to believe that these children are being used for nefarious purposes. Often the parents lose all contact, no one cares more for these children than the parents.

Thomas Lee Meridian, ID 2013-09-10 Because I believe that the vexatious litigant statute conceals government corruption and punishes the litigator for filing what they are entitled to file. It’s a racket.

George Schuch chicago, IL 2013-09-10 applicable to my young family, albeit in IL, not California.

Michelle Geil marina del rey, CA 2013-09-11 Children are being hurt, this must stop!

Malinda Sherwyn West Hills, CA 2013-09-12 The Courts suppress and hide evidence behind this law. Children and DV victims suffer.

Brianne Bajo Acton, CA 2013-09-16 Beacuse I am a Mom.

Kini Cosma Klamath Falls, OR 2013-09-20 The minute a parent, especially pro per litigants, starts fighting back and exposes the unbelievable corruption, that parent is quickly declared a
“vexatious litigant” for no legal reason other than to silence that parent, in fact the application of the vexatious litigant statute in family court cases it unconstitutional.

Mary Franklin La Quinta, CA 2013-09-23 It is very, very importantant that the family court protect the abused (child or parent) and protect the legal rights (including to speedy judicial action) of children, abused parents, and to make sure that the abused are protected from
the abusers. Occasionally, inept judges prolong and permit abuse. I was a professional in the juvenile justice system, including abused and neglected children, and I know first hand how the system operates.

Maria V Cruz Martinez Juana Díaz, Puerto Rico 2013-09-23 Justicia para todos por igual

Peter G Tocci Leominster, MA 2013-09-25 Though not a CA resident, I’m showing my support for this petition because we have a systemic criminal condition in the US family court. California is in position to set a precedent that will help parents and children abused by courts all across the country.

Rob MacDonald Sandy, UT 2013-09-26 California family law is a disaster. Courts are run willy-nilly, judges do as they please, and there is little if any accountability. See: givebackmyson.com.

Norma Rothrock Hastings, NE 2013-09-27 Help parents restore their parental rights in court.
valerie nixon modesto, CA 2013-09-28 I wouldn’t have believed this to have been possible if I hadn’t lived through it myself. Marin County, CA is one of the worst offenders in giving custody to abusive parents. Justice and truth are not the goals of the family court. With enough money and a lying attorney, anything is possible. Shame on these Judicial representatives!

Anna Stoufflet Austin, TX 2013-10-01 Because the Austin, TX family courts and court personnel conspired to make me and my children completely without a voice, in the face of horrific and
violent abuse. The courts thought it reasonable to give my youngest child to my abusive ex, in spite of the fact that there was a current restraining order in place and that the only contact that had taken place since we had left my ex in 2006 was via forced and traumatic “reunification” meetings with a frankly abusive “therapist”, who actually laughed when my children said that their biological father hurt them! I was given full custody of the older children who are now nearly grown. As for the youngest, he promptly failed a grade in my ex’s custody and my older children and I were completely cut off from any contact with their trusting and innocent 8 year old brother. He will be turning 14 this October and I have not been allowed to see him at all since 2008 nor have his siblings been allowed to have any contact with the baby brother they
adored. How is this fair to children? What did my baby do wrong to be denied contact with his mother and older siblings? Nothing except be a child without human rights.

Patricia Barry Los Angeles, CA 2013-10-04 I am an attorney and my client and I have both named as vexatious litigants as judicial retaliation for outing San Mateo judges and San Mateo law enforcement for failure to arrest a violent felon who had guns. We picketed and passed out
fliers about the failure of the judges and law enforcement to protect the public and we got the guy arrested — 14 guns, 2 assault rifles, and 10,000 rounds of ammo. The judges continue to protect the violent felon and punish us. He has not even gone to trial. The judges do not care at all about protecting the public safety.

Amanda Molano Desert Hot Springs, CA 2013-10-04 They took my 4 year old son and gave him to his absent father in another state. I am awaiting my trial date to try and grt my baby back.

Michelle Massey Kalispell, MT 2013-10-05 Because Parents Have Rights.

Edgar Mejia Heber, UT 2013-10-15 I was declared a vl and i am outraged, her lawyer makes up lies and I wanted the truth to be exposed , all i got was the judge to shut my right to be heard.

Deborah Parks Auburndale, FL 2013-10-17 The vexatious litigant statute is the favorite tool used by a court in family law cases to cover up prior judicial malfeasance rulings. The point is to prevent a litigant especially in family law cases to seek redress of the heinous situation that did not occur in the best interest of the child standard. The trial court system in California abuses its application in family law proceedings, where they prevent that emergency request for orders are filed, they prevent that domestic violence restraining orders are filed or prevent that domestic violence restraining orders are dismissed, (there is a case in California where a parent had a 50 year restraining order granted against him). This parent has yet to obtain any relief. Other parents have been unable to restore their parental rights in any capacity.

Alicja Herriott Hermosa Beach, CA 2013-10-18 Vexatious litigant statue disciminates one party against other and it gaves a judge contral over the party. I was called a vexatious litigant becasue I was defending myself during the court hearings my ex -husband filed for. When Judge had found out that I appealed two of hers orders. which were removed by the court of appeal later time , she called me vexatious litigant. Now I have so much problem with filing any motion including a child support issues. The same Judge who was prejudice against me had total contral over me. She deproved me any rights to seek justice or protection under the law. I was lucky and after appeal case I requested a new judge and I was granted with real a
new Judge. The vexatious litigant staute does not prevents from anynecessary filings but
deprives other one party justice and give Judge a power to contral the case and give bias decisions. the vexatious litigant statue has no place in family law cases in California and it should be abolished as soon as possible.

Linda Rose Barragan Wrightwood, CA 2013-10-23 deemed vexatious when responding to an OSC to change custody and support

Letter: Destroyed by no law followed in Riverside superior family court.

As requested the letter from a concerned litigant has been posted:

“My case is beyond anything sane or legal.  RID-233625.  I just got it into the appeals court, E 058656.  I paid court reporters for only the Sept. 29th 2011, June 7th 2012, Aug. 1st 2012 and Aug. 2nd 2012  transcripts to start.  Please post those and I can only hope my court reporters were not ordered to manipulate them like a few clerks and others in the court were used to hide the judges abuse of discretion and negligence.

The hell I have been put through after fleeing the state to escape threats to my life, abuse and stalking  by my ex spouse were compounded and encouraged by this court.  I had to hire a lawyer in Colorado to clean up just 2 of the hundreds of intimidation and threat tactics the riverside judge was to busy to even look at the stacks of evidence I had. Cost me my home of 18 years that was in my name, financially devastated me, my ex with the help of the court destroyed my bonds with my children and gandchildren, destroyed my good reputation, property, investments, good credit gone.  Allowed his continued menacing and deviant, highly criminal behavior.  I had forensic profiles (Judge Gunn did not bother to read) saying he was capable of murder and dangerous.

The court violated all of the Elkins family Law Task Force Recommendations.  I was not notified of hearings, changes in venues, tossed from pillar to post, threatened by the court that I made a “fatal error”,  messed with another case of my last California lawyer to make him back off from protecting my rights. Judgement slid by me, Statement of Decision full of serious and costly factual errors with no explanations.  Omissions.  Saying my motion to reconsider was allowed back on calender for Aug. 1st, flew in and was to fly out that night.  I was blown off, forced to come in the next day, costly rescheduling of my flight and then blown off again on the 2nd and told by the judge that I “cannot speak”.  Ex spouse getting away with purjury, violating discovery, fraud, contempt over and over, continual menacing of me.  Unprofessional lawyers easily manipulated by my forensically profiled paranoid schizophrenic with sociopathic tendencies spouse.

Wish me luck,  I fought back and the Judge (who was quoted in the Riverside Law magazine May 2010 as saying “the only experience I have in family law is that I got a divorce”)  slaughtered me.  Destroy a decent human being while letting a deviant and very sick one run rampant through the Halls of Justice???   I am not naive anymore.

Thank You,  Mary Jane Pederson”

The Caste System of the CA judiciary.

For those of us familiar with different cultures there is a strong familiarity with the Indian caste system that used to segregate the population into different classes.

The same concept exists in the CA judiciary, as only judicial officers according to prevailing belief are allowed to be parents. The rest of us are viewed as “vermin” and litigants and not parents. The Superior Court including the Riverside Superior court and the relevant court of appeal have developed a whole new “class” of individuals a concept that is not based on any law but a “belief”.

Under this concept, parents are “entitled” to be abused. The children in diverse cases deserve to be exposed to sheer hatred and insanity against the other parent with no relief in sight as they are viewed as IT entities, with no feelings or their RIGHT to a childhood. Indeed it is only the diverse judicial officers who are allocated the constitutional right to be a parent as demonstrated by former Presiding Judge Ellsworth who was hailed as a devoted mother in the media. However, she had no compunction in harming other mothers and their children where the court still covers up for rulings that occurred in certain cases.

The Riverside Superior Court and the Appeal Court have gone so far as to develop a new caste system, for the parents described above, labeled as the vexatious parent. There are no laws and procedures enshrined in the legislature that allows a court of appeal and the superior court to sit on family law litigation and to place an indefinite stay on proceedings. Indeed nowhere in the section 391 statute does it specify anywhere that a STAY can be placed on proceedings in any capacity. Instead California rules of court 1.20a specifically states: “Unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is received by the court clerk”. By definition it does not matter if the court files it; the filing date is DEEMED when the court clerk receives it and needs to be addressed by the judicial officer involved in the time manner prescribed by statute. The Supreme Court has already struck down the invidious discrimination displayed by a court of appeal and a district court who engages in caste discrimination in the case of In Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), where the Supreme Court struck down a procedure where the petitioners seeking to reinstate an appeal were required to state what issues would be raised on appeal and to show that the previous denial of the appeal had been prejudicial to them.

A similar concept regarding stay provisions was addressed in a published opinion of a writ of supersedeas, which specified the following: “Special proceedings are subject to the stay provisions of Part 2 ONLY if the statute creating the special proceeding expressly incorporates them.”The court held that the order was not automatically stayed because the proceeding wasn’t really an “action” for purposes of the rules governing stays and undertakings on appeal in a civil “action.” (Code Civ. Proc. secs. 22-23.) In fact, the parties agreed that the involuntary dissolution suit was a “special proceeding” under Code of Civil Procedure section 23. Since the stay provisions (Code of Civil Procedure sections 916 et seq.) of Part 2 of the Code apply only in civil actions, the decree was not automatically stayed; Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc., case no. G041305 (4th Dist. Jan. 15, 2009). The same concept applies to the stay system that the appeal court has creatively implemented with anyone that has been declared vexatious. First of all by implementing a stay the court of appeal recognizes the automatic stay provision of CCP section 916. More importantly the vexatious litigant statute quite categorically does not provide for a stay mechanism of an appeal, suggesting a fundamental violation of due process and equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment.

However, this does not stop these courts in engaging in sheer judicial battery and malfeasance abusing the law to retaliate against certain litigants. After all it’s just a game to the judiciary involved where children are viewed as nothing but trash to be discarded at will.

Perhaps presiding Judge Cope of the Riverside Superior Court can spare the litigants who are familiar with the Riverside Superior Court the sheer mockery of his statement: “This courthouse will stand as a beautiful metaphor and a beautiful symbol of the rule of law,” http://www.courts.ca.gov/17280.htm. The Riverside Superior court has demonstrated time and time again in its long history that the LAW does not exist in this court.

Public invited to express their opinion on CA court of appeal experience.

Once a court ruling has been made where there  was an abuse of discretion, a litigant has the option of appealing that decision. However, most people are not in a position to afford the cost of an appeal or the cost of an attorney to address the appeal for them. The corresponding poll serves as an evaluation of the public experience with the current CA court of appeal.

Voting for more than one category is an option if it mirrors your experience.

Please take some time to express your experience and vote. Feel free to add comments and specific case examples in the comment section.

Call to the public to express their experience with family law mediation.

The public served by the court is invited to voice their experience with mediation services in the Riverside Superior  court and if their appointed child custody recommended counselor complied with the ethics that govern mediation conduct as defined in CA rules of court.  

  http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_210

Other comments including information on cases is welcomed and can be included in the poll.

Results will be presented to the CA State Auditor and the AOC.

Assemblyman Donnelly to lead CPS audit rally in OC.

Assembly member Donnelly, is one of the few proactive assembly members, who has taken his constituents pleas to heart.   He became involved with the baby Sammy case where a newborn was removed from his parents as they sought a second opinion from another hospital regarding health concerns.  The CA State Auditor has agreed to conduct an audit of CPS cases, mainly due to the overwhelming efforts of Assemblyman Donnelly. The event will take place this Friday on June 21st 2013 and is advertised on the facebook event page that has been created for this occasion.  https://www.facebook.com/events/256077411197709/  Parents who have concerns about the way their cases were handled with the Riverside County CPS office are encouraged to attend.

Assemblyman Donnelly will be in Orange County, CA this Friday June 21, 2013. Come and share your story of how CPS and/or Family Court failed to protect your child(ren)!Please click on GOING to this event (even if you cannot make it in person) and share with everyone!Also LIKE this page to show support for the audit:
https://www.facebook.com/CpsAuditOrangeCounty

ABOUT THIS EVENT:
On June 5th, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly and Mike Gatto’s Request for an Audit of Child Protective Services passed the Joint Legislative Audit Committee unanimously.

This Friday, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly will be in Orange County to hear first hand from victims of CPS and Family Court and speak about the plans for the audit.

You do NOT need to be from Orange County. There will be people from all over the state.

The California audit will be able to be used in any state or country, because they are doing the SAME things wrong EVERYWHERE. This will save your state/country from having to do one and you can use it to pass legislation which would help prevent them from endangering children.

It is important to condense your story into just a few minutes. He will take your 1-2 page written summary and any supporting documents you can provide.

MEDIA
ABC News story on the Sacramento Rally for the Audit of CPS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_psucBLYcqk

Tim Donnelly’s speech at the Rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em26SWh_ZUU

16 year old Damon speaking out at the Rally about how CPS and Family Court failed him:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4254590863153&set=vb.402177413135846&type=2&theater

Protective Parents Speak Out at the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee Hearing on Auditing CPS (at 41:00):
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1346

Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL-1wCuAh0A

Good Day L.A.:
http://www.myfoxla.com/story/22496460/state-assemblyman-tim-donnelly-calls-for-audit-of-child-protection-servicesSee More

“Among the matters she would like to take up is identifying high-risk cases and assigning them to specialized judges.”

The task of identifying high risk cases and assigning them to specialized judges was an endeavor envisioned by former Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth as reported in a 2010 Press Enterprise article,  http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20100901-riverside-countys-next-top-judge-envisions-changes.ece

Two years later and with a new Presiding Judge the concerned family law public is still waiting for specialized judges to be appointed.  Instead the court has allowed the malevolent judicial rape and battery of Judge Dale Wells in family law to continue unchecked and unabated, despite public outrage and protest.

With the recent announcement that Judge Wells is leaving family law that does not solve the dilemma of parents and their children, that almost none of Judge Wells’ rulings have adhered to the relevant family law standard and that his rulings have caused tremendous suffering and placed children in harms way.

Perhaps the Riverside Superior Court would be kind enough to demonstrate that they have the public’s best interest at heart, encouraging the integrity and impartiality of the Riverside Superior Court judiciary and compensate the public for allowing such an individual to preside over family law by appointing a specialized judge to review all his case.

Sarah Tyrrell admits to stalking and that she was instrumenal in having Lori Handrahan fired.

Sarah Tyrrell, who claims to be a child advocate, although she is not registered with any recognized organization as such, continues with her obsession of getting involved in high profile cases.  Sarah goes out of her way to contact the alleged abuser and the child involved in high profile cases and stalks, harasses and obsessively sets out to destroy the lives of protective parents. It appears that she also discusses the other parent with the child, thereby sabotaging any relationship with the other parent.

In the latest Lori Handrahan stalking saga, Sarah Tyrrell publicly admits that she has been instrumental in suing Handrahan, attaching a lien against her property and having her fired from her position as professor at the American University.

Image

Image

Judge Wells discriminates between US citizens who have active US passports and immigrants who have expired passports

Judge Wells discriminates. It is a fact.  His discrimination is extreme and against all immigrants who enter his court room. He claimed that a mother was a flight risk who has been in this country for over eleven years. Said mother has expired passports and cannot travel.  The US father who has an active passport and ties to other countries because of his immigrant ancestors nationality can travel.  There was no evidence ever presented of any flight risk, except Judge Wells’ belief. Judge Wells claimed to have understood the mothers presentation that she had been in the country for eleven years, but “BELIEF” ruled.

To any normal person, that conclusively would demonstrate that there is no flight risk. However, Judge Wells’ “BELIEF” prevails at all cost. Evidence does not have to be presented, bias, conjecture and Judge Wells own prejudice against immigrants is all that matters.  In this instance Judge Wells created a vexatious exparte on the court’s own motion based upon his own belief that the mother is flight risk and sanctioned the mother under CCP 177.5 with her children and removed them from her on the spot. CCP 177.5 sanctions folks are monetary in nature only.

wells8bb

Judge Wells:

wells85c

Maha Abdel Rahim’s Bond amount dropped to $ 100,000.

bldjg0110708

Judge Becky Dugan of the Riverside Superior Court  has decided to drop Maha Abdel Rahim’s bond amount to $ 100,000 based upon the request of her attorney.

The Puerto Rican territory has erupted in a furor over the arrest of Maha Abdel Rahim on 1/10/2013 for allegedly failing to hand over her son.  The arrest was based on an arrest warrant issued by Judge Gary Tranberger, which contained a $ 200,000 bond amount, excessive by anyone’s standard, even the Riverside Superior Court’s  bail schedule and conclusively proves that the court wanted to maliciously punish Maha Abdel Rahim with a jail term.  The US constitution, specifically the eighth amendment, prohibits such cruel and unusual punishment.

Ms. Rahim is being charged with a felony under California penal code 278.5 in case RIF 130021. The penalties if convicted can include a three year sentence in state prison.

Taxpayers should be outraged that the resources of the District Attorney’s office are being wasted on prosecuting a Puerto Rican mother, to further the vicious and malicious vendetta that a court has against certain litigants.  The initial complaint filed by the District Attorney’s office on 1/31/2013 states that Abdel Rahim contacted the father and pointed out that Kamal was too ill to travel on 1/5/2013.  The complaint was amended on 2/11/2013 and merely states that Abdel Rahim failed to hand over her son on the 5th of January 2013.

The penal code statute which Abdel Rahim is being charged under requires that the District Attorney has to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with malice, in allegedly not handing her son over.  Reasonable doubt is the standard required under criminal law and Abdel Rahim has the constitutional right to a jury trial.

It is also apparent that the Riverside Superior Court allows judicial officers to issue rulings that do not adhere to the law as a $ 200,000 bond does not comply with the court’s own bail schedule.

After a two year batttle the charges for felony kidnapping against Eva Ruiz-Gomez were dismissed due to confusing court orders. A case for family law.

Judge Larry Hayes, a Montery County California judge,  on Friday the  25th of January 2013 dismissed the charges against Eva Ruiz-Gomez. The best place to have resolved the issue would have been family court, Hayes said. Because the case was brought to criminal court and there was no proof of malice, he dismissed the charges.

Eva Ruiz-Gomez was charged by the Monterey County District Attorney’s office with felony kidnapping based on California penal code 278.5. The charges alleged that she took her son to Mexico and deprived the boy’s biological father of visitation rights.

The criminal case analyzed the custody orders that prompted the felony charge and were labelled as confusing.

In 2002, the boy’s father Ruiz-Gomez obtained permission by the Court to take him to Mexico by the end of the year,. That trip was delayed. In the meantime, the boy’s biological father, Ramon Muñoz, requested visitations, which were granted by a second order.

Ruiz-Gomez and her family left for Mexico at the end of 2003. In court declarations, Muñoz said he attempted to find out where Ruiz-Gomez moved, to not avail. He obtained  a third court order in 2004 that gave him partial custody of the boy.

The order was never properly served, but was the basis for Ruiz-Gomez’s felony charges.  The documents were served to a relative, a person too young to accept legal service and not to Ruiz-Gomez.. Ruiz-Gomez has stated that her location in Mexico was never hidden.  The father went to the Monterey County District Attorney’s office to open a case of felony abduction against her.

Ruiz-Gomez says she didn’t appear at the hearing because she didn’t know it was even taking place. Judge Kay Kingsley, according to an official transcript, said, “Is Eva Gomez present? No?” and then changed the custody order. Within a few weeks, Muñoz went to the District Attorney and asked to open a child abduction case against her.

In 2009 Ruiz-Gomez was returned to Monterey County, and more than a year later was charged with a felony under CA penal code 278.5. She was arrested and a Monterey County investigator removed her son from her, school and handed him over to the boys biological father, where he stayed until another judge rescinded that order 10 days later.

On Friday, Hayes said the two valid court orders were confusing, to the point that even prosecution investigator Manuel Infante admitted Ruiz-Gomez possibly had permission from the court to go to Mexico. If the orders could confuse a law enforcement official, Hayes concluded, they surely could confuse the boy’s mother.

The boy who is fifteen has resisted all attempts to spend time with his biological father.

Source

Monterey Herald

The Tale of the Maha Abdel Rahim Evaluation

The Diana Herrington Evaluation has been at the forefront of the Riverside Superior Court Maha Abdel Rahim controversy.

Indeed Judge Dale Wells even apologized for the contents of the evaluation,  by issuing a statement during the 2012 custody trial which was widely reported by the Puerto Rican press.   The statement apologized to the people of Puerto Rico for the content of the evaluation report, which alleged that in Puerto Rico there is limited access to excellent education and health services further alleging a high crime rate.  Judge Wells specified that the report should never have been made public and that it caused him anguish that this evaluation has caused unrest in the territory of Puerto Rico. One can only assume that the fact that the report was made public was the cause of anguish.

However, the evaluation was still entered into evidence at the trial and was used as the basis for the custody decision, rather than being stricken.

The evaluation confirms that the minor child had been living with his mother in Puerto Rico by mutual consent and states: “Although the mediation report of July 2010, essentially provides for Kamal to travel between the two locations on a 50/50 basis, mother and father were correct in reducing Kamal’s stress and having Father travel to see Kamal.”

However, Diana Herrington blamed Abdel Rahim for moving to Puerto Rico and removing the child from the “culture” that he was born in, blaming it on Abdel Rahim’s “culture”. Herrington cites personal belief for the decision or the Puerto Rican cultural belief that children are primarily cared for by their mothers while the  father provide financial support and discipline.  Herrington also cites Islam as providing a family  framework where the mother is the primary cargiver of the children while the father provides financial support.  The comparison that Herrington denigratingly makes is with an American culture vs Islam.   In other evaluations Herrington has specifically attacked an American mother who was working long hours at a library to provide for her children and in essence called the mother an unfit mother. To no one’s surprise that evaluation was paid for by the father.

The report, however; demonstrates that there was agreement to the father traveling to Puerto Rico to see his son, where Abdel Rahim has been supportive of the relationship between Kamal and his father when the father was visiting in Puerto Rico and by supporting phone and skype contact.

Maha Abdel Rahim’s abduction concerns were also raised in the  evaluation. A witness, Dr. Cott Pollock, stated that she witnessed the father threatening Abdel Rahim with a plan to abduct Kamal to Mexico or Syria, if she did not allow him to return to the United States with Kamal.

Herrington directly contrasted the English-speaking environment of a high ranked API school in contrast to the Spanish-speaking  Headstart program in Puerto Rico and even cited a 2011 U.S.secretary of education report as the basis for her discrimination.” We have to get better faster, we can’t settle for incremental change, we need  transformational changes” Secretary Duncan. She contrasted an alleged high crime rate in Puerto Rico with the crime rate in California.

Herrington also stated that Kamal had a mild to moderate speech defect. which may or may not have been affected by the introduction of three languages.

Let’s take a wild gander into what the California rules of court state for an evaluation:

California Rules of Court 5.220 (h) (1) states that the evaluator must maintain objectivity, provide and gather balanced information for both parties and control for bias. The evaluator repeatedly made reference to culture as the basis for her decision without defining any culture and what impact this is supposed to have on the development of a minor child. Instead the report expresses a preference for an English speaking culture compared to a Spanish speaking culture, demonstrating that the report is not balanced and does not control for bias as the child in question is trilingual.

Herrington’s report was also completely insensitive to Abdel Rahim’s  and the minor child’s cultural values, religion, family structure and developmental characteristics of the parties in violation of California rules of court 5.220 (h) (11)

Herrington also offered recommendations about 3 parties, the minor child, father and mother in contravention of rules of Court 5.220 (h) (3) as all parties have not been evaluated directly or in consultation with another qualified neutral professional.

Herrington failed to consider California Rules of court 5.220 (h) (4) and  did not consider the health, safety, welfare and best interest of the child in all phases of the process and there were no interviews with extended family members, and other interested parties or family members.

The report failed to address the parenting capacity of each parent, did not address the psychological and developmental needs of each child, and did not address the resulting fit between the parenting capacities of each parent and the child’s psychological and developmental needs and the continuing developmental needs of each child to a parent.

According to Herrington the father was not against 50/50 custody if the mother moved to California. The father also paid for the evaluation report.

Judge Wells adopted this report into evidence and did not cite crime, education or health services as the determining factor for the statement of decision, although that report citing these biased conditions was the underlying basis of the custody decision. Instead he blamed the mother for Kamal’s all of a sudden severe speech defect and accused her of neglect and claimed that she did not allow the father to see his son, in contradiction to the evaluation report. One can safely assume that Judge Wells never heard Kamal speak. He also claimed that she was the least willing to share as she claimed that the father wanted to abduct the child to Syria, although this was confirmed by witness testimony and that she misrepresented her ties to Puerto Rico.  He ordered that she could see her son for one week in California without taking into account that she has no residence in California to do so.

Children’s Rights goes to trial in a class action against the State of MA.

children    Children’s Rights, a New York based national advocacy group, filed suit against the State of Massachusetts in April 2010. The class action, representing the state’s 7500 foster children, is going to trial in a Boston Federal Court this week.

After two years of research Children’s Rights has concluded that the state’s child-welfare system is “one of the most dangerous in the country on a number of significant factors.

The Class Action names six plaintiffs whose alleged neglect is detailed, in conjunction with findings based on data measuring various aspects of children’s care.  The State tried unsuccessfully to get the Court to block Children’s Rights’ pursuit of a Class action.

Massachusetts is the first state to decide to go to full trial, fighting accusations that it is failing to protect children in foster care from unfit foster homes, physical abuse, medical and educational neglect, and the administration of questionable psychotropic drugs.

Children’s Rights has sued fifteen other states, and  foster-care and welfare systems for alleged neglect of children.

Source

Riverside Superior Court announces Judicial Assignments, Riverside County Bar Association announces Presiding Judge and Assistant Presiding Judge.

Riverside Superior Court announces Judicial Assignments, Riverside County Bar Association announces Presiding Judge and Assistant Presiding Judge..

via Riverside Superior Court announces Judicial Assignments, Riverside County Bar Association announces Presiding Judge and Assistant Presiding Judge..

San Bernardino County Welfare grants Cash aid to convicted felons with drug related felonies

The San Bernardino County welfare office has taken it upon itself to grant welfare under the  Calworks program to felons with drug felonies.

The guidelines of the Calworks program CalWORKs Eligibility Handbook specify that there are three categories of person who are not eligible for cash aid permanently or for a specific period of time:

1) Drug Felons
Any persons convicted of a felony related to the possession, use, or distribution of a “controlled substance” will be permanently ineligible for cash aid
. At this time, only drugs are considered “controlled substances,” although the legal definition goes beyond that. To be ineligible, the person must have committed the drug-related felony after 8-22-96 and must have been convicted as a drug felon in a state or federal court after 12-31-97.

2) Fleeing Felons
Any person fleeing to avoid felony prosecution, custody or confinement after conviction, or violating a condition of probation or parole will also be permanently ineligible for cash aid. Fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody or confinement after conviction means that a warrant for arrest has been issued. Violating a condition of probation or parole means a warrant has been issued for a crime that violates a condition of probation or parole, or an order has been issued revoking parole or probation.

3) Intentional Program Violators
Persons convicted of Intentional Program Violations (IPVs) are subject to sanctions for specific periods of time or permanently.

The law was enacted in 1997 as defined by the letter from the State of California to California Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators.  However, the County of San Bernardino has taken it upon itself to grant cash aid to drug felons and then has the audacity to initiate a child support action against the other parent based on the illegal welfare that it granted. The word fraud comes to mind.

ScanImage001

ScanImage002ScanImage004