Petitioning Governor of the State of California Governor Jerry Brown and 3 others

Remove a biased and prejudicial presiding judge from the Riverside Superior Court

Judge is responsible for upholding the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process in the court to which he/she was appointed to. 

The judge is responsible, for leading the court, establishing policies, and allocating resources in a manner that promotes access to justice for all members of the public, provides a forum for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, maximizes the use of judicial and other resources, increases efficiency in court operations, and enhances service to the public.

That is not the reality in the Riverside Superior Court. With the appointment of Presiding Judge Hopp, who had the popular vote in the court to appoint him as presiding judge, the court has taken on his malicious and malevolent tone directed to certain select litigants.

The public who is served by the court has the right to expect that the court abides by the law and adheres to the equal protection and procedural and substantive due process requirements that are defined in the legislature. Not the belief standard that this court has allocated to rules and procedures. The public has the right to expect a respectful demeanor from its Presiding Judge directed at his staff as it relates to judicial and administrative processes.  It has taken Judge Hopp five months to blow a legal fuse and denigrate the Riverside Superior Court and its standing as a court of law. 


The public deserves a presiding judge that actually cares about the Riverside Superior Court and does not use it to further his own bias and prejudice against certain litigants and is capable of applying the law in a fair and ethical manner. 

Judge Hopp revealed his bias and prejudice when he called a litigant a liar with the following words documented in an email:  "SHE's lying. I never granted her request to be removed from the vexatious litigant list. Never will!"

His CONDUCT violates all applicable judicial canon of ethics, undermines the judge's independence, integrity, impartiality and FAILS to promote the public's confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary.
“Law is the legal system, or the administration of justice.” When a judge engages in an activity that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judge should also consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether it impairs public confidence in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is allowing the activity to take precedence over judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether engaging in the activity would cause the judge to be disqualified (Canon 4A(4)). 

https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/riverside-superior-kangeroo-court-emerges-with-a-vengance-judge-hopps-initiation-as-presiding-judge-begins-with-a-bang/

Letter to
Governor of the State of California Governor Jerry Brown
Administrative Director of the Judicial Council Martin Hoshino
Chief Justice of the Judicial Council
and 1 other
Commission on Judicial Performance
Judge is responsible for upholding the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process in the court to which he/she was appointed to.

The judge is responsible, for leading the court, establishing policies, and allocating resources in a manner that promotes access to justice for all members of the public, provides a forum for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, maximizes the use of judicial and other resources, increases efficiency in court operations, and enhances service to the public.

That is not the reality in the Riverside Superior Court. With the appointment of Presiding Judge Hopp, who had the popular vote in the court to appoint him as presiding judge, the court has taken on his malicious and malevolent tone directed to certain select litigants.

The public who is served by the court has the right to expect that the court abides by the law and adheres to the equal protection and procedural and substantive due process requirements that are defined in the legislature. Not the belief standard that this court has allocated to rules and procedures. The public has the right to expect a respectful demeanor from its Presiding Judge directed at his staff as it relates to judicial and administrative processes. It has taken Judge Hopp five months to blow a legal fuse and denigrate the Riverside Superior Court and its standing as a court of law.

The public deserves a presiding judge that actually cares about the Riverside Superior Court and does not use it to further his own bias and prejudice against certain litigants and is capable of applying the law in a fair and ethical manner.

Judge Hopp revealed his bias and prejudice when he called a litigant a liar with the following words documented in an email: "SHE's lying. I never granted her request to be removed from the vexatious litigant list. Never will!"

His CONDUCT violates all applicable judicial canon of ethics, undermines the judge's independence, integrity, impartiality and FAILS to promote the public's confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary.
“Law is the legal system, or the administration of justice.” When a judge engages in an activity that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judge should also consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether it impairs public confidence in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is allowing the activity to take precedence over judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether engaging in the activity would cause the judge to be disqualified (Canon 4A(4)).

https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/riverside-superior-kangeroo-court-emerges-with-a-vengance-judge-hopps-initiation-as-presiding-judge-begins-with-a-ba