Petition Closed

The expectation that once a new Presiding Judge is appointed in a court of law is that the Presiding Judge will abide by the law as he/she 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 Mark Cope the court has taken a step backwards, covering up the judicial malfeasance and malevolence of the Court. It is not clear whether the Superior Court in this case actually complied with the election requirements defined in Title 10.602 CA rules of court, and Government code section 69508 which specifies the following:


"Each court that has three or more judges must select a presiding judge. Selection of the presiding judge may be by secret ballot. The court should establish an internal local rule or policy for the selection of the presiding judge and assistant presiding judge, if any."

The court never formally announced any election results rather it appears as if Presiding Judge Cope assumed the PJ role as a result of his former role as the assistant presiding judge to former Presiding Judge Ellsworth.

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.

In his eight month tenure Presiding Judge Cope has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he refuses to abide by the law and the relevant legislative standard and exceeds his defined duties a presiding judge.

Judge Cope has sat on custody litigation for over a year, refusing to address or file it, until it was handed over to Judicial Officer Hanson who summarily denied it.  http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/riverside-superior-court-sabotages-litigation-against-the-best-interest-of-the-child-by-filing-a-document-one-year-later-after-it-was-received-ppeal/

Presiding Judge Cope has ruled on a CCP 170.1 challenge which exceeded his role as a presiding judge, (defined in title 10.603 rules of court http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_603) as he may not adjudicate a case, and did not file or serve the document until two weeks later, preventing that the relevant litigant had the procedural due process right to proceed with a writ of mandate, the only procedural appeal available in a denied CCP 170.1 challenge.  http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/presiding-judge-cope-of-the-riverside-superior-court-creates-his-own-laws/

Judge Mark Cope advocates and escalates domestic abuse by refusing to file a restraining order which contained a threat of bodily harm, as the court has persistently blamed the victim for any domestic abuse scenario.
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/presiding-judge-mark-cope-advocates-harassment-stalking-and-abusive-conduct-under-penal-code-653-m/

We the public have a right to voice our opinion and participate in the appointment of a presiding judge who actually abides by the rules and procedures that define how a court serves the public. Presiding Judge Cope has demonstrated time and a time again that he abuses his current position to cover up for the court's mistakes and malevolent rulings rather than addressing the law, in effect creating HIS belief court rather than a court of law. The public is requesting his immediate replacement.

Letter to
Governor of the State of California Governor Jerry Brown
Administrative Director of the Courts for California, Steven Jahr
Chief Justice of the Judicial Council
and 1 other
Commission on Judicial Performance
The expectation that once a new Presiding Judge is appointed in a court of law is that the Presiding Judge will abide by the law as he/she 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 Mark Cope the court has taken a step backwards, covering up the judicial malfeasance and malevolence of the Court. It is not clear whether the Superior Court in this case actually complied with the election requirements defined in Title 10.602 CA rules of court, and Government code section 69508 which specifies the following:


"Each court that has three or more judges must select a presiding judge. Selection of the presiding judge may be by secret ballot. The court should establish an internal local rule or policy for the selection of the presiding judge and assistant presiding judge, if any."

The court never formally announced any election results rather it appears as if Presiding Judge Cope assumed the PJ role as a result of his former role as the assistant presiding judge to former Presiding Judge Ellsworth.

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.

In his eight month tenure Presiding Judge Cope has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he refuses to abide by the law and the relevant legislative standard and exceeds his defined duties a presiding judge.

Judge Cope has sat on custody litigation for over a year, refusing to address or file it, until it was handed over to Judicial Officer Hanson who summarily denied it. http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/riverside-superior-court-sabotages-litigation-against-the-best-interest-of-the-child-by-filing-a-document-one-year-later-after-it-was-received-ppeal/

Presiding Judge Cope has ruled on a CCP 170.1 challenge which exceeded his role as a presiding judge, (defined in title 10.603 rules of court http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_603) as he may not adjudicate a case, and did not file or serve the document until two weeks later, preventing that the relevant litigant had the procedural due process right to proceed with a writ of mandate, the only procedural appeal available in a denied CCP 170.1 challenge. http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/presiding-judge-cope-of-the-riverside-superior-court-creates-his-own-laws/

Judge Mark Cope advocates and escalates domestic abuse by refusing to file a restraining order which contained a threat of bodily harm, as the court has persistently blamed the victim for any domestic abuse scenario.
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/presiding-judge-mark-cope-advocates-harassment-stalking-and-abusive-conduct-under-penal-code-653-m/

We the public have a right to voice our opinion and participate in the appointment of a presiding judge who actually abides by the rules and procedures that define how a court serves the public. Presiding Judge Cope has demonstrated time and a time again that he abuses his current position to cover up for the court's mistakes and malevolent rulings rather than addressing the law, in effect creating HIS belief court rather than a court of law. The public is requesting his immediate replacement.