The appeals court is the avenue for litigants to seek their first amendment right to governmental redress, via an appeal, of a trial court error. All too often the appeal court produces subjective unpublished and published opinions that do not adhere to the legislative intent of the statute and extreme creative judicial fiat is taken interpreting the statute. 

Most litigants do not know how to institue an appeals court process and can end up paying thousands of dollars for an attorney.

As with trial court rulings, subjective judicial discretion does not exist. The appeal court has a duty to abide by the correct legislative interpretation of the statute. The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied by the court, i.e., in the `"legal principles governing the subject of [the] action ...."'" (Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 337 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 286], citing City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297 [255 Cal.Rptr. 704] and County of Yolo v. Garcia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1771, 1778 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 681] ["range of judicial discretion is determined by analogy to the rules contained in the general law and in the specific body or system of law in which the discretionary authority is granted"].)

In most cases the appeal court creates unpublished opinions to dispose of the matter relying on the fact that unpublished opinions do not set precedent rulings, ignoring the fourteenth amendment right to substantive and procedural due process.

However, unpublished rulings can indeed become published opinions that set a dangerous precedent for other cases, as published opinions are the guidelines by which a trial court interprets rulings.

In the U.S, the next step, once an appeals court has created a ludicrous subjective opinion is the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court only reviews approximately 5% of cases that are submitted to them through a petition for review. This not only denies litigants the first amendment right to governmental redress but substantially impedes their fourteenth amendment right to procedural and substantive due process.

In the Fourth District, the second division in Riverside California has created dangerous precedent rulings with its opinions including domestic violence restraining orders, where Justice McKinster has invented evidence that did not exist and that was not raised by any party to substantiate a domestic violence restraining order. In this case the Court cited the gross verbal abuse by the father against a mother but issued a restraining order against the mother based on alleged phone calls to her children that Justice McKinster invented, developing a new standard for a domestic violence restraining order with a reverse application of the domestic violence statute. http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/4th-district-division-two-appeals-court-invents-evidence-in-an-unpublished-opinion/

This court in particular is fixated on inventing their own fictitious rules that are not based on any title eight rule and are acting as a lawless island with no acountability available for their actions.

http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/modus-operandi-of-the-court-of-appeal-fourth-district-division-2-equal-protection-be-damned/

Litigants have the first amendment right to governmental redress. They have the fourteenth amendment right to procedural and substantive due process based on the correct legislative intent of the statute rather than the fabrication of unbelievable out of this world opinions to protect members of the judiciary.

We, the public, call for a forensic independent audit of the Court of Appeal Fourth District Division Two Court, to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process.