2/10/23 not knowing what was going on behind my back,
I turned a proposed order into the court pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b) to grant several unopposed orders as because no one filed an a timely written opposition pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
If a party doesn’t file a written opposition to a motion, the court should grant the motion as unopposed. Judge Peterson excused Nationstar and Red Rock from this requirement repeatedly in this case.
“Within 10 days after the service of the motion, and 5 days after service of any joinder to the motion, the opposing party must serve and file written notice of nonopposition or opposition thereto, together with a memorandum of points and authorities andsupporting affidavits, if any, stating facts showing why the motion and/or joinder should be denied. Failure of the opposing party toserve and file written opposition may be construed as an admission that the motion and/or joinder is meritorious and a consent to granting the same.”
EDCR 2.20(e)
Order granting motions pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
EDCR 2.23(b) is a procedural rule telling the movant to draft an order granting the motion and submit it to the judge’s chambers for signatuere if there is no written opposition.
When I followed this rule, Judge Peterson told me to stop or she would issue an order for me to show cause why I shouldn’t be held in contempt. Then she out of the blus, skipped that step and entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me. That means that any compaint or motion or opposition I want to file has to first be approved by Judge Peterson and the Chief Judge of the 8th Judicial District Court. Completely unjustified and pretty annoying.
“EDCR 2.23(b) If the time to oppose a motion has passed and no opposition has been filed, counsel for the moving party may submit an order granting the motion pursuant to Rule 2.20 to the chambers of the assigned department.
EDCR 2.23(b)
I was shocked by the court’s 2/15/23 rejection email (without these details) that :
1) there was an ex parte hearing on 2/2/23;
2) the court exempted my opponents unfairly from the court rule (EDCR 2.20(e)) that requires filing a written opposition to a motion,
3) my unopposed 1/23/23 motions scheduled for hearing on 2/28/23 were denied in my absence on 2/2/23, and
4) I was unjustly declared a vexatious litigant in absentia four hours before I filed my opposition to Nationstar’s 1/24/23 motion to have me declared one.
I submitted a new proposed order for the court to deny all my motions on the grounds that EDCR 2.20(e) was not apparently not applicable to my opponents.
My proposed order wrote the true facts and the conclusions of law the judge was actually nonsensically drawing.
Steven Scow responded that the court asked him to prepare the order and that he would CIRCULATE it (typically this means approve as to form and content)
The court just rejected my order without specifying a reason.
I resubmitted a detailed request emphasizing how wrong it was to have Steven Scow write an ex parte order given that 1) Scow misrepresents material facts repeatedly, 2) the court did not consider my oppositions; and 3) neither the court nor my opponents complied with court rules when they ex parte deprived me of my substantive rights.
The court reiterated its rejection and just said NO
I received no notice of the 2/2/23 hearing. I did not receive a phone call like the court claimed in the transcript.
On 1/23/23 I had requested that the 2/2/23 hearing be vacated as moot.
NCJC 2.9 ex parte communications are impermissible if it allows a “procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage” over the absent party
ABA standard 6.31b recommends disbarment if this type ex parte communication is orchestrated by an attorney
By 2/21/23, published Court minutes of the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing did not show my 12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written finding should not be forwarded to the State Bar so I submitted another unopposed order granting the motion pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
Apparently Judge Jessica Peterson thinks it is outrageous that attorneys should be held to any ethical standards.
Here was her answer:
Go away. Shut up.
“The next submission into OIC will result in the court issuing an order to show cause as to why you should not be held in contempt.”
2/21/23 Judge Peterson
3/28/23 – without issuing an order to show cause, and without another peep from me, the court entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me for what?
I think Judge Peterson’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned.
Is it unreasonable for me to have to tried to move the court to hold the attorneys, banks or debt collectors accountable to the rule of law and professional ethics standards?
Here are links to the 3/28/23 restrictive order and denial of my 12/19/22, 1/3/23, and 1/23/23 motions in absentia ex parte on 2/2/23 with opposition filed only to the 1/3/23 motions by Red Rock on 1/17/23 and by Nationstar on 1/24/23.
The court denied all my motions and did not consider the motions and replies I filed on these dates 12/14/21, 1/10/22, 1/10/22, 5/30/22, 6/27/22, 2/2/23, 2/20/23 to say that Red Rock and Nationstar should not be listened to because, basically, they are lying to cover up that they are stealing, they don’t have standing to oppose me for various other different reasons.
My 12/19/22 and 1/23/23 motions should have been granted as unopposed, just as my 3/8/21 and 6/27/22 motions should have been granted as unopposed.
but because
Judge Peterson doesn’t think the court rules apply equally to everybody, she’s telling me to shut up when I say that the attorneys are covering up fraud that frequently involves felonies, and she’s oblivious to the fact that the attorneys are lying about everything that matters.
The bottom line
Basically, everything I file is asking the court to look at the evidence because ALL THE VERIFIED EVIDENCE SUPPORTS MY CLAIMS AND NONE SUPPORTS MY OPPONENTS.
Conversely, everything my opponents file is sn opposition to me that they have on standing to make or it is a harassing motion to restrict my access to an evidence -bsed adjuciation of my legitimate claims by an impartial tribunal because NONE OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST ME.
That’s why no court in seven years of litigation has ever held an evidentiary hearing. Even the quiet title trial in 2019 had all the documentary evidence, witnesses, and real parties in interest exlcuded. I’m not kidding.
