appeal to the presiding & supervising judges
DESCRIPTION
"Increasing the accountability of family court professionals is the single most important change needed..... " These are the responses to begging for help protecting my ignored/abused "due process" rights to prevent my eviction from my home and the unnecessary destruction of my children's stability. I had been served my unlawful detainer .... and 2months later a letter proving they did not even read the complaint. This is the Cold and uncaring generic response by the Supervising Judges of the court and of family law and although the primary function of the court is to protect the children they have been made homeless by fraud and abuse of "due process" and the court has made a mockery of Justice David Sills... and the entire Elkins Commission 4th District Justice - David George Sills "..opened courtrooms to public scrutiny by prohibiting the common practice for closed-session judicial rulings with no showing on the record. (In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313”.) Yet of all matters, child support order & particularly given the aura of occult wizardry surrounding the algebraic formula set forth in section 4055 and must be seen by each parent as the result of a fair & reasonable process, not an arbitrary decision done in a corner.) “The moral to the story is that haste makes a lower affirmance rate.” (Panico v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1296.) California Judicial Branch Website http://www.courts.ca.gov/3808.htThere is no question why.... the Elkins Commission wroteLeadership, Accountability, and Resources (Elkins Recomendations-2010 - pages 69-75) Increasing the accountability of family court professionals is the single most important change needed and would produce far-reaching, positive changes in all aspects of family law. Current oversight of family court is inadequate and ineffective. Appeals are priced out of the ordinary litigant’s range and trial court decisions are rarely overruled. The Elkins recommendations would be greatly strengthened by the following suggestions• Equipping each and every family law courtroom with automated videotaping equipment to ensure that each and every family law proceeding is video-recorded, including “in-chambers” communications, would ensure access to justice and an affordable record. This is the most efficient, streamlined and effective method to ensure fairness, due process, transparency and intact (non-tampered), reasonably-priced documentation of hearings. (Elkins recommendations page 73 #8).TRANSCRIPT
mire ~up.erior (!lourt825 MAPLE AVENUE
TORRANCE. CALIFORNIA 90503
CHAMBERS OF
MARK S. ARNOLD
SUPERVISING .JUDGE
February 1,2013
Mr. Kevin Powell22320 Harbor Ridge Lane, #2Torrance, CA 90502
Re: Case No. YF004730
Dear Mr. Powell:
Ihave received your letter of complaint about Commissioner Glenda Veasey.
As your letter relates to a family law matter that was handled by a family lawjudicial officer, Ihave forwarded it to the Supervising Judge of the Family Law Court,Judge Scott Gordon. His address is 111 North Hill Street, Department 2, Los Angeles,CA 90012. . ~. ; 3 - '17 ,-(- j"-_~-£;6
Judge Gordon will look into the issues that you raised in your letter and willrespond back to you when he has finished his investigation.
?;::X_~.MARK ARNOLDSupervising Judge
TELEPHONE(310) 222·8848
CHAMBERS OF
'(fi~:e~up:erior (!lOUr!FAMILY LAW DIVISION
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
TELEPHONE(213) 974- 1234
SCOTT M. GORDON
SUPERVISING JUDGEMarch 11, 2013
Mr. Kevin Powell22320 Harbor Ridge Lane #2Torrance, California 90502
RE: CASE No. YF004703
Dear Mr. Powell:
I have read and considered your letter of December 30, 202 and the extensivematerials that you included with your letter. It must be noted that many of thematerials that you included were not related to the issues in Case No. YF004703.The majority of the materials that you included with your correspondence appearto be in support of your claims that the decisions and orders made in the casewere not appropriate.
Your first request for orders (RFO) in this matter was heard by the court on July28, 2011. At that hearing on your RFO, you were represented by attorneyCameron Astiazaran. A stipulation and order were reached between you and theother party, which was signed and entered with the court. You then withdrewyour ex parte request. On September 6, 2011, a hearing was held on yourrequest for order. A stipulation and order was once again signed and enteredwith the court and the matter was continued to allow you and the other party inthe case to comply with the court's prior orders. You were represented bycounsel at this hearing. On November 9, 2011, a hearing was held on the yourrequest for orders regarding child custody and visitation and child support. Thematter was continued by stipulation of the parties.
On January 26, 2012, the matter was called for hearing. You appeared as a self-represented litigant and the other party was represented by counsel. After ahearing was held, the Court asked you and the other party to have a seat in thecourtroom for a few minutes. After several minutes, you and the other party thenleft the court. The matter was taken off calendar.
In June 2012, you filed an ex parte request for orders. The matter was arguedand denied. On October 25, 2012, a hearing was held on your request for order.It was continued for you to provide proof of service and proof of completion of thePACT program. On December 12, 2012, the matter was called for hearing andthe court ruled on your request.
Mr. Kevin PowellRE: CASENo. YF004703March 11, 2013Page 2
A review of your correspondence indicates that you disagree with the rulings ofthe judicial officer in this matter and feel that other orders should have beenmade. As the Supervising Judge of the Family Law Division, I do not have theauthority to review, reverse, overrule or intervene in decisions made by anotherjudicial officer. The complaint process is not intended as a substitute forappellate review. The complaint process does not allow me to undertake anindependent evaluation of the decision-making process of the judicial officerhandling this case. The relief that you are requesting must be accomplishedthrough appropriately noticed Requests for Orders made in the case or throughthe appellate process.
Self-Help resources can be found at the Los Angeles Superior Court's web site awww.lasuperiorcourt.org or at the Self-Help Center located at:
Los Angeles Superior Court Self-Help CenterStanley Mosk Courthouse111 N. Hill Street, Room 426Los Angeles, California 90012
Questions regarding the Child Support Services Division can be directed to LosAngeles County Child Support Services Department: (866) 901-3212.
If you are dissatisfied with the Court's action on your complaint, you have theright to request the Commission on Judicial Performance review this matterunder its discretionary jurisdiction to oversee the discipline of subordinate judicialofficers. No further action will be taken on your complaint unless the commissionreceives your written request within 30 days after this notice was mailed. Thecommission's address is:
Commission on Judicial Performance455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400San Francisco, California 94102-3660