Raffaella Wilson vs. Mark Ambort A131543

 

Raffaella Wilson vs. Mark Ambort A131543

An appellate court is entitled to their opinion by law, but they aren’t entitled to their own facts. My opinion of the appellate court decision.

The justices state, “Here, the trial court granted Wilson’s application for a temporary restraining order. This means that the court was satisfied that Wilson’s affidavit showed “reasonable proof of harassment.” TRO’s are issued EX PARTE. “Reasonable proof of harassment,” is placing your name on it and turning it in. TRO’s are rarely denied. No one is prosecuted for penalty of perjury.  A commissioner issued the TRO not a judge. Stay away orders are rarely granted. They aren’t granted for Mickey Mouse, romper room garbage like this.

The respondent, in her courtroom testimony, alleged that she had her glasses hanging around her neck on a holder. She claims I rubbed up against her glasses in the hallway 2 1/2 years later. Her attorney called it an assault. She had an eye witness 2 1/2 years later. Where was the eye witness before?  It’s a real stretch of the imagination to call it an assault. We outlined this fact in our briefs and the justices disregarded it. Apparently the justices wanted to punish me and can’t. The TRO was not on appeal. There is no injunction. The trial judge’s ruling stands. It wasn’t threatening or harassing, and had nothing to do with neither threats nor harassment in the future. The trial judge would have issued a stay away order. The trial judge is the only one of all 6 of the judges I dealt with that is ethical, professional, and competent. Legal defamation of character is the only way they can punish me?

A credible competent attorney, who does pro tem for the TRO department that I spoke with, stated that there has to be 6 months of imminent danger before an injunction would be issued. He looked at the “evidence” and said, this garbage, it won’t go anywhere. An injunction is granted in a very small percentage of these cases. An injunction is not issued willy-nilly like District 1 Division 4 thinks.

The justices state, “and lobbied for her ouster as the class representative.” What a joke. Voting against her in a classroom setting is against the law? If I did lobby to have her removed as the class representative, this is criminal?

“Murder verdict overturned in notorious S.F. case”. Tere Beltran gets an automatic appeal and I don’t. Where is the “equal justice for all?” The Supreme Court of California states in the decision, “We reaffirm today the standard for determining heat of passion that we adopted nearly a century ago,” Justice Carol Corrigan wrote.” Precedent for over 100 years and the justices can’t figure it out! The reason that I did not petition for a review is due to advice from attorneys that I spoke with after the decision was handed down. A petition for review would cost thousands of more dollars, and I was told there is a remote chance that the Supreme Court of California would review it.

Appellate courts do not like to rewrite lower decisions because: (1) It makes the trial judge look bad. Peter J. Busch was the trial judge for the anti-SLAPP. He is known as a controversial judge. Some say that he has his mind made up, does what he wants to do,

and disregards the law. Some say he is a dangerous judge. (2) I’m male so I am immediately guilty? (3) The Justices did not want her to pay my legal fees? I will never know the real reason.

Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States uttered the famous line, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them”. This did not happen with the court.

There were glaring mistakes with the opposition briefs. Judicial discretion just means judges/justices do what they want and get away with it. See how many times the justices have been rewritten by the SCOC. There is no rule of law for Appellate Court Justices. This is equal justice for all?

The justices state, “we take this as being the truth unless there is evidence to the otherwise.They say that they thoroughly reviewed the case. How does one get evidence against baseless allegations, hearsay, and subjective responses from the respondent such as I feel, I think, I feared? The “evidence” is nothing but histrionics, hyperbole and fiction. Judicial activism?

“Ambort would stare and glare at Wilson in class, laugh under his breath “in a very creepy way.” This sounds like Mickey Mouse, romper room time. Courts have give schools like CCSF carte blanche in taking care of student problems. Why didn’t CCSF take care of this if it were happening?

“Wilson filed a follow-up complaint with Alfaro.” I was never notified of another complaint. Why are all of the opposition’s documents submitted through Word instead of email so there is a date and time stamp? Ever heard of backdating? Again, if all of these things were occurring, why didn’t CCSF take care of the problem?

“Ambort’s wild and unfounded accusations.” CCSF refused to acknowledge three eyewitnesses that contradicted everything the respondent said. They refused to place the emails in my file. One eyewitness saw her verbally assault me in the hallway and stalk me outside the men’s bathroom. All of the students, instructors, and administrators knew she filed a malicious complaint. I submitted a motion at the end of the appeal and included copies of the eyewitness emails.

The copy of the complaint I uploaded to a yahoo site was redacted out. It was unidentifiable. It was my first amendment right to place it there. CCSF has no jurisdiction over a yahoo site. No one told me to take it off the site.

“She learned that Ambort had instigated other small claims and civil harassment action and feared his harassment would not end.” I have a right to file a lawsuit when I need. A neighbor previously filed two false TRO’s against me that were denied. I filed a TRO against him and received a three year injunction against him. This is very disturbing to me! I’ll file as many lawsuits as I deem necessary in my life.

The respondent filed a malicious report. It negates everything that is in her complaint. It’s like filing a false police report. Therefore, I was not bound to lose in small claims court. I would not be responsible for paying her the costs of the action as the opinion states. Small claims court does not operate this way. Unfortunately, the justices do not know how small claims nor the TRO department works.

The State Integrity Investigation gives California a C-minus in the area of judicial accountability. See the recent article: ”Report slams the quiet way California judges are disciplined.”-- “California’s judicial disciplinary agency is too lenient and too secretive, an advocacy group charged Monday in a report submitted to the Legislature.

See http://appellatecourtsf3.blogspot.com/...Raffaella Wilson vs. Mark Ambort A131543 Witness1