Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

Page |1

FORMAL JUDICIAL COMPLAINT


COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400, San Francisco, California 94102

Name of Judge: ROBERT LONGSTRETH


Location of Court: Superior Court of California San Diego 1100 Union St. San Diego CA.
92101 Probate Division Rm. 502
Dates of Incident: March 23, 2018 and April 16 2018 any and in all proceedings
Name of Case: IN RE: OF SALVADOR BEDOLLA VILLAGOMEZ
Case No: 37-2017-00026098-PR-LA-CTL

INTRODUCTION

This Complaint is being filed because I believed Judge Robert Longstreth presiding judge in the
Probate Division located at 1100 Union St. San Diego CA 92101 violated my brother Jesus
Bedolla, and my sister Margarita Bedolla Frias and my basic constitutional, statutory rights,
access to the courts, access to due process under the laws and denial of access to justice.
Presiding Officer Judge Longstreth denied “Judicial Review” in writing of every single
document my sister filed in the Probate Division. Presiding judge Longstreth felt that as long as
he allowed the documents to be posted on the ROA it was enough to give the appearance of due
process and access to justice. Presiding Officer Judge Longstreth further accepted requests by
attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey not to allow my sister Margarita to submit any moving documents
because my sister’s moving documents were full of case law, burdensome, harassment and
oppressive, presiding officer said, “You don’t really expect the attorney to read this stuff do you?
Stop harassing the attorney with all this case law.” Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey submitted
flawed theories, untruths, fraudulent documents as facts and presiding office judge Longstreth
accepted her documents and arguments as truths, since the entire moving documents my sister
submitted were denied “Judicial Reviews” and at open hearings presiding judge Longstreth
would not allow my sister to speak at one hearing there were probably about 15-interruptions by
judge Longstreth with the exact statement, “you are not an attorney and you don’t know
anything, you don’t know what you are doing because you are not an attorney. You don’t know
what you are talking about. We tried to explain this to you and beat you over the head with this
but you just don’t get it” looking towards the direction of attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey.

For months my sister was harassed by attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey, with threatening phone
calls, and emails, false accusations, intimidation, constant threats of lawsuits against my sister
Page |2

and her favorite word, “sanctions.” Both presiding officer judge Longstreth and attorney Sandra
Bonds Hickey used the exact threats and even the exact words and phrases, and it was not legal
language. Giving me the impression and certainty that attorney Sandra Bonds was in close
private communications with the Probate Examiners, clerks, and possibly even judge Longstreth.
The mock trial or the trial that never took place was a confirmation of this.

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey threats were made through phone calls and emails presiding
judge Longstreth stated that it was just attorney lingo but since my sister was not an attorney she
did not know anything about attorney communications. Attorney Sandra Bonds accused my
brother and sister of fraud and lies but there were no facts to support her accusations and the
judge believed her accusations as true because Sandra Bonds Hickey was an attorney and my
brother and sister were not attorneys. Therefore, they had no right to appear before the court, no
right to be heard and no right to speak at courtroom hearings and even at the mock trial that
never took place. When my sister tried to open her mouth at hearings presiding judge Longstreth
would threaten my sister with sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions, and more sanctions.

Presiding Judge Longstreth further sanctioned my sister Margarita $ 15,000 1 dollars for asking
attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey for a copy of our mother Living Will and Complete Trust over
10-times through discovery. After the attorney denial of said document my sister filed about
four subpoenas which were ignored by attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey and when my sister filed
the motion to compel a copy or our mother’s entire Trust that is when presiding judge Longstreth
sanctioned her for bothering the attorney and asking for such discovery documents because he
said they were not, “relevant” according to attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey objective argument.
My sister asked for an itemized bill and attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said she did not have to
provide it, it was attorney client privilege.

About a week after my sister was sanction for asking for our mother’s entire Trust and her
exhibits that proved her request was “relevant” but was denied judicial review. Attorney Sandra
Bonds Hickey filed a trial brief with the exact same exhibits that were judicially denied review
for my sister by judge Longstreth. The documents became suddenly relevant when an “attorney”
filed them. My sister made written objections and cited what was specifically wrong with each
submission of exhibits by attorney Sandra bonds Hickey. So at the trial day of April 16, 2018
attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey shows up to court with mock folders of trial briefs. When asked
for a copy of the trial brief to exchange with my sister’s trial brief Attorney Sandra first denied
she had a trial brief. When the presiding officer judge Longstreth appeared she handed my sister
over a folder that appeared to be a brief. Inside the folder were three exhibits two that were
exactly the same and one that was partial with a lot of missing papers of what was presumed to
be our mother’s Power of Attorney but lacked authentication, there were three different names
no legal signature and not even notarized. Our mother who was scheduled as her only witness
did not show up at the trial. She later added my sisters Alejandra and Graciela along with
Roberto.

1
One for a motion to compel interrogatories that were answered two times with the same answer and no
production of documents because Attorney Sandra Bonds was holding stolen documents relevant to the
case. After he sign the order of around over $11,000 or so in sanctions.
Page |3

Presiding officer Longstreth presided for the trial, there was no trial not even an appearance of a
trial. He spent a good 15-plus-minutes with nonstop harassment threats of more sanctions
against my sister, and kept saying, “I need to find a way to sanction you.” Which, I will go into
detail and I will include the exhibits and ROA in this complaint.

On April 19, 2018 I called the Probate San Diego Division 1100 Union Street to get a copy of the
trial transcripts I was told there were no trial transcripts. I asked for an audio recording of the
trial and I was told there are no audio recordings of such procedures. I find this shocking to the
mind and void of any legal precedence or logic. There are documented complaints against
Presiding Officer Robert Longstreth for his vitriolic behavior, conduct, bias, against pro per
women and he makes these emotions well known in his courtroom.

Presiding Officer Judge Robert Longstreth uses pro se women as bate dogs 2 for attorneys like
Sandra Bonds Hickey who have no trial experience in litigation or apparently unable to decode
case law and consistently relies on her close association with court personal. An attorney who
does not rely on law and basic human rights and constitutionality but on lies, unsound theories
not supported by law or logic, bully tactics, threats, intimidation, harassment and her favorite
words are “I am going to sue you” and “I am going to sanction you.”
Based on our personal experience in Judge Longstreth courtroom we believe and declare Judge
Longstreth did not follow the spirit of the law and the Judiciary Code of Conduct and Ethics.

Presiding officer judge Longstreth did not maintain professional competence in judicial
administration. Judge Longstreth did not cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business. Instead judge Longstreth criticized Hon. Judge Harry Powasek
for granting judicial review of our 2010 case which ruling was relevant to this case. Judge
Longstreth stated, “Judge Powasek made a bad decision in allowing you to proceed, I would not
have done that. We in this court have an understanding with the other judges, judge Kelety and
Judge Bostwik we are all on the same page on this one.” 3 He was referring to not allowing pro
se’s access to the courts or meaningful review of documents. 4

2
With the exception that the bate dog in this case was legally blind and disabled.
3
The fundamental rights to be heard were trampled by the hearing procedures employed. “A litigant in
civil proceedings is entitled to a fair hearing, imbued with the protections of due process.” See A.B. v.
Y.Z., 184 N.J. 599, 604 (2005); H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309, 321-23 (2003). “The due process
guarantee expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires assurance of
fundamental fairness during legal proceedings. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This includes the
opportunity to be heard and requires “procedural safeguards including the right to cross-examine adverse
witnesses and the right to call witnesses”. . . .” Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 116, 124 (App. Div.
2005).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that [n]o state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
4
My sister Margarita Bedolla Frias had a right to self-representation that was trampled upon
in judge Robert Longstreth courtroom, Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by
the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment [422 U.S.
806, 813]. That right is codified in 28 U.S.C. 1654. Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817, the 1977; (430 U.S.
817, the 1977; Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546. (1941); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 708 (1961)
Page |4

Further, judge Longstreth stated that attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey worked for him [attorney
Bonds Hickey was not a court appointed attorney she was our brother’s David attorney] and so
did all of the examiners and clerks, they all worked for him. Presiding Officer Judge Longstreth
actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.

Based on the fact that I [Silvia Bedolla Peters] was refused the transcripts of the trial proceedings
by Judge Longstreth Probate staff. I do declare, that the account of events is true and correct to
the best of my recollections. The exhibits attached to this complaint will support my Complaint
and the facts stated in this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings.

Fundamental human rights are violated and recorded often in the San Diego Family Court and
Probate Court but these complaints fall on deaf ears. Not having tape recordings and
transcriptionist to record the hearings at a courtroom only gives judges the freedom to abuse pro
per litigants, threaten them, sanction them and doctor the record on the minute orders. This
Complaint is not only against judge Longstreth but also the untrained and or badly trained
employees be Examiners, clerks, and personal who consistently mistreat litigants, are biased,
witness the abusive practices by judicial officers and remain silent. These court clerks and
examiners don’t believe pro per persons are human being with basic constitutional rights and
view pro per’s are only burdensome to society. 5

5
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV § 1; see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976) (“Procedural
due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or
‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth
Amendment.”). The Due Process Clause is derived from the Magna Carta, which read in relevant part:
“No freemen shall be taken and imprisoned or diseased or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go
upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
MAGNA CARTA, § XXXIX (1215), available at http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm; see
also Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 235, 244 (1819)

See, e.g., Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 431 (6th Cir. 2002) (“This Clause clothes
individuals with the right to both substantive and procedural due process.”) (citation omitted). 19 See
Fieger v. Ferry, No. 04-60089, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71274, at *16–18 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2007)
(“The Due Process Clause provides three types of protections.”); see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S.
327, 337 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . .
is the source of three different kinds of constitutional protection.”). 20 This is the rationale behind § 1983
claims. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990) (“First, the [Due Process] Clause incorporates
many of the specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights.”). 21 Id. (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). This substantive guarantee extends to many areas of law. See, e.g., Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) (privacy); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 392 (1923)
(education in foreign languages). 22 See, e.g., Mathews, 424 U.S. at 332 (explaining that procedural due
process prevents government from freely depriving individuals of liberty of property).
Page |5

HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT

Our father David Lemus Bedolla and mother Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla were
married for 58-years. Together they had 9-biological children Salvador being our oldest brother
who purchased a home located at 918 Emma Drive Cardiff CA in 1974. On the Deed of Trust
Salvador added our mother and father as, “Joint Tenants.” In 1994 the home was refinanced and
the Deed of Trust maintained the same names as, “Joint Tenants.” Our father died on February
2010 after his death we found out that our youngest sister Alejandra had created an illegal trust
in which she gifted our father’s 1/3 according to her of the Emma Drive property to her. All
relevant documents are filed and Honorable judge Harry L. Powasek found that my sister’s
Alejandra’s documents were not valid CASE No.: 37-2010-00150342-PR-TR-NC filed on July
15, 2010.

Our brother Salvador suddenly died on May 27, 2017 and so two of the legal, “Joint Tenants”
have died leaving our 84-year old mother Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla as the sole
survivor of the Joint Tenancy. The entire case law and legality of the Joint Tenancy, right to
survivorship and California marital property was litigated for over a year and a half in the above
mentioned case. There was an extensive Summary Judgment Ruling in our favor with all the
case law included. Alejandra was not a legal owner of the above mentioned property.

At this point we believed the issue was settled but my sister Alejandra took out a $60,000 Rider
against the property and she placed her name on some phony applications she did with Wells
Fargo. On December 31, 2012 Alejandra went to Wells Fargo and basically file an application
to take out a second on the property. She put herself as, “a Joint Tenant” on the application for
SIXTY-THOUSAND-DOLLARS (60,000) plus interest. She took Salvador and our mother to
file the application for the second loan on the property and finally our mother signed the second
on the loan.

There was a recording requested by Wells Fargo Document Number 2013-0011976 of a


Full Reconveyance WF Home Equity # 68204221181998. “BEDOLLA”

On September 22, 2016 there was a Full Reconveyance document # 2016-0503174 for a “Full
Reconveyance title going back to American Security Company as present trustee, DAVID
LEMUS BEDOLLA and TRINIDAD VILLAGOMEZ BEDOLLA HUSBAND AND WIFE and
SALVADOR VILLAGOMRZ BEDOLLA a single man, ALL AS JOINT TENANTS as trustor
and recorded on 2/11/1994 as Instrument Document No. 1994-009738, Book N/A, Page 1875, of
the Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California
having been requested in writing by the beneficiary of the obligation secured by said Deed of
Trust, to reconvey the estate granted to Trustee under said Deed of Trust, does hereby, recovery
of the person or persons legally entitled thereto, without warranty all the estate, title and interest
acquired by the trustee under said Deed of Trust.” AMERICAN SECURITIES COMPANY
JAGRUTI K. SHAH Vice President Loan Documentation.”
Page |6

After the death of our brother Salvador we consulted at least five well known and respected
attorney who said that there was no need for probate and one attorney said, “Let me look at the
San Diego County Assessor’s Office and do a title search into the Cardiff property. He called
back the next day and verified what the other attorneys had said that there was no need to do
anything at the courts but rather to take the death certificates and have our mother remove the
names of our father and brother. He also suggested we hire a title company and clear title.

Our brother David took our mother’s Trust without her consent and went to see attorney Sandra
Bonds Hickey who told him that the property was not under Joint Tenancy that there was a
broken chain link and consistently presented to the court flawed deeds of trusts filed by our sister
Alejandra as true deeds with the Probate Court as evidence to support her broken chain link
theory. Even though the deeds attorney Sandra Bonds filed in the court read at the bottom with
large bold capitalized letters6, “THIS DEED IS PREPARED WITHOUT TITLE
EXAMINATION”.

The deeds submitted by attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey were found to be fraudulent, not just by
the San Diego Probate Court in 2010 but by an investigation from Wells Fargo and documented
in the San Diego County Assessor’s Office. It would lead a reasonable person to ask are
fraudulent deeds valid? Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey believed that they were and wrote on her
trial brief and all moving documents they were valid when all evidence pointed to the contrary.
Was David’s Petition to Administer the Estate of Salvador flawed and premature? Since our
mother was the only survivor of the Joint Tenancy and our brother was never married and never
had any children.

Yes, Salvador along with our mother Maria and our late father were all, “Joint Tenants” in the
918 Emma Drive property. Petitioner David has always known they have been Joint Tenants and
the property was and has always been titled under “Joint Tenancy.” So if the 918 Emma Drive
property is held under Joint Tenancy why did Petitioner and his attorney file this Petition?
The facts are that the decedent's Salvador [and late father’s] 918 Emma Drive property would be
passed on to Maria our mother not just as the next of kin but through “Joint Tenancy”. The
principal characteristic of a joint tenancy is the right of survivorship. (Estate of Propst (1990) 50
Cal.3d 448, 455.) When one joint tenant dies, the entire estate automatically belongs to the
other tenant. (Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1317.) The right of
survivorship is an interest that exists from the moment the joint tenancy is created. (Rupp v.
Kahn (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 188, 196.)

So the essence of the entire proceedings were basically that the issue was not ripe for probate
because our 84-year-old mother is still alive and is the only survivor of this Joint Tenancy and
that the property would automatically be passed on to her. The jurisdiction belonged to the
County Assessor’s Office and the Title Company without any facts, assessment and final title
investigations the court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, at this time the court lacked
jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
6
There are a lot of these deeds filed with the County Assessor’s Office by Alejandra. She knows
they are illegal but she keeps filing them. The only person who believes are legal is attorney
Sandra Bonds Hickey and judge Longstreth without any judicial review but takes her word for it
because she is an attorney and works for him.
Page |7

Presiding officer judge Longstreth denied judicial review all of the relevant documents that were
submitted by my sister Margarita Bedolla Frias. In fact he denied review of all documents
submitted by my sister Margarita and accepted all the flawed documents submitted by attorney
Sandra Bonds Hickey.

At the March 23 motion to compel hearing attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey asked for about
$15,000 in sanctions against my sister Margarita. The Tentative Ruling states the requests for
Judicial Notice (ROA 134) are denied as the matter therein are either not judicially noticeable or
are irrelevant. Citing (Evidence Code Section 452; People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 25, 42,
fn 2,). Sanctions were granted by judge Longstreth.

The court cited People v. Townsel to support the sanctions. The entire case of People v. Townsel
is about a prisoner Townsel with an IQ of 59 and 66 being tried for murder “A person cannot
be tried or adjudged to punishment while mentally incompetent.”(§ 1367, subd. (a).) A defendant
is mentally incompetent if, as a result of a mental disorder or developmental disability, he or she
is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct
of a defense in a rational manner. (Ibid.)‘ ‖ (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1063.) ―
Both the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
state law require a trial judge to suspend proceedings and conduct a competency hearing
whenever the court is presented with substantial evidence of incompetence, that is, evidence
that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning the defendant‘s competence to stand
trial.‘ ‖ (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 401; see also § 1368, subds. (a), (b); People
v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 518.)” In a competency trial, ―[i]f it is suspected the
defendant is developmentally disabled, the court shall appoint the director of the regional center
for the developmentally disabled . . . to examine the defendant.‖ (§ 1369, subd. (a).)[63 Cal.4th
37]”7

Well, the Judicial Officer Longstreth court did not apply its own advice that of the quotation of
Townsel above because our mother was on the witness list as the only witness on behalf of
attorney Sandra Bonds client my brother David Bedolla. Our mother has dementia and there was
no competency hearing to determine if she was able to testify at trial. Attorney Sandra Bonds
Hickey said on multiple times when this issue came up in oral hearings or writings on file in the
Probate court. Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said, “She is competent” at the March 23, hearing
and the judge Longstreth looked at my sister and said, “She is competent.” Whereby my sister
submitted a lot of evidence stating otherwise. Our sister asked that the court appoint an attorney
7
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from depriving any
person of property without due process of law. fn. 3 This mandate has been interpreted to require, at a
minimum, that "absent a countervailing state interest of overriding significance, persons forced to settle
their claims of right and duty through the judicial process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be
heard." (Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) supra, 401 U.S. at p. 377 [28 L.Ed.2d at pp. 118-119].) Thus, the
United States Supreme Court has long recognized a constitutional right of access to the courts for all
persons, including prisoners. (Procunier v. Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 419 [40 L. Ed. 2d 224, 243, 94
S. Ct. 1800]; Cruz v. Beto (1972) 405 U.S. 319, 321 [31 L. Ed. 2d 263, 267-268, 92 S. Ct. 1079]; Johnson
v. Avery (1969) 393 U.S. 483, 487 [21 L. Ed. 2d 718, 722, 89 S. Ct. 747]; Price v. Johnston (1948) 334
U.S. 266 [92 L. Ed. 1356, 68 S. Ct. 1049].)
Page |8

to represent our mother since her property is in jeopardy through the churning of billable hours
and she is on Medical and SSI and cannot afford to pay seconds or leans on the property and she
does not speak English cannot read or write English or Spanish and is 100% percent dependent.
The court denied my sister’s request each and every time and said that our mother can make that
petition herself. This was not physically, mentally or in any way shape or form possible our
mother could not do so with the advanced dementia and all other matters.

The court did not review Margarita’s Judicial Notices with the exhibits attached and the citation
of People v. Townsel cited by the court is relevant to the issue of our 84-year-old mother who
does not have the capacity to make decisions, sign contracts, convey real estate properties, care
for herself, does not have the mental capacity to make decisions, cannot read or write either
English or Spanish and needs someone to care for her 24/7. Yet attorney Sandra Bonds claimed
our mother signed the Waver of Bond for our brother. Why didn’t our brother David who is also
on Medical and Disability sign his own waver and put his own house on the table?

So the person who should be having an attorney to protect her property is our mother however it
is our brother who has been involved in a scheme to take the properties in Mexico belonging to
or late brother by fraud who secures himself and attorney and a Waver of Bond presumably
signed by our mother who does not have the capacity to sign such document.
So how did our brother David Bedolla who is on state disability and Medical secure himself an
attorney like Sandra Bonds Hickey? Very simple to explain, attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey saw
an illiterate greedy 62-year-old man and an 84-year-old-women with a Beach Property Estate
and she saw a whole lot of $$$$.

The Tentative Ruling states on page 1, “In order to prevail in a motion to compel, the moving
party must establish that the matter sought is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action or to the determination of any motion made in the action or to the determination
of any motion made in that action, and that the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (CCP section
2017.010.)”

First the Tentative Ruling states that Margarita’s Judicial Notice (ROA 134) is denied as the
matter therein are either not judicially noticeable or are irrelevant. Margarita submitted these
Exhibits in her Judicial Notice to establish RELEVANCE and to reply to the opposition by
David who brought out the issue of RELEVANCE. So it would have not been impossible to
establish relevance if the court will not review the document she filed in this court.

Yet, when Margarita submitted her memorandum and Judicial Notices with Exhibits the court
decline to review them in violation of her due process rights. 8 The Courts Tentative Ruling
citation of Department of Forestry to support sanctions against Margarita and denial of review of
her moving documents filed in court violates her Due Process Clause and denied her access to
the court under the US Constitution and California Constitution.

8
(Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994 ) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 510; see Cordova v. Vons Grocery Co. (1987) 196
Cal.App.3d 1526, 1531; see also Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 561, fn.
7.) Citations from Department of Forestry Page 18
Page |9

In the Department of Forestry case its states, “For, if a plaintiff’s case is dismissed without due
process, that party’s right of access to the courts is infringed. (See generally Payne v. Superior
Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 914.)” In this case Margarita’s due process rights have been
infringed and denial of access to the court when the ROA were filed but not reviewed.
Further the court states in its analysis, “A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
determination of any motion made in the action.” Yet, when Margarita submitted her
memorandum and Judicial Notices with Exhibits the court decline to review them in violation of
her due process rights then sanctioned her on or about $15,000 on the April 23 rd motion hearing.

At the hearing presiding judge Longstreth kept pointing out the fact that he could not read the
date on a subpoena when the date was clear there where so many errors clerical errors by both
the court and attorney Bonds Hickey but he accepted them and he kept saying over and over,
“you don’t know anything, you are not qualified and you are not an attorney, you need to get
yourself an attorney because you know nothing, you don’t understand anything.”

At the March 23rd hearing judge Longstreth must have told my sister Margarita that she was not
attorney and she did not know anything over and over and when my sister tried to say something
or tried to make any legal citation judge Longstreth would say, “You don’t want to go there! You
don’t want to go there! Do you want to go there? You are not an attorney, we tried to beat you
over and over the head with this, don’t you get it you are not an attorney. You don’t know
anything you just don’t understand.” Judge Longstreth said, “all right I am ready to make my
decision now.” My brother Jesus asked Judge Longstreth, “You are not going to make a
decision now at a motion hearing are you?” “Judge asked what do you want to do?” Jesus
answered, “I want to make a motion to stay so that I can get an attorney.” Judge Longstreth
became angry and said, “What? Why do you want a motion to stay do you even know what it
means?” My brother Jesus said, “I want to go to trial.” Judge Longstreth was very angry and
asked attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey, “how long do you think the trial is going to take?”
Attorney answered, “I don’t think it’s going to take more than an hour.” Judge Longstreth
sarcastically said, “It’s going to take me less than 15-minutes to make a ruling.”

The minute orders are not a true reflection or what actually happened in the courtroom or facts in
submission and a lot of this stuff in the minute orders did not take place. Like presiding judge
Longstreth stated that Margarita and Jesus my brother presented a motion to stay proceedings so
that he could go get an attorney. There was no motion before the court on March 23, and no
motion to stay proceedings was scheduled or denied on that day. ROA 175 and ROA 172 there
were minute orders on a “Court Trial” when no court trial ever took place. Most of the rulings
and minute orders were doctored to support the documents that were filed by Sandra Bonds
Hickey. There was zero judicial review of documents submitted by my sister Margarita. Our
mother 84-year-old never consented to these proceedings and she never had an attorney to
represent her in the unnecessary churning of billable hours against her property without her prior
consent.
P a g e | 10

THE MOCK TRIAL OF APRIL 16, 2018

When we arrived at court attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said, so are you guys ready to concede?
Are you ready to concede? My brother Jesus said, “I am ready for this to be over today I am
ready for the trial.” Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey had added three additional witness names
our brother Roberto who showed up wearing jeans, our sister Grace who worked for the San
Diego Court for over 30-years who showed up wearing her Pj’s. Our sister Alejandra did not
show up and either did our mother. My sister Margaret had a trial brief ready for attorney Sandra
Bonds Hickey and I asked her if she had a trial brief for my sister and she said she did not and
she did not have to give my sister one.

After I serve her with the Trial Brief for my sister attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey asked my
brother and sister to go outside. While they were outside she was really laud and the
conversation could be overheard inside the courtroom. Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said,
“This is very serious you guys are in big trouble if we tried to admit your mom’s medical files.
Do you know what HIPPAA means… [Medical records were filed under seal that proved mom
has dementia] you don’t know that if we put this in court it will be public record and she is going
to come after you and sue you and you are in deep trouble.”

My brother Jesus said, “Sandra you put exhibits documents that were incomplete you put
documents that are cropped up and pasted together with pages missing to confirm your view
point of what you think it is.” She denied it and Jesus said, “I don’t see David’s signature on
anything or even notarized” and she said, “he has not accepted yet.” So Jesus asked, “Sandra,
“why is he acting as my mom’s power of attorney?” Sandra said, “Oh well he can say, he can
do it anytime he wants to.” Not true Jesus submitted signed documents to accept to be our
mother’s Trustee in 2009 not Jonny come lately David with phony doctored documents and
stolen sections of our mother’s Trust. Attorney Sandra submitting stolen documents as exhibits.

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey kept blaming my sister Margarita and Jesus for the proceedings
at this point Jesus said, “Your client is the one who started this we had an agreement before he
started this we sat together at Starbucks and discussed how to take care of mom and since my
name was on moms Trust as Trustee and Executor David and I agreed that we would make
decisions together then he went out and got an attorney and changed his phone number.”
Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said, “You missed the facts. Silvia was the one who advised him
to get an attorney.” Jesus answered, “No I don’t care what Silvia has to say, I was there and you
were not so you cannot tell me what happened, because I was there!”

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said, “Your mom is coherent.” Jesus response, “no she is not I go
there once a week and I can tell you that she is not don’t stand there and say that, she cannot
remember anything past 15-minutes.” Sandra says, “Your mom was ok a year ago she was
coherent when she signed the Waver of Bond, I do this for a living, I can tell you when someone
is competent and when they are not.” Jesus said, “You are not a medical doctor Sandra.”
Sandra said, “I know when someone is coherent.” Jesus said, “No you don’t, you are not a
medical doctor.” Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said to Jesus, “you don’t know what you are
talking about you are not lawyers you are mixing the facts.”
P a g e | 11

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey considered herself an expert on determining if someone has a
mental capacity, even though she is not a medical doctor but she is an expert that knows.
Therefore, there is no need for the court to follow both, “the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and state law require a trial judge to
suspend proceedings and conduct a competency hearing whenever the court is presented with
substantial evidence of incompetence, that is, evidence that raises a reasonable or bona fide
doubt concerning the defendant‘s competence to stand trial.‘ ‖ (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42
Cal.4th 379, 401; see also § 1368, subds. (a), (b); People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508,
518.)” Presiding Judge Longstreth agreed with attorney Bonds Hickey when she stated that our
mother had the capacity at the March 23 hearing, he turned to my sister Margarita and brother
Jesus and said, “She has the capacity.”

When my brother and sister along with attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey came back to the
courtroom judge Longstreth repeated the exact same things attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey had
said. It was almost like if they got together and planed the mock trial together, no I am not
kidding.

Judge Longstreth said, “You know this thing I don’t understand why you guys continue this we
all want the same thing to turn this over to your mother but somehow you think that your brother
is going to do something nefarious9and he cannot do it because the court is going to oversee
that. You have been dragging this forever. You are just throwing rocks at your mother’s house.”

Judge Longstreth must have repeated the exact same phrases over 15-times “You are not an
attorney, we tried to beat you over and over the head with this, and don’t you get it you are not
an attorney. You don’t know anything you just don’t understand.” Judge Longstreth, turned to
Jesus and said, “Jesus I am going to deny your petition because you came here and represented
yourself and you did not use good judgment. Your brother [David] on the other hand he got
himself a lawyer he used good judgment. Because you did not hire a lawyer you are the bad
choice. David had a lawyer and he was the right person”

Judge Longstreth, “you guys are the ones who keep putting off the decision making, you guys
have a personal vendetta against your sister who is the Joint Tenant in this property.”

This statement is scary because she is not a Joint Tenant with our mother late brother Salvador
and our father and even attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey advanced the “chain link theory” as to
why the property was not under joint tenancy and therefore she needed to come in and file the
Letters of Administration in the Probate Court.

Judge Longstreth said, “You said it is as simple as going to the county assessor’s office and
bring in your brother’s death certificate. It’s not that simple because the property is in joint
9
Yes, he has been in the process of taking our brother’s 3-homes and commercial lots for years. They are
not even mentioned in the application for Administration that David submitted to the court. This was
another thing that Sandra submitted only the so called 1/3 Cardiff property on the Application to
Administer the Estate and did not include the 18k- in cash David took from Salvador’s safe along with
many documents and deeds to the rest of his properties. These entire proceedings were a shock to any
reasonable mind.
P a g e | 12

tenancy and half would be going to your sister you don’t think that is fair do you?” It was very
clear at this point that Judge Longstreth did not understand and was not familiar with any of the
facts as to this property and was making dangerous decisions that would have dire consequences
for our mother.

Sandra’s argument all along was that the property was not under joint tenancy and there was a
“broken chain link” therefore this allowed her to come in as an attorney. Neither one of these
arguments were correct. The true and correct Joint Tenancy as documented in the County
Assessor’s Office. The Joint Tenancy was between our later father David Lemus Bedolla our
mother Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla and our late brother Salvador with our mother
surviving our father and late brother Salvador as the only survivor in the “Joint Tenancy.”

Margaret tried to show the documents from judge Powasek and Judge Longstreth asked, “What
are you talking about?” Margarita said, “the judgment from the court that said Alejandra did not
have a third or was a joint tenant in case No CASE No.: 37-2010-00150342-PR-TR-NC filed on
July 15, 2010.” Judge Longstreth asked gain, “What are you talking about”

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey answered, “It’s the Summary Judgment they won against
Alejandra”. Then judge Longstreth said, “oh well I don’t agree with another’s judge bad
decision he made a bad decision.” Then he said, “But I am at the same level that he is, so I
cannot overrule his bad judgment.” Then, he said he would not make that ruling and no judge
in the probate court neither Judge Kelety or Judge Boswick would have ruled in our favor of
someone representing themselves. Judge Longstreth said, “We all have the same agreement.”
Judge swayed into saying that, “David does not have the right to change anything because I will
oversee him and his attorney works for me and I have a lot of people working for me like
examiners and clerks. You just don’t understand and I cannot get it through your head, we keep
beating this through your head that you are not lawyers so you don’t understand and you don’t
know what I am talking about because you are not lawyers.”

Judge Longstreth said, “Jesus you don’t have a lawyer that is the reason why I would never pick
you. You don’t have a lawyer and you did not get a lawyer and all the paper work that you filed
prolonged the entire hearing and you are just throwing rocks at your mom’s house. Everything
that you file she is going to respond to it and you are just throwing rocks at your mother house
you are wasting time.”

Judge Longstreth had previously said at the March 23rd hearing that David’s bond was not valid
and then he accepted the waver of bond and he just automatically took the arguments that
attorney Sandra bonds Hickey gave him in the private ex parte communications between the
attorney and court employees and most likely judge Longstreth himself because he repeated
everything Sandra had told us and he was actually representing her against us at every hearing.

Every time my sister Margarita opened her mouth judge Longstreth threatened her with sanctions
Judge Longstreth kept saying to Margarita, “if there was a way I could sanction you I would I
am going to find a way to sanction you. Your sister put you up to this she put you upfront
because she did not want to face the sanctions. If she were up here I would sanction her. I am
going to find a way to sanction you. I am going to try to figure out a way to sanction you.”
P a g e | 13

In the trial brief submitted a week before the trial attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey presented to the
court she place the exhibits Margarita introduced in the Judicial Notice (ROA 134)
Margarita brings up the question of the court allowing attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey to bring a
copy of the partial trust that the court ruled it was irrelevant documentation and asked, “You
sanctioned me for asking for a copy of the entire trust?” Judge Longstreth then asked attorney
Sandra Bonds Hickey, “Why did you not sent them a copy of the entire trust? Give them a copy
of the trust” and Sandra answered, “I don’t have to.” The judge said “ok.” Throughout the
entire proceedings Judge Longstreth acted as attorney on behalf of Sandra Bonds Hickey
assistant, and her own personal attorney. In the end judge Longstreth turned to my brother Jesus
and very sarcastically said, “Oh by the way your Fee Waver has been approved.” 10

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey had previously lied to Jesus several times and told him that his
name was not anywhere in the Trust in an email and he was not entitled to have a copy of the
trust in which Jesus answered, “my name is all over the Trust I know because I signed the
documents to be our mother’s Trustee and Executor after Salvador in 2009. Don’t tell my name
is not in the Trust my name is all over the Trust.” Not only is Jesus named in the Trust as a
Trustee but as an heir to the Estate. However, Judge Longstreth believe that Jesus is not entitled
to be heard and not entitled to get a copy of a Trust that was illegally obtained by attorney
Sandra Bonds Hickey because he was not an attorney and was not represented by an attorney. 11

Presiding Judge Robert Longstreth prejudice and bias against my brother Jesus Bedolla and sister
Margarita Bedolla Frias, mistreatment, hatred for pro per’s and wrongful conduct in the
courtroom that appears to be persistent and systemic throughout the Family and Probate Division
against pro per’s and particularly women has contributed to the erosion of public confidence in
the integrity and partiality of the judicial system. This said prejudicial misconduct, which is
conduct that is unjudicial and prejudicial to the public esteem for the judicial office. Presiding
Judge Robert Longstreth acted in bad faith, and his conduct was willful and a systemic
unregulated custom, practice and procedure and his clerks engaged in unethical bias as well.
There is very little if any administrative justice, unbiased, due process, and equal access to
justice when pro per’s are only allowed to file documents and placed said documents on the

10
While, Canon 3C states that a judge should recuse when “the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be
questioned.” Case law states a judge should be disqualified when “a reasonable man knowing all the
circumstances would have doubts about the judge’s ability to rule . . . in an impartial manner.”
McClendon v. Clinard, 38 N.C. App. 353, 356, 247 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1978). In State v. Fie, 320 N.C. 626,
628, 359 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1987).
11
In re Watson upheld its state’s canon under strict scrutiny, observing that “[j]udges must apply the law
faithfully and impartially—they are not elected to aid particular groups, be it the police, the prosecution or
the defense bar. Campaign promises that suggest otherwise gravely risk distorting public perception of the
judicial role.” In re Watson, 794 N.E.2d at 1.
Medina v. California 505 U.S. 437 (1992). and Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). Both the
protections of procedural due process and the First Amendment are important individual rights that cannot
defer to one another as a matter of law in the same way that certain interests may yield to the deference of
the military. Instead of creating rigid rules, the tension between procedural due process and the First
Amendment is best settled through a flexible balancing approach under the circumstances.
P a g e | 14

ROA but never have any judicial review, never have an opportunity to speak at hearings and
there are no audio recordings or transcripts of Judge Longstreth abusive practices against pro
per’s and women. Leaving pro per’s with no confidence in the judiciary and the administrative
justice system which said actions violate the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the California
Constitution.
Presiding Judge Robert Longstreth hatred and prejudice against women and pro per’s violates the
Code of Judicial Ethics, canons 1, 2, 2A, 3B(5), and -3 - 3B(7). 12 This judge has had many
complaints and appeals based on his conduct and treatment against women and pro per’s he
should not be presiding over pro per’s, women or in family court based on his prior complaints.
I, Silvia Bedolla Peters declare;
I am the sister of descendent Salvador Bedolla. Except as to those matters I state on information
and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true, if called before this Court, I could
and would testify competently from my own personal knowledge as to the facts stated herein.

I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct that this declaration was executed on April 23, 2018.

______________________
Silvia Bedolla Peters
I certify that this Complaint contains 17-pages
______________________
4666 Rose Drive Silvia Bedolla Peters
Oceanside CA. 92056
760-805-7860

12
Presiding judge Longstreth Canon Violations Against pro Per’s Include:
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the JudiciaryJudicial Councils
Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364).
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all
Activities. (A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the
relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty,
integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the
judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety
and appearance of impropriety.
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently (1); (2); (4);
(6); (3); (5); (C) (a); (d) (ii);
Canon 3A(3); & Canon 3A(4).
P a g e | 15

DECLARATTION OF JESUS BEDOLLA

I, Jesus Bedolla, was a Petitioner in this matter. I have personally reviewed and am familiar with
the records, files and proceedings described in and the subject of the present complaint herein
and know the facts set forth to be true and correct to the best of my recollection.
My basic constitutional rights to the courts, due process and justice was denied and violated
because I was not a lawyer by judge Longstreth. Attorney Sandra filed many lies, fraudulent
papers with the court and in my personal conversations and emails she lied over and over. She
presented partial stolen documents to court and documents found not to be valid from the San
Diego County Assessor’s Office. Judge Longstreth accepted her documents and theories
because I was not a lawyer and said so many times in open court.
Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey denied many times before, during discovery, and in many
subpoenas a copy of our mother’s Living Trust that was stolen by my brother David Bedolla.
Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey said my name was not even mentioned on it. She lied I signed
the documents to be our mother’s Trustee after our late brother Salvador in 2009 and I am the
heir of my mother’s Estate in question. David did not sign a single document and he did not
even know that our mother had a trust. I had the right to protect and defend my inheritance in
court as well as maintain my mother’s Estate intact. Judge Longstreth took away my rights to
defend my mother’s and my future property by denying me access to the courts and access to
justice because I was not a lawyer. I had more than 10-declarations in support of my credibility,
integrity, a man of honor, principles and devotion to my family and steadfast and unshakable
love and devotion to my mother.
Judge Longstreth took away my inherit constitutional rights, denied my very existence as a
human being, and humiliated me in open court simple because I was not a lawyer and this made
me a bad choice and someone he would never choice and consider for anything.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and if called to testify I would do so from my own personal
knowledge of the events.

April 23, 2018 ____________________________________


P: 760-622-0787 Jesus Bedolla
P a g e | 16

DECLARATTION OF MARGARITA BEDOLLA FRIAS

I, Margarita Bedolla Frias, was a Petitioner in this matter. I have personally reviewed
and am familiar with the records, files and proceedings described in and the subject of the
present complaint herein and know the facts set forth to be true and correct to the best of my
recollection of the events that took place in this matter in the above entitled complaint.
My basic constitutional rights to the courts, due process and justice was denied and violated
because I was not a lawyer by judge Longstreth. Attorney Sandra filed many lies, fraudulent
papers with the court and in my personal conversations and emails she lied over and over. She
presented partial stolen documents to court and documents found not to be valid from the San
Diego County Assessor’s Office. Judge Longstreth accepted her documents and theories
because I was not a lawyer and the submission of my documents were denied Judicial Review
and he said so many times in open court.

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey denied many times before, during discovery, and in many
subpoenas a copy of our mother’s Living Trust that was stolen by my brother David Bedolla.
After the denials I filed a Motion to Compel the production of our mother entire Living Trust.
Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey objected stating that it was irrelevant among other theories.
Judge Longstreth denied judicial review of my entire filings including the exhibits that proved
attorney Bonds Hickey was wrong and had filed documents that were found to be fraudulent by
the San Diego County Assessor’s Office. At the March 23 rd hearing judge Longstreth sanctioned
me on or about $15,000 for asking for our mother’s Living Trust and presumably not answering
exact same interrogatories that I had previously answered twice. The finalized minute order had
sanctions of about $11,000-plus dollars against me for asking for my mother’s Living Trust.
At each and every hearing judge Longstreth kept telling that I was not an attorney and I did not
know what I was talking about, that I did not know anything because I was not an attorney and
he was going to find a way to sanction me he repeated this over and over and over.

Attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey consistently called me, emailed me, harassed me, to bully me
mostly stated on court documents that I lied and committed some sort of fraud which was a lie.
P a g e | 17

Judge Longstreth said it was ok because it was attorney lingo and this is the way attorneys
communicate but I wouldn’t know because I was not an attorney and did not know anything.
Judge Longstreth took away my inherit constitutional rights, denied my very existence as a
human being, and humiliated me in open court simple because I was not a “lawyer.”

I am legally blind, disabled as defined by the ADA I am on Disability and Medical and I was
treated as subhuman by both attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey and judge Longstreth. Judge
Longstreth sanctioned me without due cause or due process first about $15,000 and then lowered
to about over $11,000 simply because I was not an attorney, refused to review my moving
documents and to set me as an example of what will happen to a person coming before him
representing themselves in court without an attorney.

Judge Longstreth made it clear in open court at the April 16 th hearing that he would never
review or make a decision in favor of someone representing themselves and that the Probate
judges all had this agreement. He said attorney Sandra Bonds Hickey worked for him and all the
examiners and clerks worked for him as well and they all have the same understanding.
At this same April 16th hearing every time I made an attempt to speak Judge Longstreth would
interrupt abruptly and he kept repeating, “I want to sanction you, I am going to find a way to
sanction you, I want to sanction you, I am going to find a way to sanction you.”

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and if called to testify I would do so from my own personal
knowledge of the events.

April 23, 2018 ____________________________________


P:760-681-8639 Margarita Bedolla Frias
P a g e | 18