II ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATING COURT ORDER, RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS First and foremost, I feel compelled to address the term "disobey" used in this case. Upon researching its definition, “disobey” refers to the failure to adhere to rules, commands, or authority. However, it is important to highlight that Judge Pimentel lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate case FL17431, as there was no stipulation on record as claimed in multiple minute orders. Consequently, the actions taken by this Public Servant were beyond his authority, rendering any commands or orders issued invalid. It is impossible to disobey an order that lacks validity. If Department 2 wants to push the matter, then I think it would be time to let the California Judicial Council of California know that Tuolumne County Superior Court is not following the Rules of Court for California.Furthermore, it is crucial to note that Department 2, as well as Attorney Juley Salkeld, appear to have a limited understanding of the rules governing State Courts, State Laws, Federal Laws, and Moral Laws. Referencing the "California Courts Self-Help Guide, What to Expect at a Request for Order Hearing," on page 2, under the section "The judge makes a decision," it explicitly states that "Once a judge makes a decision, the judge will need to sign a court order." (See Attachment A) It is worth highlighting that the Orders claimed on July 10th, 2023, July 24th, 2023, and August 1st, 2023, lack any orders prepared or signed by a judge. As a result, these orders not only become unenforceable but also deprive the father of his right to due process under 18 U.S.C. 242 and the 14th Amendment.