US ATTORNEY BENJAMIN WAGNER: SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT RICO RACKETEERING CRIMES CATALOG MASTER by Dylan Smith

184

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

JUDGE PRO TEMS

Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63) JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations, Charge Whistleblowers

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22)

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report This investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in September, 2014.

ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21)

As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. For a detailed overview of the alleged collusion between judge pro tem attorneys and family court employees and judges, we recommend our special Color of Law series of investigative reports. The reports document some of the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our reports about family court temporary judges and controversies, click here.

PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion between judges and local attorneys deprives financially disadvantaged, unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

testimony. In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here. Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and bias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys, including:

CARLSSON CASE (9)

Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction. Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp. Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys. Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative report, click here. Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details. Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest posts. Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the 70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers. For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial Performance, McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule. Click here and here. In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case. Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for our investigative report. An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here. Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report... ...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details.

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's conduct in the case as a "judicial reign of terror." McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009. Click here to read the court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.

State Bar Court

Judge pro tem attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009. As a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues. Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report. Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report. In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal

Sacramento County Bar Association

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children California Protective Parents Association Center for Judicial Excellence Courageous Kids Network Divorce & Family Law News Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities. Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report. Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were clients and potential clients of the attorney. The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to read our report. Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall was disbarred from the practice of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge. Click here to view our report.

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas

Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in 2008 helped Donna Gary - the wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.

PR Brown PelicanBriefed

In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court administrators and judges. Click here for our report.

FCAC News

Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, reform advocates claim.

Total Pageviews

RoadDog

138931

Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources. Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and "outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated. After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete, scathing account. The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about FLEC. Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons, Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.

136

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY For information about the role of temporary judges in

DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEY

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

News

Video

Opinions

More... SIGN UP

625

449

VIEWS

COMMENTS

About this iReport Not verified by CNN

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme

Posted December 30, 2014 by Follow LegalNews

By LegalNews | Posted December 30, 2014 | Sacramento, California

Location Sacramento, California

More from LegalNews Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt in U.S. by Documentary Film Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest Disclosure Violations Continue Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security Service

A Sacramento Superior Court watchdog group has posted online court records and other documents which they allege detail a racketeering enterprise operating in the local court system. Using court filings, court reporter transcripts, public records and other documentary evidence, members of the group say they have reverse engineered the structure and players of the scheme.

443

"This package of evidence was compiled over four years, and includes records dating back ten years," said Ulf Carlsson, the spokesperson for the group. "Judges, court employees and lawyers involved in this criminal enterprise have been able to conceal it for a long time." The group asserts that the documents show the scheme began in 1991 when two judges, Peter McBrien and Vance Raye, restructured the family court system with attorneys from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. The conspiracy has expanded and been ongoing since that time, according to the whistleblowers. Judge Vance Raye has since been elevated to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, and continues to assist the organization when cases involving the enterprise reach the appellate court level. The goal of the judge-attorney partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload and administrative duties of full-time judges by effectively privatizing the Sacramento Family Court settlement conference program, according to the whistleblowers. The attorneys agreed to take over and run the program in exchange for kickbacks in the form of preferential treatment from judges when they appear in court representing clients. "The attorneys ostensibly act as volunteers," said Carlsson. "But we have More iReports you should see

documented that the lawyers are in fact compensated with illegal kickbacks in the form of 'rubber-stamped' rulings and court orders for their clients, in

Venus, Mars, and a sliver of South Georgia moon

addition to other perks."

By RobertE

Frozen Florida By wasta1

In order to run the settlement conference program, the attorneys are designated as "judge pro tems," or temporary judges. In operating the settlement program, the lawyers reportedly use heavy-handed, unethical tactics to coerce couples going through a divorce to reach a settlement.

Crisp Sunshine at Niagara Falls By xyzman99

Deep Freeze

When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed

By LonnaDFisher

Icicle Wonderland

judges.

By ingridsilvia

"The coerced settlements often result in an unequal division of community property, one-sided child custody arrangements, and unfair child and spousal support payment terms that don't comply with state law," Carlsson explained. "In many cases, only one side has an attorney - who is a member of what we refer to as the 'cartel' - while the other side can't afford a lawyer and is selfrepresented. These cases are where the one-sided outcomes are the most severe," Carlsson said. "You have someone going through a traumatic divorce without a lawyer facing off against a spouse represented by a veteran family law attorney. On top of that, the party without a lawyer is forced into a

settlement conference run by a judge pro tem lawyer who often is a personal friend of the other attorney. As we've now documented, the outcome of these rigged settlement conferences is not fair, ethical, or legal. The conflicts of interest are required by state law to be disclosed, but never are." The alleged criminal enterprise deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, a crime under 18 USC 1346, includes predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, and thereby constitutes a RICO racketeering enterprise under federal criminal law (18 USC 1962), according to the watchdog group. Carlsson said the judge-attorney collusion also violates a number of state laws as well. "The scheme results in unjust enrichment for the judge pro tem attorneys, constitutes unfair business practices, and implicates antitrust laws," Carlsson asserted. "Due to their consistent, virtually perfect success rate in obtaining favorable outcomes in court proceedings, the temporary judge lawyers have achieved a significant monopoly on the family law and divorce business in the greater-Sacramento area." The 43-page set of documents compiled by the group is posted online at Scribd, and can be viewed at this URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/251282897/Justice-Vance-W-Raye-Charged-inColor-of-Law-Conspiracy-RICO-Racketeering-Scheme-in-3rd-District-Court-ofAppeal-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Sacramen

TAGS: vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,

3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud

What do you think of this story? Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.

Comments (5)

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

garyonthenet January 8, 2015

As bkain222 says, this happens all over the country, it only when they get to cocky with their power and get sloppy in covering their tracks, as in this

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

Third District Court of Appeal

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63) JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

A Sacramento Family Court News investigation indicates that ideology and undisclosed conflicts of interest play a significant role in the outcome of appeals in the Third District Court of Appeal.

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation

This ongoing investigative project was last updated in June, 2014.

CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

Sacramento Family Court News is conducting an ongoing investigation of published and unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family courts. This page is regularly updated with our latest news, analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an unsettling link between how an appeal is decided and the political ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of appeal justices assigned to the appeal. Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw. Appeals are assigned to three of ten justices. The background of each appears to play a significant role in how an appeal is decided. For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from Sacramento County Superior Court will often effectively cover for judicial errors in appeals from the same court. Third District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye previously were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court. Each have social and professional ties to family court judges and

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11)

Filing an appeal in the 3rd District can be a gamble. Depending

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

on the three justices assigned, the outcome may be influenced attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar by ideology and unacknowledged conflicts of interest. Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on the bench.

"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do that for two reasons. One, I think it's a responsibility of a judge to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it. But I really like the people. I really like going to these events. I enjoy friendships and that sort of thing." Click here to view Scotland's statement. To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.

Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating from Sacramento Family Law Court. Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial Performance prosecution of family court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal and CJP decision against McBrien, click here. The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions. It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to avoid the appearance of partiality. Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California due to personal and professional relationships with local state court judges. The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.

History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure. The public court system was built to the specifications of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view the same, current day collusion, click here. The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien some ideas about how their courts were structured.

in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997-2005. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.

First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper McBrien dishonestly implied that the system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid trip with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. "[M]cBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time, there were continual postponements of trials. 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.' The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials..." the Daily Journal reported. Click here to view.

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys - which then essentially was rubber-stamped by the bench. "[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented the whole of it to the full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view. In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if any, consideration of the needs of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli said. According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice." "In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as 'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge. To view a list of similar CJP decisions, click here. According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf], published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. To view this section of the Handbook, click here.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties to the family law bar. "The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported. Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court judges and appellate court

justices because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program, court reform advocates charge.

JDSupra Law News Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section

Holiday Luncheon.

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com

Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge pro tem attorney favoritism, and flagrant bias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys. Click here for a list of watchdog claims. Published and unpublished 3rd District opinions indicate that Court of Appeal justices without direct ties to the same superior court are more likely to follow the law, and less likely to whitewash trial court mistakes.

Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology & Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Issues

Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

137887 140

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song? Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease. Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.

Google+ Badge One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family Court system was the 2008 decision In re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate Justices M. Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims. The opinion criticized explicitly the conduct of controversial Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. None of the three 3rd District justices who decided the appeal had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County. A fourth outsider jurist, Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing subsequently characterized McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror." In addition to ordering a full reversal and new trial, the 3rd District decision subjected McBrien to a second disciplinary action by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

PR Brown Follow

Labels The judge's first go-round with the CJP stemmed from McBrien's 2000 arrest for felony vandalism under Penal Code § 594 in connection with the destruction of public-owned trees - valued at more than $20,000 - at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park, Carmichael, California. McBrien had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park. Click here for the 2001 Sacramento News and Review coverage of the case. Click here to view the original summons charging McBrien with felony vandalism. Click here to view the report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing the complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.

Less than 48 hours after the judge was charged with the felony, McBrien negotiated a plea bargain, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 384a, paying restitution of $20,000, and a fine of $500. The improved view increased the value of the judge's home by at least $100,000, according to a local real estate agent, and the sweetheart deal outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park personnel who originally discovered the butchered trees and conducted the initial investigation. McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

ABA

1102 (1) AB 590 JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

CARLSSON CASE (9) CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in McBrien CJP Prosecution On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland delivered in a big way. Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12) CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

(11) SERIES

LAW

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. A critical self-policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1) requires judges who have reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE (5) LAWYER

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

By his own admission, Scotland's career in the Judicial Branch of government was the result of connections and preferential treatment. The former justice candidly recited his life history in a nearly three-hour interview for the California Appellate Court Legacy Project in 2011. Like other gratuitous "tough-on-crime" conservative ideologues from a law enforcement background who rose to power in the 1980's, Scotland apparently lived the cliche of being born on third base and going through life thinking he hit a triple. His interest in law developed when he worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the state Department of Justice.

EFFICIENCY

GOVERNMENT

ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1) AWARD (1)

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and

While under oath before the CJP, Scotland verified

Peter McBrien all worked for former California Attorney General that he was aware of McBrien's misconduct in the

and Governor George Deukmejian. All were appointed to the

Sacramento County bench by Deukmejian. Carlsson case. Scotland essentially defied the selfpolicing Canon and, in effect, the published Carlsson opinion authored by his co-workers Butz, Blease and Sims, and instead testified in support of McBrien at the CJP. In it's final decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP specifically cited Scotland's testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. An examination of Scotland's career in government - funded by the taxpayers of California - provides insight into the tactics, motives, and questionable ethics behind his unusual involvement in the McBrien matter.

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

(2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)

FAMILY COURT (9) FAMILY COURT

COURT

AUDITS (1) FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2)

FAMILY COURT

MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE

(1)

FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

LAW

"[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view. Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster performance as a college student, law school presented a problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family connection. "[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a serious student. So I went to University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained. "I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D. Schaber], but my dad did. And my dad had done some life insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my dad was an influence on my life because he knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School of Law is my dad's relationship with the dean." Click here to view.

(9)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)

FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS

(2) FERRIS CASE (8) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

FLEC (28) FOIA (2) FOX

(1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE

NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN

(1) GINGER

GREGORY

SYLVESTER (1)

DWYER (1)

HAL

BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER

(2) HONEST SERVICES (4)

INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J. STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2) JAIME R.

(10) JAMES JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN ROMAN

BROSNAHAN (1)

Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into

a law school with liberal admission standards.

After graduation, but before he was licensed to practice law, Scotland nonetheless practiced law while employed as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. In the outside world, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime. But in Scotland's protective law enforcement bubble, "laws" are only enforced against drug addicts and the unwashed masses. As Scotland explained in his own words, laws are actually only "rules" when a sworn peace officer breaks one. "Actually, before I even got sworn in in the bar, I was assigned out to juvenile hall and we prosecuted...I prosecuted cases without any supervision - you know, against...really against the rules...we were trying cases without any supervision." Click here. In McGregor v. State Bar, the seminal case on the unauthorized practice of law, the California Supreme Court explained why a nonlicensed person is prohibited from exercising the special powers and privileges of a lawyer. "The right to practice law not only presupposes in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust. It is manifest that the powers and privileges derived from it may not with propriety be delegated to or exercised by a nonlicensed person." Click here. 25 years after he obtained his license to practice law, Justice Arthur G. Scotland exploited the implied integrity of his court of appeal office and exercised his special privilege in a way that to many Sacramento Family Court litigants was a manifest violation of the public trust.

The Artifice

(1)

JERRY

GUTHRIE

(1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS

(1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDGES

(10) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)

COUNCIL

JUDICIAL (3)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63) JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1) JULIE SETZER

(7) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAURIE M. EARL (10) LAW LIBRARY (1) LAW SCHOOL

(5) LAWYER (1) LAWYERS

(7) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1)

LOLLIE LINCOLN

(1)

ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO (1)

LUAN

CASE

(4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7)

MATTHEW J. GARY

(33) MCGEORGE

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL

SOL (2) T. GARCIA

(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) NANCY

GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26) NEWS

YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

To help his old friend Pete McBrien keep his job, Justice Arthur G. Scotland concocted a clever plan intended to deceive the judges deciding McBrien's punishment at the Commission on Judicial Performance.

NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10) OPEN GOVERNMENT

(2) OPINION (12) PARENT RIGHTS

(1)

PARENTAL

In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character witness testimony for his old friend and law enforcement co-worker Peter McBrien, Arthur Scotland drew on his training and experience in deceit from his days as a narc. "[Y]ou have to be an actor, you have to play the game," Scotland explained in the 2011 interview. In front of the three CJP judges responsible for hearing evidence and deciding McBrien's fate, Scotland concocted a clever, deceptive plan - an artifice in legal terminology - and convincingly delivered an award worthy actor's performance.

While testifying for McBrien, Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge's behalf effectively was voluntary. Before subpoenaing Scotland to testify, McBrien's defense attorney confirmed that Scotland would not object to the subpoena. Click here. Judicial ethics Canon 2B restricts use of the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal interests of the judge or others. Canon 2B(2)(a) permits a judge to testify as a character witness only when subpoenaed. The transcript of Scotland's testimony also showed that - to prepare his CJP testimony - the presiding justice of the 3rd District affirmatively and voluntarily took the initiative (presumably on his own time) to research 3rd District family court appeals where McBrien was the trial court judge. His objective was to show the CJP that McBrien had a low reversal rate in the appellate court. "I also, by the way -- when you called me to ask if I would object to being Subpoenaed as a witness, and I said no, I did research. I looked up -- I knew what this was all about, so I researched the number of appeals from cases from Judge McBrien's court. And so I -- and I looked -- I read all the opinions in which he was reversed in full or in part... I've known Judge McBrien for 32 years. I got to know, then, Deputy Attorney General Pete McBrien. When I left the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and went to work for the California Attorney General's Office, he was already a Deputy Attorney General there. So I got to know him there, mainly professionally. Socially to a relatively minor extent. We had -we had two co-ed softball teams. He played on one; I played on another. Of course, we would attend office functions together. His -- one of his very best friends was my supervisor in the Attorney General's Office. So, on occasion -- not frequently, but on occasion we would attend social events with others from the office.... [McBrien had] seven reversals in whole or in part, out of 110 appeals, which is about 6%, which actually is a remarkably good reversal rate. Because our average reversal rate in civil cases is 20 to 25 percent." Scotland testified at pages 549-553 of the reporter's transcript. Click here.

(1) PAULA SALINGER

(15)

PETER J. McBRIEN

(20) PHILLIP HERNANDEZ ALIENATION

(3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PRO PERS (18)

PROTEST (7) PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS

RAOUL

RAPTON(9)

KARRES

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)

REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

RICHARD SOKOL (12)

ROBERT HIGHT (5)

ROBERT O'HAIR (8)

ROBERT SAUNDERS

(20) ROLAND

L. CANDEE (1)

RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD

ROBIE (1) RUSSELL CARLSON

(4) RUSSELL L. HOM (1) RYDER SALMEN (2) S. HINMAN (3)

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (13) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (12)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA

CLARA

LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN

STEPHENS (1) SATIRE (11) SCBA

(22)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT BUCHANAN (5) SCOTT KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE

(1)

SELF-HELP

(1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Scotland's claim that McBrien had a "remarkably good reversal rate" was, at best, a half-truth. Under the legal and ethical standards applicable to lawyers and judges, a half-truth is the same as a "false statement of fact" or what the general public refers to as a lie. Click here.

What Scotland withheld from the CJP is the fact that the vast majority of appeals from family court are never decided on the merits. Unlike appeals from civil cases, most family court appeals are taken by unrepresented parties who fail to navigate the complexities of appellate procedure and never make it past the preliminary stages of an appeal. In other words, Scotland rigged his statistics. While McBrien may have had seven reversals out of 110 appeals filed, only a small portion of the 110 appeals filed were actually decided on the merits.

(1)

THORBOURNE (1)

(2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA

(4) SHARON A. LUERAS

(10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW

SCHOOL

(4)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS

(5) STATE AUDITOR (6)

STATE BAR (5) STEPHEN WAGNER

(2)

LEAVENWORTH

WHITE

(2)

BURLINGHAM

GEVERCER

STEUART

(1)

STEVE STEVEN

(1)

STEVEN STEVEN

SUNDAY (15) FUNNIES

SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his days as an

undercover cop. Trained to lie and deceive in order to make undercover

drug buys, Scotland acknowledged his skill in the role.

"You have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in 2011.

Scotland then made a disingenuous, self-serving apples-to-oranges comparison between the reversal rate in civil case appeals - where both sides are usually represented by an attorney, or team of attorneys, and appeals are decided on the merits - with the reversal rate in family court cases, where neither qualifier is true. SFCN currently is conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.

Blame the Victim

BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1) TERRY FRANCKE (1)

BLIZZARD (5)

THADD

THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP

(1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5)

TIMOTHY ZEFF (5) TOMMY ULF LEE JONES

(1)

CARLSSON (5) UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (2)

VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1)

VL-CLASS-ACTION

(1) WALL

STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-worker Pete McBrien, and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson case resulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland had the balls to suggest that disciplining McBrien for his conduct in Carlsson would be a "miscarriage of justice," that would allow "incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges." "And you haven't asked me this question, but if [McBrien] were, for some reason, to be found to have violated the canons of judicial ethics, or whatever, I frankly -- I know about these cases; I know about the Carlsson case. I think it would be a miscarriage of justice. I think it would send the wrong signal to judges and practitioners that you don't allow -- that you would be allowing incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges," Scotland testified at the CJP. Like Scotland, 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing knew well the Carlsson case, which he said "developed a certain notoriety." Unlike Scotland, Rushing wasn't an old friend and coworker of McBrien who would disingenuously suggest the blame for McBrien's "reign of terror" lay with an incompetent attorney. Scotland's colleagues at the 3rd District, Butz, Blease and Sims reversed and remanded the Carlsson case for retrial based on extremely rare, reversible per se, egregious structural and constitutional error by Judge McBrien. After carefully scrutinizing the trial court record, the panel made no mention of attorney "incompetence" in their published opinion.

However, Scotland's incompetence assertion to the CJP did, coincidentally, perfectly dovetail with the carefully crafted defense McBrien's legal team presented during three days of CJP testimony to the three-judge CJP panel assigned to decide McBrien's fate. A key component of McBrien's defense relied on suspiciously consistent witness testimony portraying Ulf Carlsson's attorney Sharon Huddle as incompetent and effectively provoking McBrien's multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. CJP prosecutor Andrew Blum mocked the risible defense in a confidential court reporter transcript leaked to SFCN. Click here to view the transcript. Ironically, the time-tested, repugnant but effective blame the victim strategy, was coldly aided and abetted by Scotland, a justice who rose to power with the backing and endorsements of victims rights groups including Crime Victims United of California, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's defense team, Scotland dusted off the dog-eared playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to advance his personal agenda. Scotland's irony-infused blame the victim testimony, misleading appeal reversal data, and the weight of character witness testimony from a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with similar character testimony from Sacramento County Superior Court Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currently Of Counsel at the family, family law firm Cecil & Cianci) , Michael Garcia and Robert Hight, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys and judge pro tems Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair and Russell Carlson all tipped the scale just enough to enable McBrien to keep his job. Click here to view the complete, 12-page CJP summary of the McBrien character witness testimony.

Despite the parade of former law enforcement co-workers, friends, and family court judge pro tem cronies McBrien marshaled on his behalf, two of the voting CJP members saw through the ruse and dissented from the decision to let the judge remain on the bench, stating they would have removed McBrien from office. Click here. When he referred to McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror," 6th District Justice Rushing also noted that "two of the nine participating members [voted] to remove him from the bench." Click here. The Carlsson case is prominently featured in Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States." The production team for the film conducted a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion, and four Sacramento County cases are included in the movie. Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, Divorce Corp opened in theaters in major U.S. cities on January 9, 2014. Following the theatrical run, the documentary will be released on DVD, RedBox, Netflix, broadcast and cable TV. Click here for our continuing coverage of Divorce Corp. To view trailers for the movie on YouTube, click here.

Rehabilitation FAIL The near-career death experience apparently has had no discernible corrective effect on the ethically-challenged judge. In subsequent proceedings in his courtroom involving the judge pro tem attorneys (and lawyers at the same firms as the judge pro tems) whose CJP testimony effectively saved his $170,00 per year job, McBrien reportedly has never disclosed to opposing parties and attorneys the potential conflict of interest as required by Canon 3E(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The failure to disclose the potential conflict is a violation of the canon and other state laws, according to the CJP, Judicial Council, and California Judges Association. For the exclusive SFCN report on conflict of interest law, click here.

Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement

WATCHDOGS (19)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

WHITE HOUSE (1) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11) XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA

(4)

YOLO

COUNTY (1) YOUTUBE (7)

Blue Code of Silence In addition, unpublished Third District Court of Appeal decisions indicate that justices who come from a law enforcement background appear to take to the bench with them the "Blue Code of Silence" culture often found in law enforcement agencies. 3rd District Associate Justice George Nicholson worked as a prosecuting attorney for more than 15 years before being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County. The first time Governor George Deukmejian submitted Nicolson's name to the bar for review as a judge in 1983, he was rated as "not qualified," according to the Sacramento Bee. "George Nicholson, Republican candidate for attorney general in 1982, has been pursuing all manner of public legal positions: U.S. District Court judge, California Superior Court judge, U.S. Attorney, public defender in Riverside County. The other day, when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him a Sacramento Municipal Court judge, he finally got one. It's an appointment that ought to cause serious concern both within the State Bar and in the community. When Deukmejian submitted Nicholson's name to the bar for review on a possible appointment to the Superior Court in 1983, he was rated 'not qualified.' The bar now ranks him 'qualified', the lowest acceptable rating of three the bar can give.

Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson

rode to the bench on a "law and order" agenda.

No one can be certain precisely why Nicholson received such low ratings, but there is enough in his public record to raise serious questions about his temperament and judgment. In 1979, he left a job as director of the District Attorneys Association after an audit showed that the organization's finances had been badly mismanaged and that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Later, as a senior assistant attorney general, he was twice admonished by superiors for promoting a ballot measure in ways that could be mistaken as an official state Justice Department endorsement of the measure. More recently, a federally funded $4 million 'National School Safety Center' affiliated with Pepperdine University that he directed was embroiled in an extended controversy during which 18 of 30 staff members either resigned or were fired. The U.S. General Accounting Office, which conducted an audit into the management of the Pepperdine program and into how the federal money was being spent, cleared the center of fiscal irregularities, attributing the problems to Nicholson's 'combative' personality and management style. But because of those problems, Pepperdine named a new executive director, who, the auditors said, restored stability to the management of the program 'while retaining Nicholson's creative talents,'" the Sacramento Bee said in 1987. Click here. Nicholson subsequently was elected to both Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal with backing from law enforcement, Crime Victims United and other Astroturf "victims rights" and "law and order" groups. Crime Victims United is funded by - and acts essentially as a subsidiary of - the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the controversial prison guard union. A principal architect of Proposition 8 the "The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights", after a failed run as the GOP candidate for attorney general Nicholson rode an anti-Rose Bird, tough-on-crime platform to the bench. Over several decades, Associate Justice Nicholson played a significant role in giving the United States one of the highest per capita rates of incarceration in the world. Thanks to Nicholson, the prison guard union, and Astroturf "victims rights" groups bankrolled by the union, California now spends a significantly larger portion of the state budget on corrections than on higher education.

Role of Political Ideology In 1985, Nicholson was demoted from his position as director of the federally financed National School Safety Center in Sacramento. The center was administered by Pepperdine University at Malibu, and established with a $3.8 million Justice Department grant awarded

without competitive bidding. Under Nicholson's leadership, 20 of the original 30 staff members who set up Third District Court of Appeal justices who previously were Sacramento the Center resigned or were County Superior Court judges include Harry E. Hull Jr., Ronald B. Robie, dismissed. The Associated Press George Nicholson Louis Mauro, and Presiding Justice Vance Raye. reported that that the debacle was rooted in ideological conflicts between Nicholson and staff whom Nicholson perceived as too liberal. According to the AP coverage: "Several [staffers] described Nicholson as a political conservative who mistrusted his mostly liberal staff members, argued with them unceasingly about the direction of projects, and accused them of disloyalty when they questioned his ideas. 'When it became obvious to him he attracted a number of us with a different political philosophy, we were not permitted to do our work,' said Shirley Ruge, a former principal of schools for delinquent children and one of those dismissed. 'We were considered troublemakers and he wanted to shut us up.'" Nicholson and former 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland have been close friends and colleagues for more than 30 years. For the California Appellate Court Legacy Project Nicholson conducted an almost threehour interview with Scotland on December 8, 2011. The transcript of the interaction reads like a meeting of the Nicholson-Scotland mutual admiration society. Nicholson opened the interview detailing the joint work history of the BFFs. "George Nicholson: We are here with retired Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland, who served on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, for more than 20 years, from 1989 to 2011, and that...the last dozen of which he was the Administrative Presiding Justice. I'm George Nicholson, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and I had the pleasure of serving with Presiding Justice Scotland for 20 years on this court. Before that, we served together as trial judges on the Sacramento Superior Court, and even before that we served together in the Governor's Office during the Deukmejian administration and in the California Department of Justice. This has been a long time coming, Scotty, hasn't it?Arthur Scotland: Nick, it has, and it's a delight for me to have you interview me for this project." Click here to view the full interview transcript.

"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest Indigent and Low-Income Litigants In addition, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento applies a unique and previously rarely used "judgment roll" standard of review that in virtually every case where applied results in affirmance of trial court rulings. Appeals brought by self-represented indigent and low-income litigants make up the vast majority of appeals where the 3rd District applies the judgment roll standard of review. Although the appellate court has authored dozens of decisions invoking the draconian standard against family court litigants, it has managed to keep the assembly line, boilerplate process under the radar. The court has not published a single judgment roll appeal originating from family court. Click here to see a list of unpublished 3rd District opinions archived by Google Scholar. The judgment roll summary affirmance process helps the court maintain its title as the most efficient Court of Appeal in the state. Equal protection of the law is implicated because other appellate court districts do not apply the standard nearly as often as the Third District. Equal application of the law is a foundational attribute of American Democracy.

Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento: Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice. Cole Blease Ronald Robie William Murray Jr. George Nicholson Kathleen Butz Elena Duarte Harry Hull Jr. Louis Mauro Andrea Lynn Hoch For additional Sacramento Family Court News reporting on the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan of the Supreme Court are responsible for oversight and accountability of the 3rd District Court of Appeal, and the other appellate courts in the state.

+1 Recommend this on Google

Home

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye & Oversight of California Courts State officials and agencies responsible for oversight and accountability of California courts, Sacramento Family Law Court, administrators, judges and employees include:Tani

G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice - Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Victoria B. Henley Director Chief Counsel

Commission on Judicial Performance - Steven Jahr Administrative Director of the Courts - Phillip J. Jelicich Principal Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Janice M. Brickley Legal Advisor to Commissioners Commission on Judicial Performance - Judicial Council and Court Leadership Services Division Jody Patel Chief of Staff - Doug D. Cordiner

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

News

Video

Opinions

More...

Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on CNNgo. SIGN UP

106

VIEWS

COMMENTS

About this iReport

Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt in U.S. by Documentary Film

Not verified by CNN

By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014 | Sacramento, California Posted July 27, 2014 by Follow LegalNews

Location Sacramento, California

Assignment

This iReport is part of an assignment: Sound off

More from LegalNews

Sacramento - The shocking mistreatment of a 53-year-old, indigent, disabled single parent by a Sacramento, California family court judge has led to a landmark appeal to establish a constitutional right to an attorney in civil cases.

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt in U.S. by Documentary Film Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest Disclosure Violations Continue California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security Service

Lifestyle Advertorials by Peak Life

How to Stay Asleep All Night You're struggling to fall asleep and stay asleep. One Boston scientist has found the simplest solution to your problem...

Click Here

More iReports you should see

Red Rocks Amphitheater in winter By Rasarag

Cesky Krumlov By RocioZ

In this video, Susan Ferris describes her nightmarish family court experience, and the trauma of being separated from her daughter because of an illegal court order issued by controversial Sacramento Superior Court Judge Matthew J. Gary. Taped between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2012, at the time of this interview, Ferris was struggling to represent herself in court because she couldn't afford to hire a lawyer. In court, she faced a veteran family law attorney, Tim Zeff, who represented her ex-husband, David Ferris. After Judge Matthew Gary issued an unlawful order effectively terminating her parental rights, Susan joined a group of family court reform advocates fighting systemic corruption and injustice in the Sacramento County Superior Court system. The facts of Susan's case were so shocking to the conscience that prominent San Francisco attorney James J. Brosnahan, of the international law firm Morrison and Foerster, agreed to represent her on appeal on a pro bono basis.

By happyholly

"This is at the point where a lot of us think it's a disgrace," Brosnahan said in an interview with the Sacramento Bee. "You can't take someone's child and

Annual New Year's Day Coney Island Polar Bear…

SoCal Snow

that person doesn't have an attorney when you do it...It's an outrage." By BQueen1

THE MISSING CHIBOK SCHOOLGIRLS By Alashock

In March, the Sacramento Bee published a front page story about the case and Brosnahan's ultimate objective to establish a constitutional right to an attorney in certain civil cases. The nationwide "Civil Gideon" movement seeks to give civil court litigants in cases involving basic human needs the same right to a lawyer that criminal defendants have. The constitutional right to an attorney in criminal cases was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright. The Ferris appeal has now been fully briefed by the attorneys, and is awaiting a date for oral argument in the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. To view the Sacramento Bee article by investigative reporter Brad Branan, visit this URL: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6268552/state-considersproviding-lawyers.html Sacramento Family Court News, an online, nonprofit journalism organization has complete coverage of the Susan Ferris case at this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FERRIS%

For articles documenting the systemic corruption in Sacramento County Superior Court, visit this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COLOR%2 Â For articles detailing serial misconduct by Judge Matthew Gary visit this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MATTHEW

TAGS: impact, corruption, family, court, volunteer, gary, ferris, charity, brosnahan, sacramento

GROUPS: CNN International, My life

More from this assignment - Impact Your World

Thousands protest against International Volunteer Day

Tampa's 24-Hour Food Drive

Redskins Name

See all 2,549 iReports

Comments (0)

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

No comments yet.

iReport 101 About | Blog

Awards

Community Guidelines

We are Everywhere

Get Help

Tools

Facebook

StoryTelling Toolkit

How to post iReports

Twitter

FAQs

CNN Mobile apps

Tumblr

Flickr

Advertising Contacts

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

15 November 2012

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Obtains Unprecedented Court Order - Roman Rewrites Family Code & Court Rules - Decrees Hearings Obsolete

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Judge Jaime Roman Designates Party Vexatious Litigant, Sanctions $2,500 and Makes 13 Other Rulings - Without Court Hearing Required by Law Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15) JAMES M. MIZE (15)

Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court watchdogs. Photo: Sacramento Lawyer.

In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday.

All the disputed issues inexplicably were decided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes. Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres' ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

CARLSSON CASE (10)

Judge Roman drafted the lengthy statement of decision in advance of a court hearing calendared for November 14, at which the disputed issues were scheduled to be argued and submitted. But at the start of the proceeding, the judge announced that he was cancelling the hearing because he had already ruled on all matters.

Roman explained to the parties and attorneys that the day before he had mailed them his statement of decision resolving all issues. At the hearing, the judge issued a minute order which read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." Click here to view the minute order.

In addition to depriving Karres of his basic due process right to be heard on the sanction and vexatious litigant issues, the vacated hearing also denied the losing litigant his Family Code § 217 and state court rule 5.119 right to present "live, competent and admissible testimony." Family court reform advocates assert that the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court temporary judge Charlotte Keeley. unlawful, summarily decided proceeding is yet another example of the overt preferential treatment provided by full-time, family court judges to members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section who also serve as temporary judges in the same court.

"Surreal and Unprecedented" "It was both surreal and unprecedented," said veteran court watcher Robert Saunders. "I've been attending family court hearings for over five years and have never seen anything like it." Saunders said that in addition to the obvious constitutional-level due process of law breach, Roman's order was a flagrant violation of Family Code sec. 217 and California Rule of Court 5.119. The statute, which became law on January 1, 2011, and the court rule, which took effect on July 1, 2011, guarantee all family court litigants the right to present live testimony at motion and order to show cause hearings.

JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

WE SUPPORT "It appears that Judge Roman used reverse engineering to do an end run around the new law," Saunders added. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling. Unfortunately, the new law and court rule presented an obstacle to the judge. From whole cloth he created a sham legal rationale he claims justifies ignoring the requirements of section 217 and rule 5.119. This is yet another example of how brazenly many family court judges will prejudge a case, ignore the law, and manufacture a ruling to fit a predetermined outcome," Saunders charged.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

"With this 20-page order, the other issue that exposes Roman's prejudgment is the vexatious litigant order. With its potential for serious, Constitutional-level collateral consequences, a vexatious litigant proceeding always requires notice and a hearing with oral testimony."

Law Librarian Blog

Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline Saunders said court administrators share the blame for Roman's conduct. "This ruling again exposes a complete failure by court administrators to properly train, supervise and discipline family court judges," he said. In his own family court case in 2010, Saunders successfully obtained an order from a neutral, third-party judge formally disqualifying family court Judge Matthew Gary. The outside judge - from San Joaquin County Superior Court ordered Gary removed for misconduct, including failing to follow proper contempt of court procedures after having Saunders arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs. "Court administrators did nothing, even after an independent, outside judge made it clear Gary was a rogue judge with anger-management

First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog

Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Lawyer Magazine

issues," Saunders said. "Judge Roman's order is a similar situation, with the added inference that a full-time judge is doing a favor for a part-time judge, Charlotte Keeley," Saunders continued. "I don't know what else would explain such a brazen disregard of established law. The order is unlawful, void on its face, and inevitably will create more, but completely unnecessary litigation in this case in both the trial and appellate courts. Most Family Court judges are either rookies breaking in, or screw-ups spending time in purgatory," Saunders explained.

"They're inherently thin-skinned and rarely admit to mistakes. The odds are slim that Judge Roman will admit to the errors in this 20-page debacle. This proceeding was, and will continue to be a complete waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the courts claim to be starved for funding. And, by the way, we pay Judge Ramon $170,000 per year for work like this." To justify issuing the order without a hearing, at page six of the ruling Roman invoked a local court rule, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, and Family Code section 210. On page 19, Roman also cited California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a) "in conjunction with rule 5.21" as his legal rationale for denying Cal. Rule of Court rule 5.119 requires judges to permit live testimony. the parties their day in court. "Nice try," Saunders scoffed. "Roman is using antiquated law and a local court rule that all are clearly superseded by [Family Code] Section 217 and Rule 5.119. Both laws give family court litigants the right to present live testimony at a court hearing unless the judge - at the hearing - denies the request based on a finding of good cause. It is self-evident that the right can't be invoked if the judge vacates the hearing and mails out an order filed the day before the hearing."

Ruling May Constitute Improper Governmental Activities and Trigger State Auditor Scrutiny The violation of Family Code section 217, state court Rule 5.119, and both the statutory and decisional law governing vexatious litigant determinations potentially exposes Judge Roman to an improper governmental activities investigation by the California State Auditor. Sacramento Family Court has been in hot water with the state auditor before. A 2011 audit disclosed problems with training and supervision of family court mediators, custody evaluators and minors counsel.

As SFCN reported last year, violation of a state statute or state court rule is, by law, an improper governmental activity in the same category of offenses as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property and willful omission to perform duty, according to the California Whistleblower Protection Act. However, Saunders pointed out that the chances of Roman being held accountable for the violations are slim-to-none.

Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children California Protective Parents Association

"Judges in California are untouchable. Like Roman did in this case, judges can simply flip-thebird at the law. It is not hyperbole to say they are literally above-the-law. The State Auditor, Commission on Judicial Performance, Judicial Council and local court administrators will all turn a blind eye," Saunders predicted. "The reason we have an overabundance of incompetent judges is because meaningful oversight of judge misconduct is non-existent in California." Promising later posts analyzing the 20-page statement of decision, Sacramento County Family Court News in-house legal analyst PelicanBriefed declined to opine on the decision.

Courthouse News Service

Center for Judicial Excellence Courageous Kids Network Divorce & Family Law News Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Court Employees Are Now Protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act

"There is so much wrong with this ruling that it will take me several posts to unravel and do justice. I will say that it appears Judge Roman assumed that if he put a lot of footnotes into the ruling, no one would notice his erroneous

Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

rationale for not holding a hearing, nor his blatant disregard of the legislative intent behind Family Code section 217 and Rule 5.119. And not allowing a hearing before declaring a party a vexatious litigant is unheard of. For now, let's just say that this ruling may be an example of why Judge Roman was passed over for elevation to the Court of Appeal."

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Posted by PR Brown at 10:45 PM

+10 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, COURT RULES, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM,

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

Location: Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court

CONTRIBUTORS

5 comments

Cathy Cohen ST Thomas

Add a comment

PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News

Top comments

RoadDog

PR Brown via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly Where the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started: In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional

Total Pageviews

149962

158

1 Reply

Susan Ferris via Google+ 2 years ago - Shared publicly

Google+ Badge

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/11/family-court-sacramentosuperior-court-family-law-children-family-relations-courthouse-judge-jaime-roman-familycode-court-rules-attorney-charlotte-keeley-judge-pro-tem-attorney-sharon-huddle-barassociation-state-auditors-judicial-council.html +1

PR Brown Follow

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago (edited) - Shared publicly

Labels

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT JUDGE REWRITES FAMILY CODE AND COURT RULES - DECREES HEARINGS OBSOLETE

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

Sacramento Family Court Supervising Family Law/Probate/ADA Judge Jaime R. Roman issues 15 rulings on on day, in one case, including a $2,500 sanction order and an order

COA (6) AB

· 1 Reply

(1)

In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party

(1)

(4)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

PR Brown originally shared this Where the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started:

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

sparkle Jones via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(23)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEY

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

20 February 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court Alleged: SCBA Family Law Section Officer and Judge Pro Tem Files Fake Notices with Court

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Family Court Clerks Let Judge Pro Tem Attorneys File Counterfeit Entry of Judgment Paperwork, Whistleblower Charges Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 4.

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

Paula Salinger, a family law attorney who also holds the Office of Temporary Judge, uses this fake "Notice of Entry" document to reduce the chance that an unrepresented opposing party will be able to take an appeal, claims a family court whistleblower. Click here to read the complete notice.

Sacramento Family Court News has obtained court records indicating that family court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file counterfeit "Notice of Entry" paperwork in place of the Notice of Entry of Judgment that court clerks are by law required to file and serve on all parties. The sham notice conceals a critical appeal rights notification from indigent, unrepresented family court litigants, and at the same time ostensibly constricts the time frame for filing an appeal from 180-days to just 60-days, according to a family court whistleblower. The fake form also omits an important clerk's certificate of mailing, which the California Supreme Court has said is designed to avoid ambiguity in appeal time frames.

"This is a component of the collaboration between court administrators, judges and judge pro tem attorneys to eliminate pro per appeals," the source said. "The fake 'Notice of Entry' contains none of the mandatory notifications about appeal rights, and appeals unit clerks use the notice to unlawfully reject appeals after 60-days as if it were the same as the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form," explained the whistleblower, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. Instead of rejecting for filing the self-serving, homemade form, court clerks file it and then appeal unit clerks use it to impose an illegal, condensed appeal time frame on unwary pro pers, according to the source.

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

To continue reading Part 4 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9)

To prevent indigent, unrepresented family court litigants from getting this notice regarding appeal rights, Sacramento Family Court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a sham "Notice of Entry" form instead of the FL-190 form required under state law, according to a court whistleblower.

As Sacramento Family Court News reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of our Color of Law series, court administrators, including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts have directed court clerks to ignore state law requiring court staff to file and serve the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants that the FL-190 is not required for appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to view the inaccurate information about the FL-190 requirement that Office of the Family Law Facilitator staff dispense to unrepresented litigants. Click here to read all of Part 1 of the Color of Law series and click here for Part 2.

Family court supervisors also have directed court employees to permit judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" as a substitute for the FL-190, according to the source. SFCN obtained three filed examples of the fake notice.

The three samples were filed by attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger. Salinger also acts as secretary on the Family Law Executive Committee of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. Click here to view the notices, which were filed in 2011 and 2012. As SFCN reported, in 2011 Salinger was granted a waiver by then-Presiding Judge Steve White of the minimum State Bar membership requirement for temporary judges. The attorney is a partner at Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger Inc., a prominent family law firm where all four attorneys also hold the Office of Temporary Judge. One of the deceptive forms was signed on Salinger's behalf by firm partner and Judge Pro Tem Jeffrey J. Posner. From 2006-2009, Posner held each officer post on the Family Law Executive Committee. Judge pro tem attorneys use the fictitious notice of entry against self-represented litigants who have little knowledge of family Paula Salinger is a family law attorney, temporary judge, law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. "The and secretary of the Sacramento Bar Association attorneys use the fake notice in cases where the opposing party Family Law Executive Committee. doesn't have a lawyer and doesn't know any better. If a pro per does somehow figure out that they can appeal an order from a motion or OSC hearing, and then tries to file a notice of appeal, the appeals unit will use the spurious Notice of Entry to claim the appeal is untimely after 60-days," the source explained. "Without the filing and service of the mandatory FL-190 Judicial Council form by a court clerk, the appeal time frame is, by law, 180-days. The pseudo notice isn't used by judge pro tem attorneys in cases where both sides have a lawyer because most attorneys know there is no such thing as a quote Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing, unquote," the whistleblower said. "Court clerks also know the fake notices are fake, and that they should not even be filing them. But they do file them because they are following orders. It also should be troubling that court filings by pro pers are routinely rejected by filing clerks because of minor technicalities, yet here you have a judge pro tem filing completely sham paperwork without any problem. It's all part of the plan by court administrators, full-time judges, and temporary judges to eliminate appeals by the indigent and unrepresented," the source added. SFCN has confirmed the allegation as substantially accurate. There is no reference to a "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in multiple family and civil law references searched by SFCN. The leading family law treatise written by and for judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, provides detailed instructions for order after hearing procedure and there is no reference to the notice filed by Salinger.

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Lawyer Magazine

California Supreme Court Confirms Judge Pro Tem Notice Counterfeit In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. "The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. The fictitious form filed by family court clerks for temporary judge attorneys does not contain a clerk's certificate of mailing, and is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk - also raising ethical issues. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception.

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

The deceptive, homemade "Notice of Entry" form filed by family law attorney, judge pro tem, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section officer Paula Salinger omits this Clerk's Certificate of Mailing component of the mandatory FL-190 form.

In a related situation, SFCN recently documented in Part 3 of the Color of Law series that an appeals unit clerk unlawfully rejected the appeal of an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Falsely claiming under penalty of perjury that the filing and service by the opposing attorney of a Findings and Order After Hearing form constituted a "judgment" and triggered a 60-day appeal time frame, the clerk rejected the appeal as untimely. Click here to read Part 3.

Family Court Oversight and Accountability As we reported previously, filing and service of the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. Sacramento Superior Court internal

policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or

engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy. "It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.

Sacramento County Bar Association

In addition, as of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, The Supreme Court of California confirms that court clerks must and constitutes government misconduct in the serve and file the FL-190 form in applicable proceedings. same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. In addition, court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. The lack of oversight and accountability indicates that the deceptive, unlawful court filings are condoned by court administrators. According to a criminal law attorney, the elements of a violation of Penal Code § 182 - conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws - specify that an agreement or conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of those accused of the crime. Other criminal statutes that may apply include Penal Code § 470(c), altering, corrupting or falsifying a legal document, and Penal Code § 470(d), altering a document with the intent to cause damage to a legal, financial or property right. The facts and circumstances surrounding the fake notice of entry filings imply an intent to effectively alter the valid FL-190 form and replace it with a corrupt or altered document intended to impede the lawful appeal rights of the opposing party.

Federal Civil and Criminal Liability Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights also may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who collude with private sector lawyers and fail to provide honest services to the public may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. To a view a federal criminal indictment for honest services fraud involving collusion between government and court employees and private sector attorneys click here. In Part 5 of our Color of Law report: the unlawful fee waiver gauntlet used by court clerks and judges to frustrate appeals by indigent, unrepresented family court parties. Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series. Related posts:

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

140701

Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct. Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct. Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

147

Click here for family court whistleblower articles. Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

Google+ Badge

Click here for articles about judge pro tem attorney Paula D. Salinger. Click here for coverage of Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger, Inc. If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.If you have additional information about this subject, or any news tip about Sacramento Family Court send us an email or use our Contact Page.

PR Brown Follow

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

03 July 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judicial Council Chief of Staff: Judge Laurie Earl, Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers Responsible for Judge Oversight & Accountability

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Judicial Council 2nd-in-Command Verifies Presiding Judge, Court Administrators Responsible for Unlawful Orders, Socioeconomic Bias By Judge

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Jody Patel, Chief of Staff for the Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts in San Francisco has informed Sacramento Family Court News that local court administrators and the presiding judge are responsible for investigating and correcting the judge misconduct allegations detailed in our June 28 investigative report.

SCBA (22)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

The responsibility for Sacramento Family Court oversight and accountability rests with Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers, and family court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, according to Patel, who previously held the same position as Volkers. Before her promotion to the Judicial Council in 2006, from 2001-2006 Patel served as CEO of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)

The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts and is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial and accessible administration of justice, according to the council website. For an upcoming follow-up post to our June Jody Patel, currently the Chief of Staff for the Judicial Council, 28 report, SFCN asked several local and state court formerly was the CEO of Sacramento County Superior Court. officials to respond to the documented allegations that Judge Matthew Gary and his clerk Christina Arcuri exhibit overt bias against socioeconomically disadvantaged pro per litigants, misuse Family Code §271 sanctions against the indigent, and issue inadequate, unlawful court orders, and to the evidence that court orders issued in Sacramento Family Court are not reasonably consistent from judge-to-judge, as required by state standards. Click here to view our initial inquiry to Judicial Council Chief of Staff Jody Patel. Click here to view Patel's response. Click here to read our follow-up email clarifying Patel's response. Click here to read our original, June 28 investigative report. For more articles about the issues and court officials in this post, click on the corresponding labels below.

Posted by PR Brown at 7:00 AM

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

+2 Recommend this on Google

PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

13 March 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Sharon Lueras Misconduct: Lueras and SCBA Family Law Section Divorce Attorneys Targeted In Family Court Reform Group Demonstration

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Judge Sharon Lueras Protest by Family Court Reform Group Seeks to Raise Awareness of Systemic Problems

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13)

Jessica Hernandez at the March 9 funeral of her son Matthew. In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Sharon Lueras denied Jessica's request for custody of her two sons.

UPDATE: A UC Davis graduate student has started a petition at Change.org to ask the California State Auditor and Commission on Judicial Performance to investigate Judge Sharon Lueras for misconduct in

JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

connection with the deaths of Ryder Salmen and Matthew Hernandez. To view the petition, click here.

A family court reform group will hold a demonstration on Thursday, March 14 outside the Sacramento County Main Jail at 651 I Street. The event is scheduled to coincide with a jailhouse court hearing for Phillip Hernandez, who is charged with the Feb. 26 murder of his 9-year-old son, Matthew. The Sacramento Family Court watchdog group asserts that oversight and accountability of judges and court employees is nonexistent and contributed to the death of Matthew Hernandez. The group has documented that some judges misuse child custody and visitation orders as a way to punish a parent, and as a method of churning legal fees for favored attorneys and mediators, rationales which are prohibited by state law. With the help of courthouse whistleblowers, the watchdogs also have cataloged an assortment of institutionalized family court problems including judicial misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, preferential treatment of attorneys who also serve as temporary judges, employee misconduct, and systemic mismanagement by Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers and family court Director of Operations Julie Setzer. The court operates a two-track system of justice for the financial benefit of a cartel of Sacramento County Bar Association family law attorneys who represent the 30 percent of family court litigants who can afford an attorney, while the 70 percent of court users who are unrepresented are relegated to second-class status, according to the group. The demonstration will take place beginning at 8:00 a.m.

Posted by PR Brown at 11:18 PM

+10 Recommend this on Google

Labels: CHILD CUSTODY, CHRISTINA VOLKERS, JESSICA HERNANDEZ, JULIE SETZER, MATTHEW HERNANDEZ, PHILLIP HERNANDEZ, PRO PERS, PROTEST, SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT, SHARON A. LUERAS, WATCHDOGS

Location: Sacramento County Main Jail - 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA

5 comments

CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5)

Add a comment

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

Top comments

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

Judge Sharon Lueras and the Deaths of Matthew Hernandez and Ryder Salmen via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly JUDGE SHARON LUERAS AND SCBA FAMILY LAW SECTION DIVORCE ATTORNEYS TARGETED IN FAMILY COURT REFORM GROUP DEMONSTRATION A family court reform group will hold a demonstration on Thursday, March 14 outside the Sacramento County Main Jail at 651 I Street. The event is scheduled to coincide with a jailhouse court hearing for Phillip Hernandez, who is charged with the Feb. 26 murder of his

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

· 1 Reply

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Intuitive Sparkle via Google+ 7 months ago - Shared publicly Judge Sharon Lueras and the Deaths of Matthew Hernandez and Ryder Salmen originally shared this JUDGE SHARON LUERAS AND SCBA FAMILY LAW SECTION DIVORCE ATTORNEYS TARGETED IN FAMILY COURT REFORM GROUP DEMONSTRATION A family court reform group will hold a demonstration on Thursday, March 14 outside the Sacramento County Main Jail at 651 I Street. The event is scheduled to coincide · +1

1 Reply

elysa lueras 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS &

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

23 March 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Tani Cantil-Sakauye Defendant & Jaime R. Roman Implicated in Federal Class Action Lawsuit for Misuse of Vexatious Litigant Law

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Controversial Order for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Charlotte Keeley by Judge Jaime Roman Challenged in Federal Class Action Lawsuit

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Taxpayers Face Financial Liability

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18)

Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is named as a defendant in this federal court litigation stemming from a vexatious litigant court order issued by Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley.

PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS EXCLUSIVE A November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious litigant is being challenged in a landmark federal class action lawsuit filed yesterday in United States District Court in San Francisco. The controversial order was issued by family court Judge Jaime Roman at the request of temporary judge and veteran family law attorney Charlotte Keeley in a case with a long-running child custody dispute between Andrew Karres and Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. The order blacklisted [pdf] Karres as a vexatious litigant [pdf] and raised eyebrows in the legal community because Roman issued the ruling without providing Karres the court hearing required under state law and the due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.

DIVORCE CORP (15)

The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts a litigants access to the courts by requiring them to get preapproval from a presiding judge before they are permitted to file pleadings in any court in the state. Sacramento Family Court News in Nov. 2012 reported exclusively on Judge Roman's unorthodox order, which also is pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Taxpayers likely will now get two substantial bills in connection with the Keeley-Roman ruling.

SATIRE (11)

JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11)

The state court appeal will cost the public between $8,500 and $25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. The public cost of defending the federal case could be significantly higher. For several years, court watchdogs and whistleblowers have asserted that full-time judges give preferential treatment to judge pro tem attorneys. They charge that the Rapton-Karres case is one of several cases emblematic of judge-attorney cronyism and its effects, including the unnecessary use of scarce court resources and the financial burden on taxpayers.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

Named as defendants in the federal class action lawsuit are California Supreme Court Chief Justice and Judicial Council Chair Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and Steven Jahr, the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

In addition to Karres, the plaintiffs include eight other family court parties from throughout the state. All have been blacklisted as vexatious litigants in their respective courts. "Plaintiffs, who are parents in on-going custody disputes, bring this class action against Chief Justice CantilSakauye and the Judicial Council in the hope of overturning California's Vexatious Litigant Statute (VLS) as it applies to family law litigants, particularly parents caught in protracted custody battles. The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the VLS as it is applied in the context of family law custody proceedings. The Plaintiffs assert that the VLS on its face and as applied infringes on their fundamental custody rights," reads the introduction section of the complaint.

JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) Justice Cantil-Sakauye is a former Sacramento County Superior Court Judge.

Click here to read the complete lawsuit filed March 22. Sacramento Family Court News will provide continuing coverage of the case.

THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Related articles and posts: Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case. Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.

WE SUPPORT Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.

Posted by PR Brown at 8:19 PM

First Amendment Coalition +4 Recommend this on Google

Labels: CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT, FEDERAL LAWSUITS, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM,

Californians Aware

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, VL-CLASS-ACTION

Location: US District Court Clerk Northern District Of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue #36060, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog

6 comments

Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs

Add a comment

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law

Top comments

PR Brown via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly A November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious

The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

10 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Divorce Lawyers Sacramento - Judge Misconduct: Hon. James M. Mize Replaces Judge Jaime Roman As Supervising Family Law, Probate/ADA Judge

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Sacramento Family Court Supervising Judge Again Abruptly Replaced - Infighting Blamed

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28)

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James M. Mize has been named as the Supervising Family Law, Probate and ADA Judge, effective April 8, 2013. The supervising judge position previously was held by troubled Judge Jaime R. Roman, who replaced Judge Matthew J. Gary just seven months ago.

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

Gary was involuntarily removed in September, 2012 under a cloud of controversy, and several months before the normal, calendar year rotation of the supervising judge position.

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19)

Roman reportedly voluntarily resigned after Gary and his staff relentlessly harassed Roman by making repeated complaints about his performance to Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, according to a courthouse whistleblower.

CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) Judge James Mize was voted "Judge of the Year" by the Sacramento County

Bar Association in 2009. Family court watchdogs are concerned that Mize's

close relationship with the local legal community will inhibit his ability to

effectively address ongoing family court scandals which court reform

advocates attribute to the Family Law Bar.

"They complained about every little thing to the PJ downtown. [Roman] just got sick of it and stepped down," the source explained. "Judge Gary has the personality of a mean high school girl. He's very petty, thinks very highly of himself and is very self-righteous. When he got the boot as supervising judge he took it very personally," said the source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. To continue reading, click Read more>> below...

Roman also came under intense public scrutiny beginning just two months after he assumed the supervising family court judge role when he issued what family court watchdogs called a "made-to-order" ruling for

DIVORCE CORP (15) JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

controversial judge pro tem family law attorney Charlotte Keeley. The order for Keeley - which Roman inexplicably issued without the required, due process compliant court hearing mandated by law - declared family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant and ordered him to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions to Keeley, in addition to granting 13 other requests made by the temporary judge on behalf of her client Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton.

The unorthodox order is pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal, and also is being challenged in a federal lawsuit against Judicial Branch officials, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, alleging misuse of the vexatious litigant law by family court judges throughout the state.

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

"Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss"

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

Due to his close ties to the Sacramento County Bar Association - whose members voted Mize "Judge of the Year [pdf]" in 2009 - family court watchdogs are disappointed by the selection of Mize to helm the scandalplagued family court bench. Court reform advocates contend that in partnership with family court judges and court administrators, the SCBA Family Law Section acts effectively as a shadow government controlling virtually all aspects of court operations for the financial gain of member attorneys, and to the detriment of the 70 percent of court users without counsel.

FERRIS CASE (8)

Watchdogs also point out that Judge Mize inexplicably testified as a character witness for controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien, when McBrien was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009. At the time of his testimony - which the CJP cited as a mitigating factor when determining McBrien's punishment - Mize was the Presiding Judge of Sacramento County Superior Court.

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

Mize's testimony on McBrien's behalf raised eyebrows and may itself have been a violation of Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Canon requires all judges to take corrective action when another judge has violated a provision of the Code. There is no known precedent defining "corrective action" as testifying on behalf of the offending judge. Click here to read the complete transcript of Judge Mize's testimony on behalf of McBrien, posted exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News.

And along with all other family court judges, Mize also has been embroiled in the ongoing conflict of interest disclosure scandal. Court reform advocates say they expect family court problems to remain whitewashed and unaddressed under the supervision of Judge Mize. "This is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss,'" said watchdog Robert Saunders. "We won't be fooled again."

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

Posted by PR Brown at 10:52 AM

+4 Recommend this on Google

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

17 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant Law for Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders Without Court Hearing

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012.

CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case. Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.

The unprecedented ruling - which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation.

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15) Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family court litigant the right to a court hearing and oral testimony - fundamental components of the right to due process of law.

JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

SATIRE (11)

Off-the-Rails at Conjunction Junction

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) The confusing legal rationale of Judge Roman's 20-page decision is constructed from a series of allegedly consistent conjunctions conjoining components of the Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and court rules. For example, Roman writes at page six: "Sacramento Superior Court Rule 14.02(C), consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, in conjunction with Family Code section 210.." and "Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), in conjunction with Family Code section 210..." at page eight, and "California Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 in conjunction with Family Code section 210...California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a), in conjunction with California Rules of Court, rule 5.21...See Family Code section 217(c); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b), in conjunction with rule 5.21 and rule 5.119," at page 19. Judge Roman's statute and court rule references, and calculated omission of contrary authority suggest an intent to cherry-pick law - including law not applicable to a vexatious litigant proceeding - to reach a predetermined result for the benefit of Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In our first report on the decision, veteran court watchdog Robert Saunders astutely observed that the judge used reverse engineering. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling," Saunders said in 2012.

Saunders' analysis appears to be substantially accurate, according to the family and civil law reference books used by judges, attorneys and Sacramento Family Court News. The logically inferred intent of Roman's risible, convoluted conjunctions is to enable himself to designate a family court party a vexatious litigant and issue a $2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral argument. But Judge Roman is off-the-rails at conjunction junction. California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, the gold standard civil law reference work used by judges and attorneys, indicates that Judge Roman attempted to create the illusion that his order was grounded in legitimate law by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure § 2009, Family Code § 210, and § 217, and California Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21. The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from parts of each is preempted and effectively nullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law, according to the Guide.

Court watchdogs and whistleblowers charge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other court administrators failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline family court judges. They point out that Judge Roman, the supervising family law, probate and ADA judge has limited family court experience, and often confuses civil law with family law. At the end of her own two-year stint in family court, Judge Sharon Lueras confessed to the family law bar that, at the beginning of her family court assignment, she knew nothing about family law. The consequences of inadequate training and supervision can be tragic. Unrepresented litigant

CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Jessica Hernandez blames Lueras for the death of her son at the hands of her ex-husband. Click here for our coverage of the Hernandez case.

The Disappearing Hearing As we reported in our original coverage, Judge Roman unilaterally cancelled a family court hearing calendared for Nov. 14, 2012. The hearing was scheduled for the purpose of arguing and resolving 15 disputed issues in the case Katina Rapton vs Andrew Karres.

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

On the day of the hearing, the parties and attorneys arrived at the courtroom and were told by the judge that the hearing was vacated and would not take place. A dumbfounded Sharon Huddle, the attorney for Karres, had the judge repeat the statement a second time while being recorded by a court reporter. Click here to read the court reporter's transcript, obtained exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News.

At the end of the non-hearing, Judge Roman scrawled out a minute order that read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." The day before the hearing, Roman wrote, signed, filed, and mailed to the attorneys a 20-page statement of decision resolving all issues.

California Lawyer Magazine

Virtually all of the rulings were in favor of Rapton and against Karres. Rapton, the Mel Rapton Honda heiress is represented by veteran family law attorney and temporary judge Charlotte Keeley. The orders requested by Keeley and granted by Roman included designating Karres a vexatious litigant, and ordering the financially disadvantaged litigant to pay Keeley $2,500 in sanctions. The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts Karres' access to every court in California by requiring him to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before he can file anything, anywhere in the state.

Conjunction Malfunction The relationship between family law, civil law and the court rules applicable to each can be confusing. But the family law procedure manual used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law neatly sorts it all out in just two pages, which, apparently, is news to Judge Roman who clumsily cut, conjoined, and pasted conflicting laws and rules to justify his vexatious litigant order.

An assessment of the legality of Roman's order blacklisting Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigant begins with the law itself. California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391-391.8. Wikipedia explains how the law works at this link. The law was intended to limit frivolous litigation by unrepresented, pro per parties in civil courts. When a judge issues an order designating a self-represented litigant as a vexatious litigant, the Constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process of law, equal protection of law and the right to petition the government for redress are severely restricted. Due to the harsh consequences of the vexatious litigant label, California law requires full due process before the order can be issued, including notice and a court hearing where written or oral evidence is presented. The notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute are difficult to misconstrue: "At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion," reads the law at section 391.2. At § 391.3, the vexatious litigant law specifies, twice, that a decision is made "after hearing the evidence on the motion." The California Practice Guide for civil law recites the procedure for a vexatious litigant determination, including the required court hearing. Based on the 2002 appellate court case Bravo v. Ismaj, "[a] party may not be declared to be a 'vexatious litigant' without a noticed motion and hearing which includes the right to oral argument

State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

and the presentation of evidence," according to the Guide. Since the 2002 Bravo case, at least 20 other published and unpublished appellate court decisions have relied on and mirrored the controlling holding in Bravo, including these two cases from 2009 and 2012.

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court

In a single paragraph and four footnotes at page 19 of his 20-page statement of decision, Judge Roman provides his rationale for issuing the vexatious litigant order without a hearing. The judge recites sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Code, and court rules that he claims, when conjoined, authorize him to "vacate the hearing in this matter..."

Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas

Notably absent from the justification is any reference to the Bravo line of cases, Judge Jaime R. Roman conjoined statutory law, court rules and overruled the notice and hearing requirements of decisional law to rewrite vexatious litigant procedure in California. the vexatious litigant statute, and the instruction of the California Practice Guides, all of which contradict Roman's justification for denying Karres a hearing with oral argument and the presentation of evidence. Roman does cite to a single case law reference, Reifler v. Superior Court, a 1974 case which was effectively overruled by the Legislature as of January 1, 2011, and which in any event has no legitimate connection to the procedure for declaring a litigant vexatious. Judge Roman gives his reasons for blacklisting Karres statewide as a vexatious litigant at pages 15-18 of his 20page statement of decision. Absent from the ruling is the boilerplate recital that "The Court has considered the moving and responding papers, the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, and the files herein," which appears on page one of this vexatious litigant order from a family court case in Santa Clara County. Judge Roman's unlawful order declaring Karres a vexatious litigant is now the subject of both a costly appeal and federal civil rights litigation against Judicial Branch officials. The appeal and federal case will cost the parties and taxpayers significant sums. The current cost to taxpayers for a single appeal is between $8,500 and $25,000, according to recent appellate court decisions. Ironically, vexatious litigants are routinely accused of, and punished for wasting scarce appellate court resources with frivolous litigation. "Other appellate parties, many of whom wait years for a resolution of bona fide disputes, are prejudiced by the useless diversion of this court's attention. [Citation.] In the same vein, the appellate system and the taxpayers are damaged by what amounts to a waste of this court's time and resources," reads a line of cases from 1988 to 2012, beginning with Finnie v. Town of Tiburon.

PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

149961 158

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by Judge Roman's order.

Labels Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case. Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.

COA (6) AB

Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

(1)

+6 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CJP, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,

OPINION, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Location: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 9:57 PM

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(23)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEY

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

22 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley, Judges Peter J. McBrien and Jaime R. Roman et al., vs. Sharon Huddle

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Judge Jaime R. Roman Vexatious Litigant Order for Attorney Charlotte Keeley Shows Judge Pro Tem Monopoly - Unfair Competition at Work

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15) JAMES M. MIZE (15)

Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle continues to be subjected to retaliation by Sacramento County Family Court judges, apparently for her assertive client advocacy in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings against troubled Sacramento Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien. News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding issuance of a controversial order designating her client Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant may be déjà vu all over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in the patently unlawful order as victims. For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006. McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy in sworn testimony before the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judge received his second round of discipline by the CJP. The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment and kickbacks given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.

The transcript and other records from the McBrien CJP proceedings also provide a troubling point of reference indicating that the unlawful, interdependent relationship between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys dates back at least seven years and is now all but institutionalized.

To read the sworn testimony of Robbi Joy and an incriminating admission by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, click Read more >> below.

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

California Unfair Competition Law Court watchdogs and whistleblowers have cataloged an array of other examples of judge pro tem favoritism, including undisclosed conflicts of interest and counterfeit court filings that impede the appeal rights of unrepresented litigants. They assert that financially disadvantaged, self-represented family court litigants with little or no knowledge of family law and court procedure are treated even harsher than outside-the-cartel lawyers like Huddle. Watchdogs point to informal audits of several family court cases and anecdotal evidence indicating that cartel attorneys obtain favorable rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate.

The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, according to court reform advocates.Whether a party is self-represented or represented by an "outsider" attorney, a judge pro tem attorney on the opposing side is the common denominator in lopsided, unfair and unlawful court rulings. They contend that taxpayers inevitably will be held liable for class action or institutional reform litigation [pdf], or government enforcement under B&P Code § 17200 on behalf of outside attorneys and pro per litigants against the court and the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section.

"She Wasn't An Insider. She Wasn't a Pro Tem."

JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Judge Denise deBellefeuille made this unsettling observation in her assessment of the evidence presented at the Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien.

Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille was one of three judges assigned to hear and decide the fate of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien in his 2009 disciplinary proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. [Click here to read the court of appeal decision that sent McBrien to the CJP woodshed a second time]. In her assessment of the testimony and evidence considered by the 3-judge panel, she candidly acknowledged that McBrien's favorable treatment of judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and harsh treatment of attorney Sharon Huddle was partly attributable to the fact that Huddle "wasn't an insider. She wasn't a pro tem."

Kafkaesq

When San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli read an article in the ABA Journal on the court of appeal decision in the Carlsson case, he wrote about his own nightmarish experience as an outsider attorney in

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Above the Law The Divorce Artist

Sacramento Family Court. Like Huddle, Gianelli also faced off against judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley: "[I] was attacked personally in court filing after court filing. I was required to drive from San Francisco to Sacramento (a three hour round trip drive) over six times on 24 hours notice, in my opinion to harass me and make me quit," the attorney said. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete statement. In future posts, SFCN will have more, never before published information on the McBrien CJP proceedings, including transcripts of sworn statements by character witnesses who testified on McBrien's behalf, including full-time and temporary Sacramento County Superior Court judges. Judge pro tem lawyers who testified for McBrien include Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair, and current chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Russell Carlson.

The relevance of court reporter Robbi Joy's testimony about the contrast between how Judge McBrien treated outsider attorney Sharon Huddle and temporary judge attorney Charlotte Keeley during the Carlsson trial was described by CJP attorney Andrew Blum. "Robbi Joy is a neutral third party. She's not friends with any of these people. She's been a court reporter for a long time, and she has seen a lot of what takes place in courtrooms. She testified that the judge was demeaning to Ms. Huddle, treated her with disdain and displayed irritation towards her throughout the trial, and she never saw Ms. Huddle do anything to justify that conduct. Even Judge McBrien admitted that some of his comments could make it appear that he was badgering Ms. Huddle in an inappropriate manner. Now, in addition to what these actual observers said, the record shows that he repeatedly threatened a mistrial from early on in the trial, curtailed her presentation of evidence, threatened her with contempt, and he would barely let her take breaks to go to the bathroom." To view Blum's statement, click here. Robbi Joy's testimony included the following exchange: Q. During the Carlsson trial, how would you describe Judge McBrien's behavior towards Attorney Huddle? A [Robbi Joy]. Demeaning. This is hard. He is a judge. I have no ill will toward him. But it was remarkable to me that he seemed to have an amicable relationship with Ms. Keeley, but he seemed so irritated with Ms. Huddle. In fact, I asked the deputy MR. MURPHY: Objection –

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Sustained. MR. MURPHY: hearsay. BY MR. BLUM: Q. What did the judge do that makes you say that he was demeaning towards Ms. Huddle? A. A couple of times she asked for just a brief break. She finally said, frankly, "I want to use the restroom, and you've given me a couple of tasks, phone calls to make," and he said, "one minute." And he repeatedly threatened a mistrial. I've seen this happen. If you say it's to wrap up Friday and it's already Friday and it seems to be going on and on, that the judge may say, "We're headed for a

mistrial" or "none of us want a mistrial. " But he, I would say, at least five times said, "Do you want a mistrial? Just, let's have a mistrial, " which is something, of course, that nobody wants to have to go

through.

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children California Protective Parents Association

Q. Did the judge's poor demeanor towards Ms. Huddle begin on the first day of trial?

Center for Judicial Excellence

A. Yes.

Courageous Kids Network

Q. Did it continue throughout the trial?

Divorce & Family Law News

A. Yes.

Divorce Corp

Q. Did you observe Ms. Huddle do anything that would justify Judge McBrien's attitude towards her?

Divorced Girl Smiling

A. No. I felt that she and Ms. Keeley comported themselves as professionals. Q. Would you say that Ms. Huddle was ever rude or

disrespectful to the judge?

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

A. No.

Fathers 4 Justice

Q. I think you touched on this, but how did Judge McBrien treat Ms. Keeley?

HuffPost Divorce

A. In a much more respectful manner.

Leon Koziol.Com

Q. Did Judge McBrien treat you poorly?

Moving Past Divorce

A. No.

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Q. Were the attorneys rude to each other? A. No. Q. In your years as a court reporter, have you ever seen a judge behave this way, the way Judge McBrien behaved towards Ms. Huddle? A. Not to be glib, but not even on television. Q. So that's a no? A. That's a no. I certainly have seen judges lose their temper, if they're consuming time or if it's just -for a reason. But I have not seen a judge, without some prior history of dealing with this attorney or -or for some other reason, just seeming to have disdain for them. To read Robbi Joy's complete testimony, click here. In 2008, the 3rd District Court of Appeal described how Huddle's client, Ulf Carlsson, was ultimately treated at the conclusion of the 2006 trial. The description bears similarities to the recent treatment of Huddle client Andrew Karres by Judge Jaime R. Roman. "Judge McBrien issued a written decision, ruling against Ulf on almost every issue. He rejected Ulf's contention that Mona was underemployed, ruled ruled that Ulf and Mona were sole owners of the rental property; ordered both the family residence and the rental property sold; failed to segregate Ulf's retirement account for purposes of awarding Mona her community share; and ordered Ulf to pay Mona $35,000 in attorney and expert witness fees. Despite the court's prior handwritten order that child support would not be determined until custody was resolved, the judgment ordered Ulf to pay $736 per month in child support." Click here.

Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

149961 158

NEXT: The Huddle-Keeley-McBrien backstory, continued: The revealing ex parte communication between Judge Peter J. McBrien and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley, and McBrien's secret transcript request. Related articles: Sacramento Family Court News has continuing coverage of issues involving judge pro tem attorneys and financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants. For a list of all posts about temporary judges, click here. Our special, independent Judge Pro Tems Page is at this link. Specific issues with direct links include:

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here. Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.

Labels

Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

1102 (1) AB 590

Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here. Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.

(1)

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.

Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here. Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here. Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here. Judges cherry-pick state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here. The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here. Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here. Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here. Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here. Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here. Permitting Family Law Facilitator Office staff to dispense false information to unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here. Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

(23)

CULTURE

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO

(4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22) CHILD

SUPPORT (4) CHRISTINA

ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVICS (1)

CIVIL LIABILITY (1) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3) CJP

(18) ClientTickler (2) CNN CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12) CODE OF

(1)

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

(11) SERIES

LAW

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 3:06 PM

+4 Recommend this on Google

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1)

COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,

FAMILY LAW (1) CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11) CRIMINAL

OPINION, PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse

4 comments

Add a comment

Top comments

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

EFFICIENCY

GOVERNMENT

ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1) AWARD (1)

Cynthia Aguayo 11 months ago - Shared publicly

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

26 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Family Court Administrators Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and Clerk Christina Arcuri Violate State Law, Court Rules In Fee Waiver Errors

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Defective Fee Waiver Orders Show Family Court Clerks Violate State Laws, Block Court Access of Indigent Litigants

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Supervision, Oversight & Accountability Absent

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

This fee waiver order filed by Department 121 courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri and stamped with the signature of Judge Matthew J. Gary is useless. Incomplete, defective orders like this are refused by courthouse public counter filing clerks and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. Click here to view the full-size order. Click here to view the specific defects in the order. Click here to view a complete, valid fee waiver order issued to the same person by a clerk at the Carol Miller Justice Center courthouse in Sacramento.

A Sacramento Family Court News audit of family court cases reveals that court clerks are issuing incomplete, defective fee waiver orders which contain substantive errors rendering the orders useless. Under California law, indigent and low income litigants are entitled to a waiver of court filing fees. Certain family court filings - including

SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

domestic violence and contempt actions - require proof of personal service and the fee waiver also entitles poor litigants to have papers served by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. The fee waiver procedure is specified by California Rules of Court rules 3.50 - 3.58 and the process is standardized throughout the state. But a comparison of orders issued in other courts with those issued by Sacramento Family Court clerks shows the family court orders consistently are not in compliance with state law. Family court clerks issue incomplete orders that often result in a Catch-22 situation: When a litigant later attempts to use the defective fee waiver order to file documents the order is refused by public counter filing clerks for being incomplete. The orders also are rejected as defective when a litigant attempts to have documents served by the Sheriff's Civil Division. In addition, in all of the cases reviewed by SFCN, the orders also omitted mandatory Judicial Council form FW-010 - an entire page of the order required by state court rule 3.52(4).

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

To continue reading, click Read More >> below...

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

Carol Miller Courthouse Issues Accurate, Valid Fee Waiver Orders

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7)

Page 1 of 5

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

Page 1 of 5

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware This fee waiver order issued to the same person by Deputy Clerk D. Turner at the Carol Miller Justice Center in Sacramento complies with state law governing fee waiver procedure. Click here to view the order in a new browser window. The family court fee waiver order issued by Christina Arcuri - courtroom clerk for Judge Matthew J. Gary - is not only incomplete and missing the mandatory Judicial Council FW-010 form, it also is filled out by Arcuri using the wrong Judicial Council form. As the accurate, Carol Miller Justice Center fee waiver order reflects, the correct form is FW-003. Arcuri used the form for issuance of a fee waiver after a court hearing, FW-008. The litigant listed in the defective order - who is disabled and on public assistance - was entitled to an automatic, non-discretionary waiver and did not have a fee waiver hearing. Other fee waiver orders audited by Sacramento Family Court News contained similar errors making the orders unusable. None of the orders resembled the state law compliant fee waiver order issued at the Carol Miller Courthouse.

Oversight and Accountability Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct." As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.

Court Administration Mismanagement Court watchdogs also point out that the fee waiver order problem is another example of systemic family court mismanagement by Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, and reflects a failure of oversight by Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl and Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers. Sacramento Superior Court internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.

"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the Superior Court policy introduction.

The fee waiver order problem also exposes taxpayers to potential liability for civil rights violations against indigent litigants, and violates several state laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, which classifies court rule violations by court employees as an improper governmental activity.

In upcoming posts, SFCN will report on additional problems with fee waiver orders and procedure in family court, including an attempt by Judge Matthew J. Gary to block appellate review of his own orders by unlawfully using the fee waiver review process against an indigent family court litigant. Related articles:

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal

Sacramento Family Court chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh responsible for serial court rule violations. Click here. Family court appeals unit illegally rejecting appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here. Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts gives false info to indigent pro per litigants. Click here.

State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

Family court clerks let judge pro tem attorneys file sham entry of judgment paperwork. Click here. Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers silent on fixing appeals unit problems. Click here. Other court employee misconduct articles: Click here.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Posted by PR Brown at 12:34 PM

Divorce Corp +4 Recommend this on Google

Labels: CHRISTINA ARCURI, CHRISTINA VOLKERS, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS, FERRIS CASE, JULIE SETZER, LAURIE M. EARL, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WATCHDOGS

Location: William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA

Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

29 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Matthew Gary Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver Hearing

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help Judge Pro Tem Lawyer

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

Monday Document Dump

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28) FLEC (26) ARTS & CULTURE (21)

Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from the bench, Judge Matthew Gary denies a fee waiver request by an indigent, unrepresented litigant in this startling court reporter transcript. The fee waiver request was for trial court appellate costs for an appeal of several orders issued by the judge. The pro per had an existing fee waiver which by law automatically applied to the trial court appeal costs, making the hearing ordered by the judge patently unlawful. To view the order Gary issued after the hearing, click here. The opposing party is represented by divorce attorney Paula Salinger, partner at the prominent Sacramento family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., sworn Sacramento County Superior Court temporary judge, and current officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC. Days after the hearing, Gary issued a second order reversing himself and granting the fee waiver request, but at the same time embedding in the order a sham finding designed to help Salinger and her client at a pending trial in the case.

To continue reading, and to view the court reporter transcript click Read more >> below... The second order mischaracterized the facts and testimony recorded in the hearing transcript, and included false statements intended to create a misleading record to enable Salinger to use the order at a pending trial to avoid a potential spousal support obligation of her client. "[T]he court does not find [respondent's] assertion of poverty credible and that, even if he were, the state of 'poverty' is self induced & is a deliberate effort on his part to manipulate this ongoing dissolution case," the judge wrote in his revised order. Click here to view the order. Under judicial ethics rules, Gary's written statement indicates that he was not acting as an impartial judge, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges. Gary also is caught on the transcript probing the pro per about the pending trial and spousal support issue, subjects with no logical connection to the fee waiver hearing. Click here to view this portion of the transcript. As the transcript records, the judge manipulated the hearing through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact to achieve his desired result - fabricating false findings to help the judge pro tem attorney at trial - also a judicial ethics violation, according to the CJP. In essence, Gary used the illegal fee waiver hearing for an unrelated and improper purpose: to influence and reduce or eliminate the potential spousal support liability of Salinger's client at a subsequent trial before a different judge. The formal finding is calculated to enable the attorney to argue that her client should not have to pay support because - according to a finding by the judge assigned to pre-trial proceedings in the case - the unrepresented spouse's lack of income is "self-induced."

As the transcript records, Gary abandoned the role of judge and assumed the role of advocate for the opposing

PETER J. McBRIEN (20) SCBA (20) CHILD CUSTODY (19) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) ROBERT SAUNDERS (17) DOCUMENTS (16) CJP (15) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) SATIRE (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

attorney. Acting as an advocate for a party or attorney is expressly prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics and multiple judge disciplinary decisions by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Click here to view CJP decisions. Revealing additional bias and prejudgment, the judge speculatively accused the unrepresented litigant of "voluntarily" becoming unemployed a year before his wife filed for divorce so that he would be eligible for spousal support. Click here and here to view these excerpts from the court reporter transcript. A fervent right-wing ideologue, Gary reportedly detests what he calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court pro pers who obtain fee waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. A trial court judge who obstructs an appeal, or retaliates against an attorney or litigant for taking an appeal is subject to discipline by the CJP for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here to view a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions. Judges also have been disciplined for manipulating a hearing to achieve a desired result, click here, and for creating a misleading record, click here. Despite documented, serial violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Gary has never been publicly disciplined by the CJP. The judge's unlawful conduct in connection with the fee waiver hearing was witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government employees, each had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. Neither, apparently, did.

For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) FERRIS CASE (7) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CIVIL RIGHTS (4) CONTEMPT (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) THADD BLIZZARD (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Share

Embed

Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog

Posted by PR Brown at 9:28 AM

+6 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CHRISTINA ARCURI, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS,

J. STRONG, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, PAULA SALINGER, SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS

Location: Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - Sacramento Family Court

Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog The Divorce Artist

5 comments

Add a comment

Above the Law

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION California Lawyer Magazine

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

19 June 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Victim of Illegal Order Issued by Judge Matthew J. Gary for Divorce Attorney Timothy Zeff Homeless But Surviving

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Matthew Gary Order for Partner of Judge Pro Tem Attorney Scott Buchanan Results in Homelessness for Disabled Mom

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28) FLEC (26) ARTS & CULTURE (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) SCBA (20) CHILD CUSTODY (19) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) ROBERT SAUNDERS (17) DOCUMENTS (16) CJP (15) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12)

Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff family law attorney Timothy Zeff requested and was granted an unlawful $920 child support order by Judge Matthew J. Gary. Zeff's partner, Scott Buchanan, is a family court judge pro tem. The order financially devastated 52-year-old disabled, single parent Susan Ferris. Evicted from her Sacramento home and now homeless, she sleeps on the couch of a Bay Area friend.

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS SPECIAL REPORT The disturbing aftermath of an unconscionable $920 child support order issued by Judge Matthew J. Gary shows one of the ramifications, and the inexorable human cost of what court watchdogs contend is unchecked family court corruption and cronyism. The April, 2012 order gutted the monthly disability income of unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigant Susan Ferris from $1,256 to $336. Gary previously issued an equally unlawful order prohibiting the 52-year-old single parent from having any contact with her daughter, Megan.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) SATIRE (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

The April support order financially devastated Ferris, leaving her with far less income than she needed for food, utilities, and rent. After several months under the order and behind on her rent, Ferris was evicted from her East Sacramento home and became homeless. The same court order records that her ex-husband, David Ferris, earns $8,089 per month. Click here to view Gary's minute order, obtained and posted online exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News. As a result of the order, Susan Ferris' credit has been thrashed, the repo man came for her car, and the eviction will now be part of her renter's report, making it virtually impossible for her to rent a home in the future.

To continue reading, click Read more>> below: Like orders issued by the same judge in other cases, both minute orders contain no facts or law justifying the draconian rulings, making them patently illegal under state law. The comparison to orders in other cases reveals a consistent pattern that infers a calculated and deliberate intent to conceal from review the judge's misuse of Family Code statutes for the prohibited purpose of punishing unrepresented parties. Gary, a fervent right-wing ideologue, also detests what he reportedly calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court parties who obtain fee waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. The template-like repetition of the judge's bad faith tactics and overt socioeconomic bias also evinces an abdication of oversight responsibilities by Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers, superior court Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, and family court Supervising Judge James Mize.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(4) LUAN CASE (4) THADD BLIZZARD (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

Family law attorney Timothy Zeff obtained a child support order for his client, David Ferris, who makes $8,089 per month. The order made his disabled ex-wife, Susan Ferris, homeless. In this exclusive SFCN photo, Susan sleeps with her Yellow Lab "Buddy" on the couch of a Bay Area friend. Family law attorney J. Scott Buchanan, Zeff's partner, holds the Office of Temporary Judge in Sacramento Superior Court.

Gary issued the $920 child support order against Susan Ferris at the request of veteran family law attorney Timothy Zeff of the Sacramento family law firm Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff. Zeff's partner is attorney and family court judge pro tem J. Scott Buchanan. At a subsequent hearing three weeks later, Zeff requested and Gary issued an additional illegal order directing Susan Ferris to pay $2,500 to her ex-husband for Zeff's attorney fees. Click here to view the May attorney fees order, which also is barren of any facts or law justifying the ruling.

The order also is unlawful because it does not record consideration by the judge of the comparative wealth of the parties as required by Family Code §271, the statute Gary used for the order. Click here to view the law applicable to the comparative wealth assessment requirement. Gary has a documented history of issuing unlawful, appeal-proof orders in cases where one party is represented by a judge pro tem family law attorney and the other party is unrepresented and indigent or otherwise financially disadvantaged.

Serial Misuse of Family Code §271 Sanctions Against

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog The Divorce Artist Above the Law

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION California Lawyer Magazine

Indigent, Unrepresented Litigants

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH Judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger requested and was granted this unprecedented sanctions order by Judge Matthew J. Gary against an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Gary recorded no facts, law or evidence in support of the order, making it virtually appeal-proof.

Sacramento Family Court News audits of other family court case files show that Judge Matthew Gary routinely issues severe, disproportionate Family Code §271 attorney fee sanction orders against unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. The statute requires a judge to compare the income, assets and liabilities of both parties before making a sanction ruling. The law is impossible to misconstrue: "In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities." reads Family Code §271. Court reporter transcripts, minute orders and other records indicate that Gary - a former family law attorney - does not consider the income, assets and liabilities of both parties, and in cases where only one party has an attorney consistently omits the mandatory comparative wealth assessment required by the law. The draconian sanction orders are unlawful but nonetheless effective against pro per parties with little knowledge of family law, much less knowledge of the appellate law and procedure required to contest the order.

In one example cataloged by court watchdogs and memorialized by a court reporter's transcript, when directly asked if he had considered the comparative wealth of the parties before assessing more than $10,759 in attorney fee sanctions against an indigent, self-represented party, Gary conceded he had not, and appeared to express, or feign ignorance of the law. The transcript records the judge repeatedly using a verbal diversion to the payment terms of the sanction, a separate component of the sanction law unrelated to the comparative wealth consideration. To view the transcript excerpt, click here. To view the complete transcript, click here.

The separate and distinct comparative wealth assessment is required specifically to prevent the misuse of Family Code §271 sanctions to discourage an economically weaker party from asserting their rights, according to both state law and the family law legal reference used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group. To view view the Practice Guide reference, click here. To view comparative wealth decisional law references, click here.

Sanction Payment Terms That Ensure Default

California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families & Children California Protective Parents Association Center for Judicial Excellence

Knowing the litigant would default on the first payment, Judge Matthew Gary ordered an indigent party without assets or income of any kind to make sanction payments of $25 per month on a balance of $10,759. If the payments were made, it would take 35 years to pay off the debt. For the benefit of judge pro tem divorce attorney Paula Salinger, the judge sua sponte - on his own - also made the payment terms subject to "adjustment at trial."

Family Code §271(c) provides that: "An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party's share of community property." In addition to ignoring the comparative wealth legal requirement, Gary also ignores this mandatory component of the law. Knowing an indigent litigant without assets or income will be unable to make a monthly sanction payment, the judge orders the litigant to do so, ensuring default when the first payment comes due. When the payment is missed, after 10-days the entire balance is due, as shown in the order above. Click here to view the complete order.

Courageous Kids Network Divorce & Family Law News Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

And like the minute orders in the Ferris case, the facts and law justifying the unprecedented $10,759 attorney fee sanction are omitted from Gary's minute order. Published by the Judicial Council, the California Judges Benchguide Courtroom Control: Contempt and Sanctions instructs judges who issue Family Code §271 sanctions "[t]o issue a written order and to avoid stating conclusions in the words of the statute. Give a factual recital, with reasonable specificity, of the circumstances leading to the order. If desired, incorporate by reference portions of a party's papers that adequately set forth the conduct, circumstances and legal arguments providing the bases for the court's conclusions." Click here to view this section of the Benchguide.

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce

CONTRIBUTORS

The Benchguide directions mirror California Rules of Court rule 2.30 - sanctions for rules violations in civil cases - and the elementary principle of law that "An order imposing sanctions must be in writing and must recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order." Click here. Without any factual recital, portions of the party's papers, or references to the conduct and circumstances justifying the ruling, Gary ordered the unrepresented, indigent litigant to pay a $10,759 sanction for the attorney fees of judge pro tem family law attorney Paula Salinger.

Salinger is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section and partner at the controversial family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger. To view the astonishing, complete hearing transcript - which SFCN will report on in an upcoming article - click here. Original, court case file records from this and other cases indicate that Gary routinely uses unlawful sanction orders for the explicitly prohibited purpose of discouraging economically weaker parties from asserting their rights, and to send the message that returning to court will result in still more financial punishment. In addition, to prevent the one-sided, unfair outcomes previously common in family court cases with socioeconomic imbalances between the parties, the Legislature has explicitly mandated equalizing wealth disparities in a variety of family court proceedings. For example, in the context of providing financially disadvantaged parties with attorney representation, to ensure parity between the parties attorney fee awards must be "just and reasonable," and take into account the "relative circumstances" of each spouse. Click here to view more than 40 court of appeal decisions emphasizing this critical, long-established principle of family law.

PR Brown PelicanBriefed RoadDog

Total Pageviews

104239 121

Google+ Badge

Concealment of Errors and Misconduct Using AppealProof Orders

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT To avoid being reversed on appeal, unethical judges will leave out of an order the facts, law and evidence on which an order is based, according to California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.

Gary also has perfected the use of "appeal-proof" orders, which make appeals attempted by indigent, selfrepresented litigants futile, according to court reform advocates. Court watchdogs have collected minute orders authored by Gary in cases where one party is unrepresented and financially disadvantaged, and compared them with the orders of other judges. The orders issued by Gary consistently show that the judge does not memorialize the facts, law and evidence supporting the ruling(s) issued, which virtually always are against the pro per. Appellate courts have emphasized that a basic, fundamental duty of a trial court judge is to protect the appeal rights of all litigants by making and filing in the trial court record findings on all material issues. "Under our system it is mandatory that the superior court make and file its finding of the ultimate fact on each material issue created by the pleadings," Herman v. Glasscock. Click here.

COA (6) AB

(1)

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (32)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (9) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

"It is elementary that a failure to find on all material issues raised by the pleadings is ground for reversal." Kaiser v. Mansfield. Click here. By comparison, this order from a different judge in a Sacramento Family Court case also involving modification of a child support order contains seven pages of the facts, evidence and law which the judge relied on in making the order. Click here to view the order. And this order from another judge involving modification of custody/parenting time contains 16 pages of facts, evidence and law in support of the order. To view the order, click here. Gary uses the family law legal reference work California Practice Guide: Family Law to provide monthly "Bench Tips" for family law attorneys in the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section newsletter, The Family Law Counselor.

Gary's own preferred legal reference source makes clear that in child support modification proceedings the order issued by the judge must include a statement of information or reasons. Click here for the Practice Guide

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (31)

ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

CARLSSON CASE (9) CECIL reference. "Such findings not only will enable the parties to appreciate the basis for the child support order, they will facilitate judicial review in any future appeal..." according to In re Marriage of Hubner, one of the decisional law references cited by the Practice Guide. Click here to view the Hubner case. Although Gary has an legal and ethical obligation to preserve the appeal rights of all litigants, including the poor, under the doctrine of implied findings any appeal taken from an order authored by the judge is all but futile. Where a trial court order is barren of facts supporting the order, the doctrine requires a reviewing court to infer that the trial court judge made all factual findings necessary to support the order. A related legal principle, the presumption of correctness, requires an appellate court to "indulge all presumptions supporting the judgment or order" when the order issued by a trial court judge omits the facts, law and evidence on which the ruling is based.

Unethical judges who issue rulings they know could be reversed on appeal will "cloak" the rulings in the presumption of correctness by leaving an incomplete record for review, according to the legal reference used by judges and attorneys for appellate court procedure, California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group. The orders issued by Gary also violate the Trial Court Performance Standards specified in the California Rules of Court Standards of Judicial Administration, including the following provisions of Standard 10.17:

(3)(A) Trial court procedures faithfully adhere to relevant laws, procedural rules, and established policies...

and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(19) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (4) CJA (2)

CJP (15) ClientTickler (2)

CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (9) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

(11) SERIES

LAW

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (4)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

(3)(D) Decisions of the trial court unambiguously address the issues presented to it and make clear how compliance can be achieved... (3)(F) Records of all relevant court decisions and actions are accurate and properly preserved. Click here to view these portions of Standard 10.17. An example of an attempted appeal of a ruling which Judge Matthew Gary cloaked in the presumption of correctness is this unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decision. The reviewing court noted that the facts, law and evidence recited in the written trial court order issued by Gary consisted entirely of "insufficient facts/res judicata." The court of appeal mechanically invoked presumption of correctness and implied findings principles, writing "we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court's findings," and upheld Gary's ruling. Click here to view the court of appeal decision. Click here to view appellate court docket information verifying Matthew Gary as the trial court judge.

"Entitlement Mentality" of Disabled and Indigent Witnesses who attended the April and May 2012 Susan Ferris hearings said that Judge Matthew Gary became embroiled and appeared to issue the child support and attorney fee sanction orders to vindictively punish Susan Ferris for asserting her rights in prior proceedings - including an unsuccessful attempt to disqualify the judge - and for associating with a group of court reform advocates, including Robert Saunders, who also act as court watchers for the indigent and disabled.

Gary reportedly has been livid at Saunders - also indigent, unrepresented and disabled - since Saunders successfully had the judge removed from his own case by a neutral, outside judge from San Joaquin County in 2010. Click here for our exclusive coverage of Gary's disqualification by Saunders. Gary and his long time court clerk Christina Arcuri allegedly are right-wing ideologues who despise what they refer to as the "entitlement mentality" of indigent, family court litigants Judge Matthew Gary favors "judicial restraint" and admires U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who obtain fee waiver orders, and disabled litigants on public according to an interview in Sacramento Lawyer magazine. assistance, according to a family court employee whistleblower who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. To view a description of retaliation against a previous Sacramento County Superior Court employee whistleblower, click here.

Court records indicate that both Gary and Arcuri convey socioeconomic bias in performing their employmentrelated functions and duties. Bias based on socioeconomic status is explicitly prohibited by four separate sections of the California Code of Judicial Ethics [pdf]. Canon 3B(5) requires judges to perform all judicial duties without bias or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based on socioeconomic status. Judges must require staff and court

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (6) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

EFFICIENCY

GOVERNMENT

ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (10) ELECTIONS (1) AWARD (1)

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

(2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)

FAMILY COURT (9) FAMILY COURT

COURT

AUDITS (1) FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2)

FAMILY COURT

MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE

(1)

FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

(9)

LAW

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)

FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS

(2) FERRIS CASE (7) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

FLEC (26) FOIA (2) FOX

(1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E.

personnel to do the same under Canon 3C(2). A judge must also perform administrative duties - which includes the ministerial duty of accurately drafting and filing court orders - without bias or prejudice based on socioeconomic status, according to Canon 3C(5). Judge Matthew J. Gary is paid $169,289 per year, and was appointed to the bench by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. Schwarzenegger was named in the 2010 Worst Governors Report by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Among other charges, Schwarzenegger was faulted for providing "state jobs to friends with dubious qualifications." Click here. In a 2007 interview with Sacramento Lawyer magazine, Gary characterized his legal philosophy as "favoring judicial restraint," and said he admired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Judge Gary was found guilty in 2010 by San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua of not following proper contempt procedures when he had a disabled litigant arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom. As SFCN reported in 2011, Gary's wife, Donna Gary provides law firm administrative services and sells a client management software program to family law attorneys. Click here for our exclusive report. In 2011 a controversial Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. ruling issued by Gary was reversed in full by the 3rd District Court of Appeal. In 2012 Gary was involuntarily demoted from his position as the supervising family court judge. Gary is a graduate of El Camino High School in Sacramento and previously worked at his father’s law firm, Gary, Till & Burlingham. His father, Richard Gary, is a family law attorney. Links on the firm's resources page include the Christian Legal Society and the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation.

Nonexistent Oversight and Accountability by Court Administrators Court watchdogs and whistleblowers point out that the flagrant lawlessness of Judge Matthew Gary's series of orders in the Ferris case, and conduct in other cases is additional evidence that accountability and oversight by court administrators, including Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers, Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, and family court Supervising Judge James Mize is nonexistent in Sacramento County Superior Court. Sacramento Family Court News has reported on multiple instances of misconduct by family court judges and clerks and employees, egregious violations of conflict of interest laws and the preferential treatment of attorneys who also act as temporary judges in family court.

RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN

(1) GINGER

GREGORY

SYLVESTER (1)

DWYER (1)

HAL

BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER

(2) HONEST SERVICES (4)

INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J. STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2) JAIME R.

ROMAN

(10) JAMES JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN BROSNAHAN (1)

(1)

JERRY

GUTHRIE

(1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS

(1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDGES

(10) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

JUDICIAL (3)

(1)

COUNCIL

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58) JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1) JULIE SETZER

(7) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAURIE M. EARL (10) LAW LIBRARY (1) LAW SCHOOL

(5) LAWYER (1) LAWYERS

(7) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1)

LOLLIE LINCOLN

(1)

ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO (1)

LUAN

CASE

(4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7)

MATTHEW J. GARY

(28) MCGEORGE

Court administrators and oversight officials have repeatedly declined to provide information about what corrective measures, if any, have been initiated to address the problems. As state court judges, Mize and Earl are required by state law to take appropriate corrective action when another judge violates state law, court rules, and the state Code of Judicial Ethics. The obligation is a critical self-policing component of judicial ethics standards and ensures that the rule of law is maintained. To view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required, click here. In addition, Judge Gary's unlawful conduct has been witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government employees, each has a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. Supervising Family Court Judge James M. Mize.

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL

(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) NANCY

GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

NEWS (20) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26) NEWS

YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10) OPEN GOVERNMENT

(2) OPINION (12) PARENT RIGHTS

2014 UPDATE: Judge Matthew Gary's outrageous treatment of Susan Ferris resulted in a team of attorneys - led by prominent San Francisco trial attorney James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster - taking over her case after she filed an appeal in the 3rd District Appellate Court. The Sacramento Bee published a front page story about the appeal on March 26, 2014: "This is at the point where a lot of us think it's a disgrace," Brosnahan said. "You can't take someone's child and that person doesn't have an attorney when you do...It's an outrage," Brosnahan explained to Sacramento Bee reporter Brad Branan.

(1)

PARENTAL

PAULA (14) SALINGER

PETER J. McBRIEN

(20) PHILLIP HERNANDEZ ALIENATION

(1)

(3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PRO PERS (18)

PROTEST (7) PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS

(1)

THORBOURNE (1)

SOL (2) T. GARCIA

RAOUL

RAPTON(9)

KARRES

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)

REVISIONISM SERIES (1)

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

18 July 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance. Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure.

SCBA (22)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

In essence, McBrien and Raye agreed to effectively privatize public court operations to the specifications of private-sector attorneys in exchange for not having to run the court's settlement conference program. The SCBA Family Law Section agreed to run the settlement program provided they were given effective control over most court policies and procedures, including local court rules.

As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view an example of the same, current day collusion, click here.

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) Vance Raye and Peter J. McBrien were the architects of the current family court system.

The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar: "[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view. But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family

JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts.

The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported:

Sacramento Family Court judges and local, Sacramento Bar Association attorneys openly acknowledge their close relationship.

LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

"Around 1990, McBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time there were continual postponements of trials.

FERRIS CASE (8)

'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was probably the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.'

YOUTUBE (7)

The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling. 'Now, if you're ready and unable to settle, chances are 99.9 percent that you are going out [to trial] the first time,' McBrien said. 'A lot of that is attributable to the willingness of the Sacramento bar to work as settlement counselors.'" Click here to view the Daily Journal report. To continue reading the rest of this article, visit our special, updated 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. For more on the alleged collusion between judges and attorneys who also serve as Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges and work as settlement counselors, visit our special judge pro tems page. For additional posts about the people and issues in this report, click on the corresponding labels below.

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 11:20 AM

+3 Recommend this on Google

Labels: 3rd DISTRICT COA, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CJP, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,

NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PETER J. McBRIEN, SCBA, VANCE W. RAYE

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - William R. Ridgeway

3 comments

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

Add a comment

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Top comments

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers. Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991: In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice

Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

COMMISSION

JUDICIAL

PERFORMANCE

-oOo

INQUIRY

CJP

-- ---- ------ -- - -- - -- ---- --1

JUDGE

CONCERNING

PETER

NO.

ORIGINAL

McBRIEN

185

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

TRANSCRIPT

HEARING

VOLUME

MASTERS

CALIFORNIA

APRIL

THE

SPECIAL

SACRAMENTO,

15 16

BEFORE

2009

PAGES

- 250

17 18 19 20 21 22

REPORTED

BY:

SANDRA LEHANE

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL

CERTIFIED

SHORTHAND 155

Alameda,

Orr

NO.

7372

Road

California

(510)

REPORTE:R

REPORTER

94502

864-9645

------- ----

IN RE

CJF NO.

185 - 4/1/09

-------路 ----

720 9th Street.

It's actually 920 -

That's the main Sacramento County courthouse?

It is.

And how long were the family law departments

6 7 8

in that particular courthouse? A.

Until 1999,

when we moved out to the Ridgeway

building. Q.

Going back to when you were first appointed

to the family law department or assigned to the family

law department,

master calendar system?

no.

what were the problems with this

The trials never got to trial.

So the Bar

the family law bar,

and it was a fairly strong bar

here in Sacramento,

initiated the concept of a trip to

Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some

ideas about how their courts were structured.

myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys

made that trip and came back with various i

to restructure the system.

20 21

Now,

And

as of how

is there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association?

There is.

And was there a family law section of the

24 25

Sacramento County Bar Association back in 1991?

There was.

b-------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 -

4/1/09----------------------~

188

Is there an organization called the Family

Law Executive Committee?

There is.

What is the Family Law Executive Committee?

It is a group of leaders that the family law

bar e ects to take care of the administrative needs

for the section.

9 10

And did you work with the Family Law

Executive Committee in developing the current system in the fami y law practice in Sacramento County?

We did.

Could you describe what that wor

13 14

relationship was?

Okay.

we I,

first of all,

i t ' s a very

good relationship.

We keep making adjustments to the system when there

are problems.

where we have law and motion in the family

departments on Monday,

the trials on Thursday and Friday if,

trials are two days or less.

than two days,

calendar.

We meet -- we still meet monthly.

But basically,

we moved to a system

Tuesday,

Wednesday,

aw and we hear

in fact,

those

And if they are more

they go down through the master

Backing up,

the Family Law Executive

Committee is appointed in what fashion? ~------------------------IN

RE CJF NO. 185 -

/09----------------------~

189

2 3

They are elected by the membership of the

family law bar.

The family law bar section of the Sacramento

County Bar Association?

Correct.

And you and other judges worked together with

this Family Law Executive Committee in developing the

current system?

Correct.

Who are the other judges?

Well,

12 13

14 15

at the time,

there was Justice Raye

now Justice Raye.

Justice Vance Raye of the Third District

Court of Appeal?

Yes. And another individual whose name always

escapes me,

years.

but he left the bench after about two

Dave Sterling?

Dave Sterling.

Now,

after you went to Orange County,

you met

with the Family Law Executive Committee and

developed

presented to the Superior Court for its approval?

or started to develop a plan.

It was.

Was that

And what happened is the Bar culled

L-----------------路-------IN RE CJF NO. 185

4/1/09 - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--1

190

through the various ideas and options,

plan,

what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then

presented the whole of it to the full bench.

presented it to the family law bench.

And was that plan approved?

It was.

When?

In 19

And since 1991,

came up with a

want to say late

We made

91 .

is that the current plan that

is employed in the family law departments?

It is.

You testified that on Mondays,

Wednesdays f

matters and trials of two days or less on Thursday and

Friday;

Correct.

Who hears the settlement conferences?

The family law bar indicated that they would

Tuesdays and

ly law courts hear law and motion

right?

be willing to volunteer,

settlement pro terns.

the week except for Monday.

week where they have two volunteers.

make it gender neutral,

and they hear the settlement conferences.

and they serve as the

There are two for each day of So they have four days a And they try to

have one male and one female,

And are settlement conferences assigned

~----------------------IN

RE CJF NO. 185 -

4/1/09----~------------------

191

dependent upon the length of the trial?

They are.

How does that work?

If,

less trial,

week before the trial date.

two days or less,

9 10

in fact,

i t ' s going to be a one-day or

the settlement conference would be one And if i t ' s going to be

it would be two weeks before.

And in connection with the estimation of the

length of the trial,

is that something that you as a

judge would do?

1.1

No.

Who makes the estimation?

The attorneys.

Are the attorneys encouraged to work together

in developing the estimated time?

They are.

And is there any significance to the

estimated length of the case,

at least from the

judicial perspective of the Sacramento County Superior

Court judge?

I believe that -- you know,

many of them,

aren't always accurate,

be accurate,

Because quite frankly,

having seen many,

that they generally are accurate. but I

They

think they are trying to

stay within the guidance that we have. if,

in fact,

L-------------------------IN RE Cc7F NO. 185 -

they don't

411109----------------------~

192

complete it,

they can be mistried.

And when you say "mistried," meaning that the

parties will then be given a new trial date?

They would.

You were involved,

Carlsson vs.

Correct.

obviously,

Carlsson case?

would like you to take a look at Exhibit C

in the respondent's

think mine is over there.

MR. MURPHY:

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL:

May I

THE WITNESS:

MR.

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. Q.

18 19

MURPHY:

You don't need

you said C?

Exhibit C, Okay.

yes.

have it before me.

MURPHY: For the record,

could you describe what

This is an Order to Show Cause filed by

Ms.

continue the trial,

Yes.

Exhibit Cis?

approach the witness?

to seek permission.

with the

Huddle on behalf of Mr.

Carlsson asking to

fi ed on March 1st of 2006.

What was the basis of the request for a

continuance?

That she was just served with a

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - I N RE CJ.F NO.

185

joinder

411109------------~

193

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

15 September 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sworn Temporary Judge Divorce Attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren Engage in Historical Revisionism - Part 1

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58) JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Richard Sokol Caught on Transcript Making Demonstrably False Claim About Illegal Arrest of Indigent, Disabled Litigant

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren - Part 1 A Special News and Analysis Series by Pelican Briefed

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28) FLEC (26)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20) One form of historical revisionism is the “illigitmate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light,” according to Wikipedia. The distortion of history to deny historical crimes is sometimes called negationism. Historical revisionism is often associated with after-the-fact justifications for, or denial of war crimes, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Some countries have laws making it a crime to disseminate revisionist material, such as Holocaust denial propaganda. Revisionist tactics include deception, denial and trivialization.

A court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News shows that the same tactics have recently been used in Sacramento Family Court by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Van Beveren currently also is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. The transcript records Sokol and Van Beveren disseminating subtle and overt falsehoods, deceptions, denials and trivializations about the unlawful 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled litigant and family court watchdog Robert Saunders, in the courtroom of Judge Matthew Gary. Both Sokol and Van Beveren were eyewitnesses to the incident. In April, 2012 SFCN published an in-depth, investigative report on the debacle and subsequent events, including the vindication of Saunders by two outside, independent judges. Click here to read our report.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

SCBA (20) CHILD CUSTODY (19) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) ROBERT SAUNDERS (17) DOCUMENTS (16) CJP (15) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) SATIRE (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10)

The vindication, however, implicated both Van Beveren and Sokol for failing to report or otherwise take corrective action for Gary's misconduct. As sworn temporary judges, the two attorneys are bound by Canon 3D(1) of the

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical rules for judges - which requires them to "take or initiate appropriate corrective action" when they know of misconduct by another judge. The rule is a critical, self-policing component of the Code, intended to keep judge misconduct in check. Both Van Beveren and Sokol witnessed Gary's misconduct, and both got away with doing nothing, a violation of Canon 3D(1). Now, four years later, recent proceedings in the case suggest that the judge pro tem attorneys are attempting to cover up their own prior misconduct and discredit the victim of Gary's actions by rewriting the history of the case. Their strategy involves influencing the current judge assigned to the case through the use of false statements and omissions of material facts about the original incident, and other unethical tactics. The case was, and continues to be a definitive example of rampant family court corruption and the cronyism between private sector attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge and are contracted to run the court's settlement conference program, and full-time Sacramento County Superior Court judges, according to family court reform advocates.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Richard Sokol of the family law firm Sokol & Bristow LLP was recorded on transcript making a number of demonstrably false statements, including this one, about the 2009 assault and arrest of Robert Saunders by Judge Matthew Gary and courtroom bailiff J. Strong. Judge Thadd Blizzard has yet to report Sokol's misconduct as required by Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) THADD BLIZZARD (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

In the first installment of this series, SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Richard Sokol is caught on transcript making the demonstrably false claim that Gary “didn’t have [Saunders] arrested; he had him taken from court.” Sokol’s claim is contradicted by court records, including the arrest report of Gary’s courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Deputy J. Strong. “J. Strong #423 was ordered by Judge Matthew J. Gary…to take Robert Saunders into custody for contempt of court. Deputy Strong advised [Saunders] that he was under arrest,” reads the police report. The court reporter transcript with Sokol’s falsehood, along with the report of Deputy Strong are posted below. Under state attorney ethics law, including Business & Professions Code section 6106, Sokol’s affirmative misrepresentation is an act of moral turpitude and “constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension” from the practice of law. Virtually any form of attorney dishonesty or deception, including a half-truth, or the omission of material facts, is the equivalent of an outright lie, according to the State Bar. For other State Bar references defining and prescribing the punishment for Sokol's misleading statement, visit the SFCN Attorney Misconduct page. Click here. Sokol made several additional demonstrably false statements at the same court hearing. Click here to view other articles in this series.

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs

For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog The Divorce Artist

J. Richard Sokol Moral Turpitude False Statement in Court - Sokol by Sacramento Family Court News

Above the Law

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

SUPERIOR

IN AND

COURT

FOR THE

O F CALIFORNIA OF SACRAME

COUNTY

Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

- - - ooo - - -

California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council SHOW ME MORE LIKE DIVORCE ATTORNEY J. RICHARD SOKOL MORAL Share

Embed

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 5:47 PM

Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal

+1 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS,

REVISIONISM SERIES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, THADD BLIZZARD

Location: William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

1 comment

Add a comment

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families & Children

Top comments

California Protective Parents Association Shelby Livingston 5 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly A determination of child support depends on a variety of factors including: the income of each spouse and the amount of time the children spend with each parent. We always need to work to ensure that we receive a fair and accurate result. Adelman Legal Divorce Attorneys - http://adelmanlegal.com/family-law · 1 Reply

Center for Judicial Excellence Courageous Kids Network Divorce & Family Law News Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News Fathers 4 Justice

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

22 November 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Superior Court Corruption: Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Case Included in Documentary Set for 2014 Theatrical Release

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley and Ulf Carlsson Case Featured in Divorce Corp Documentary: Trailer Released

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15)

The conduct of Judge Peter McBrien and judge pro tem divorce lawyer Charlotte Keeley will be described by Sacramento Family Court litigant Ulf Carlsson (above) in the documentary Divorce Corp., set to be released in theaters on January 10, 2014. The account of the Sacramento Family Court system reportedly is unflattering.

Entertainment Tonight has just posted online the world premiere trailer of the documentary film Divorce Corp. The trailer includes a brief clip of Sacramento Family Court watchdog and litigant Ulf Carlsson, whose longrunning family court case will be featured in the film. In a worldwide exclusive, Sacramento Family Court News broke the story of Divorce Corp on May 1 of this year. For updates, visit the Twitter page of the film at @divorcecorp. From ET online: Dr. Drew Pinsky narrates a new documentary focusing on the increasingly profitable divorce industry and ETonline is proud to present the world premiere trailer Divorce Corp. The issue-based doc hits home with everyone who's ever gone through a divorce or watched their parents, friends of family members go through a divorce -- in other words, it could be one of the most universally relateable documentaries to ever hit the big screen. Watch!

JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Divorce Corp opens January 10.

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

James Scurlock, writer/director of the critically acclaimed documentary Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders is a Divorce Corp producer and writer.

For additional coverage of the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Posted by PR Brown at 5:30 AM

+1 Recommend this on Google

Labels: AGGREGATED NEWS, ARTS & CULTURE, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CARLSSON CASE, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, DIVORCE CORP, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, PETER J. McBRIEN, SHARON HUDDLE, ULF CARLSSON

Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA, USA

JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

4 comments

CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5)

Add a comment

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Top comments

WE SUPPORT PR Brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Case Included in Documentary Set for 2014 Theatrical Release Divorce Corp. World Premiere Trailer Released by Entertainment Tonight: Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley and Sacramento Family Court Case Featured The conduct of Judge Peter McBrien and judge pro tem divorce lawyer Charlotte Keeley will

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

· 1 Reply

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog

Andrew Felix 1 year ago - Shared publicly Will going to watch it and thanks for the update link

Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs

Regards Andrew Felix http://www.LawFirmsMarketing.com · 1 Reply

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

paula brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly there are much worse in that court believe me. · 1 Reply

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

10 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Judge & Attorney Misconduct: New York Times Reviews Divorce Corp Documentary Featuring Four Sacramento Court Cases

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

New York Times Calls Family Court "A Land of Diabolical Lawyers" in Divorce Corp Review

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

In a review of Divorce Corp, the New York Times observed that "Protracted divorces sap couples' resources even in amicable separations and, as in other areas of legal practice, the lawyers seem to have an incentive to draw out the conflict." Four family court cases from Sacramento County are featured in the movie.

Divorce Corp, a documentary film featuring four Sacramento Family Court cases opens nationwide in select cities today. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States," and is expected to follow the release trajectory typical for a documentary: A short theatrical run in major cities followed by DVD release, Redbox, Netflix, and screenings on network and cable TV. The production's nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion resulted in Sacramento court cases dominating the film. Local litigants Ulf Carlsson, Andrew Karres, Robert Saunders, Mike Newdow - and the nearby Nevada County Elena Haskins case - are featured in the film, with a special emphasis on the notorious Carlsson case. Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing described Sacramento Judge Peter McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson divorce as a "judicial reign of terror."

WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

All four Sacramento cases profiled in the film involve allegedly egregious misconduct by Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys who also serve as sworn temporary judges of the court, including Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer. The non-fiction movie, narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky has received mixed reviews from the New York Times, Village Voice, Minneapolis Star Tribune, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orange County Register and RogerEbert.com. Minneapolis Star Tribune movie critic Colin Colvert gave the film three-out-of-four stars:

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

"[Director Joe] Sorge somewhat overplays his hand as he presents sordid examples of misconduct by judges, attorneys and custody evaluators. Shocking as those episodes are, the problem isn't the most flagrant outliers, but the day-to-day machinations of a flawed, adversarial system. Any divorce survivor will see rueful reminders of a destructive process. Any engaged couple should see it, period," Colvert said.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Reviewer Matt Zoller Seitz at RogerEbert.com awarded the film two stars: "Adding incompetence to corruption, the family court system is a steaming mess. Its various sections aren't governed by constitutional edicts that other institutions must follow. Powertripping judges can indulge God complexes by lashing out against plaintiffs who protest their decisions. At one point, the film tells of a man who wrote about his experiences in family court online and was ordered to delete his blog by the judge overseeing his divorce. This is but one of many examples the film gives of judges behaving like old-time ward bosses or petty gangsters," Seitz wrote. To view trailers and excerpts of the film at the official Divorce Corp YouTube Channel, click here. To visit the official Divorce Corp web page, click here. To view the list of theaters where the film will be shown this week, click here.

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8)

Correction: This post has been updated to reflect that Elena Haskins' family court case is in Nevada County.

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

For additional SFCN reporting on the issues and people in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

JULIE SETZER (7)

Posted by PR Brown at 1:10 PM

YOUTUBE (7) +4 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ARTS & CULTURE, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CARLSSON CASE, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, DIVORCE CORP, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS, PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS

3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

Relations Courthouse

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5)

3 comments

THADD BLIZZARD (5) Add a comment

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Top comments

WE SUPPORT PR Brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly Sacramento Judge & Attorney Misconduct: New York Times Reviews Documentary Featuring Four Sacramento Court Cases New York Times Calls Family Court "A Land of Diabolical Lawyers" In a review of Divorce Corp , the New York Times observed that "Protracted divorces sap couples' resources even in amicable separations and, as in other areas of legal practice, the lawyers se... · 1 Reply

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly Cases involving SCBA Family Law Section attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren included in Divorce Corp documentary now playing in major U.S. cities. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States." In its review of the film, New York Times calls family court "a land of diabolical lawyers." Aggregated reviews, links to full reviews, and more information at the link below: · +1

1 Reply

Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly Sacramento Family Court Ground Zero in corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States, according to Divorce Corp, a documentary now playing in major U.S. cities.

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

14 January 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower Charges Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1. This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer and Manager Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees to disregard state laws mandating entry of judgment procedure, charges a family court whistleblower.

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13)

A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked to Sacramento Family Court News court records indicating that countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork required by state law. After any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, spousal support, or any other judgment subject to immediate appeal, California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to enter, file and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court rule 8.104(e) defines "judgment" as any appealable order. By law, the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide the notice of entry to all parties. The notice provides an important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the destruction of exhibits on file with the court. In addition, two other components of the FL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time frame for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. In a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of the mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the notice were drafted specifically to eliminate miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click here and scroll down to the highlighted text to view the relevant sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case. For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed

JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

court employees to simply ignore the law, according to the source, who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.

To continue reading Part 1 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

Omission of FL-190 Reduces Appeals by Family Court Parties Without Lawyers "This has been going on for years and judges, attorneys, the family law facilitator, the court of appeal, everyone is in on this. One objective is to reduce or eliminate appeals by the indigent and self-represented," the source explained. "The FL-190 is the first notification they get that they even have appeal rights. Without the notice, most pro per parties are completely unaware that they can appeal child custody, visitation, support and many other rulings from OSC and motion hearings." The mandatory Judicial Council form contains a notification about the right to appeal a court order, and a warning that exhibits may be destroyed or disposed of after 60 days from the expiration of the appeal time.

Indigent and self-represented Sacramento Family Court parties do not receive this notice about their right to appeal child custody/visitation, support and other orders.

California Supreme Court Confirms FL-190 Mandatory In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed. "The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

The clerks certificate of mailing at the bottom of the FL-190 form contains information critical to filing a timely appeal.

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Lawyer Magazine

Judge-Attorney Legal References Confirm FL-190 Procedure Using the family law legal references used by judges and attorneys, Sacramento Family Court News verified that the FL-190 must be served and filed by a court clerk for all appealable orders. To view the FL-190 procedure reference in California Practice Guide: Family Law, written by judges for judges and attorneys, and published by The Rutter Group, click here. To view a similar reference in the companion California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, click here. In addition to the gold standard family law references, California Practice Guide: Family Law and Civil Appeals and Writs, the same procedure also is specified in Witkin California Procedure. Click here to view the Witkin instructions.

3rd District Court of Appeal Verifies Appealable Orders Require FL-190 The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants which confirms that, by law, appealable orders are the same as judgments, and therefore require service of the FL-190 form. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads: "Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual. The whistleblower pointed out that superior court and Court of Appeal judges, the family law facilitator and court employees are all paid by taxpayers to know and comply with the law. "There are thousands of court files without FL-190's. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that they all have never noticed that the files do not contain this mandatory Judicial Council form where required after law and motion hearings." According to public records, Julie Setzer is paid $4,460 every two weeks, Colleen McDonagh earns $3,460 every two weeks, and Denise Richards earns $36 per hour. Family court judges are paid $169,000 per year. Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy. "It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction. Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific) ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children California Protective Parents Association

Related posts: Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct. Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.

Center for Judicial Excellence

Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

Courageous Kids Network

Click here for family court whistleblower articles.

Divorce & Family Law News

Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

Divorce Corp

If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.

Posted by PR Brown at 11:15 PM

Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

+2 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ADMINISTRATORS, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CEO, CIVIL LIABILITY, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, JULIE SETZER, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, STATE AUDITOR, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Relations Courthouse

Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

16 January 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Family Law Facilitator Misconduct: Lollie Roberts Violates State Law - Mirrors Unlawful Court Administrator Policy, Whistleblower Alleges

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Family Law Facilitator Office Gives False Info To Pro Per Per Parties - Parrots Illegal Court Administrator Policy Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 2

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12)

Lollie Roberts, the Sacramento County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator has directed her staff to dispense false information about the state law mandated Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form, a whistleblower charges.

This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013. In a scheme allegedly coordinated with family court administrators, Sacramento Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts has directed her staff to dispense false information to unrepresented family court litigants. Roberts' objective is to help conceal systemic violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and state court rules by family court employees, according to court records and other information leaked by a family court whistleblower to Sacramento Family Court News. Another objective of the alleged plan is to obstruct pro per appeals by concealing a critical, state law mandated appeal rights notification from unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to the whistleblower, who provided the information on the

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

The appeal notice is part of a mandatory Judicial Council form, FL-190, which under state law court clerks are required to file and serve after a family court judge issues an appealable order. As SFCN previously reported, court administrators have instructed court clerks not to issue the FL-190 paperwork for appealable orders issued at law and motion hearings. Roberts and her staff are conveying the same inaccurate information by instructing pro per parties that the FL-190 is only issued when a divorce is finalized, and that appealable law and motion orders are not judgments requiring issuance of the form. The falsity of the information has been verified by both the California Supreme Court and Third District Court of Appeal.

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

To continue reading Part 2 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

The Plan to End Pro Per Appeals As our series of reports documents, the alleged plan involves ensuring that unrepresented, financially disadvantaged pro per family court parties do not receive notification of their right to appeal court orders related to child custody/visitation, support and other judgments that can immediately be appealed. Other parts of the scheme include obstructing the appeal fee waiver process, imposing an illegal 60-day appeal time frame where the lawful time frame is 180-days, and impeding the ability to obtain a court reporter at trial court hearings, and a court reporter transcript, without which an effective appeal is impossible. Co-conspirators in the plan allegedly include family court administrators, employees and clerks, judges, and judge pro tem members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. Staff at the Third District Court of Appeal reportedly have tacitly condoned the plan by ignoring trial court irregularities and other evidence that reaches the reviewing court.

The Family Law Facilitator The function and duties of the Family Law Facilitator for each county in California are specified in the Family Law Facilitator Act, Family Code Section 10000100015. Facilitator duties include assisting "unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigants in gaining meaningful access to family court."

California Rules of Court rule 5.430 sets out the minimum standards for the Office of the Family Law Facilitator. The minimum standards include knowledge of family law procedures and child support law. In addition, Appendix C of California Rules of Court provides guidelines for operation of the facilitator's office. The guidelines include providing competent legal information, including procedural information and education so that litigants will have increased access to the court.

As we reported in Part 1 of our Color of Law series, a family court whistleblower alleges that Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Court Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed court employees to ignore state laws that require family court parties to be notified of their appeal rights and the time frame within which an appeal can be filed. The notifications are part of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form that must be filed and served by court clerks after any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, support, or any other appealable order. To read Part 1 of the series, click here.

Family Law Facilitator Dispenses False Information Court records provided by the whistleblower indicate that Family Court Facilitator Lollie Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, in pro per family court litigants seeking help that the Notice of Entry of Judgment is only required for a final judgment, issued at the conclusion of a divorce, separation or nullity. The information is demonstrably false and can ultimately result in a waiver of critical appeal rights of orders involving child custody, support, and other appealable orders. When the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form is not served on unrepresented and financially disadvantaged pro per litigants, most are unaware that they have a right to appeal the order, and after 180-days the right to appeal the order is lost forever. In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, additional court documents leaked by a family court whistleblower indicate that family court

FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

administrators have implemented an unlawful policy that condenses the 180-day appeal time frame to just 60-days.

Facilitator records provided to SFCN about the entry of judgment issue indicate unlawful conduct by the Family Law Facilitator's Office. Using the facilitator e-Correspondence System, in writing an indigent, unrepresented pro per family court party asked facilitator staff why they had not received a Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form after court orders for child custody and support were issued in the case. To read the original written question submitted by the pro per to the Family Law Facilitator, click here. In response, staff of the Facilitator's Office falsely claimed that the FL-190 "is only issued when a judgment of dissolution, legal separation, nullity (or some other judgment such as In assessing whistleblower claims, Sacramento Family Court News paternity) is entered on the record." The relies on the gold standard reference for family law, California Practice Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide is used by family court judges and response also falsely asserted that a Notice of family law attorneys. Using the Practice Guide, Sacramento Family Court Entry of Judgment is not issued when "a formal Judge Matthew J. Gary provides monthly "Bench Tips" to family law attorneys. Findings and Order After Hearing is entered." Click here to read the response. The answer is calculated to confuse an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged in pro per litigant who would have little or no knowledge of family law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. The FL-340 findings and order after hearing form is usually prepared by the opposing attorney and the form does not contain the FL-190 appeal rights notification, nor the critical clerk's certificate of mailing which establishes the lawful appeal time frame. Under state law, a neutral court clerk - not an opposing attorney - is responsible for filing and service of the FL-190. As explained by the source, "The facilitator response says 'It appears that many times in your case Findings and Orders After Hearing were entered but since these were not judgments, no Notice of Entry of Judgment was issued.' That answer is untrue. Almost any court employee knows, or should know that the findings and order after hearing paperwork simply memorializes a court order. It is unrelated to a Notice of Entry of Judgment, which in cases with child custody, support and other appealable orders, is by law required to be filed after the findings and order after hearing paperwork is filed," the whistleblower said. "Just look at California Rules of Court rule 8.104(e), it defines 'judgment' as any appealable order." The leading family law legal reference book used by judges, attorneys, and appellate courts reviewing trial court mistakes is California Practice Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide verifies that for purposes of appeal, the terms judgment and order are synonymous, and the book refers to the same court rule as the whistleblower, 8.104(e). "An appealable order is a judgment - the facilitator staff response is not accurate and could lead an unrepresented, financially disadvantaged party to believe they could not appeal an order that was, in fact, appealable," the source added. Other legal references parrot the Practice Guide. For example, Witkin California Procedure specifies that "Some determinations, although characterized as 'orders' are in effect final judgments..." and that "the chief test is appealability." Witkin also verifies that in family court cases, the term "judgment" includes any appealable order, and that the FL-190 must be served and filed on all parties by a court clerk. Click here to view the Witkin excerpt. The California Supreme Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento provide similar information.

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

This notice of appeal specifically notified Sacramento Family Court appeals unit staff that a notice of entry of judgment was never filed in the case as required by law. The clerk unlawfully applied a 60-day appeal time frame and rejected the appeal as untimely. The notice was filed well within the correct 180-day time frame. For the full story, see Part 3 of our Color of Law series. Click here.

California Supreme Court Confirms Facilitator Error In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time

Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at

JDSupra Law News

frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed. "The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews The "Clerk's Certificate of Mailing" at the bottom of the FL-190 form is a critical part of the form because it establishes the time frame during which an appeal can be filed, according to the California Supreme Court.

Third District Court of Appeal Verifies Facilitator Dispensing False Information

138819 136

The 3rd District Court of Appeal publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants that confirms the same information regarding appealable orders. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads: "Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

Court Rule Violations Are By Law Government Misconduct Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy. "It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.

Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws If, as the whistleblower alleges, the non-compliance with rule 5.134 is part of a larger scheme or conspiracy that ultimately deprives unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights, court

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

ABA

1102 (1) AB 590 JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

employees and taxpayers could be exposed to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law.

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI

In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, a Sacramento County Family Court clerk unlawfully refuses to file an appeal for an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigant. Click here to read Part 3.

AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

CARLSSON CASE (9) CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12) CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

(11) LAW SERIES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

The staff of attorney Lollie Roberts, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, provided incorrect legal information to this indigent, self-represented family court party. The opposing party is represented by a veteran family law attorney.

Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the tip that resulted in this article. We appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page. Related articles and posts: A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here. Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here. Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here. Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here. Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here. Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here. Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here. Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

EFFICIENCY

GOVERNMENT

ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1) AWARD (1)

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

(2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)

FAMILY COURT (9) FAMILY COURT

COURT

AUDITS (1) FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2)

FAMILY COURT

MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE

(1)

FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

LAW

Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.

Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold theOffice of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)

FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

Judges cherry-picking state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here. The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here. Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS

(2) FERRIS CASE (8) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

FLEC (28) FOIA (2) FOX

(1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here. Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE

NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN

(1) GINGER

GREGORY

SYLVESTER (1)

DWYER (1)

HAL

BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET

Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here. For additional coverage of the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.

Posted by PR Brown at 10:17 PM

(9)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, DENISE RICHARDS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY LAW

DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER

(2) HONEST SERVICES (4)

INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J. STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2) JAIME R.

(10) JAMES JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN ROMAN

BROSNAHAN (1)

FACILITATOR, JULIE SETZER, LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: Family Court Sacramento - Sacramento County Superior Court: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

(1)

JERRY

GUTHRIE

(1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS

2 comments

(1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

Add a comment

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDGES

(10) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)

COUNCIL

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63) JUDY HOLZER

Top comments

1 year ago

Most Family Law Facilitator's are also Attorneys who are currently part of the county bar association. Unlike the facilitator in Sacramento, Attorney Kevin. J, Mendrick, he had once represented my ex in a child support case. I called him on it, and told him that he worked on my case back in 2001, in the facilitators office he stated, " I don't remember you" I just laughed. He immediately got off the case. I am a strong believer in researching your

HERSHER (1) JULIE SETZER

(7) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAURIE M. EARL (10) LAW LIBRARY (1) LAW SCHOOL

(5) LAWYER (1) LAWYERS

(7) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1)

Cole Day Rain 1 year ago I've been able to talk to the Family Law Facilitator's Office once. They basically took notes and promised to call me later. Later I was contacted and basically accused of lying. Why hadn't I signed the property settlement in the case I had agreed to sign on record? (Under duress I might add.) My answer was that the so-called agreement, when I finally received it for signature, was DIFFERENT than what I had been led to believe I was agreeing to. See, I

Newer Post

JUDICIAL (3)

Older Post

(1)

LUAN

CASE

(4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7)

MATTHEW J. GARY

(33) MCGEORGE

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL

SOL (2) T. GARCIA

(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) NANCY

GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

Home

LOLLIE LINCOLN

(1)

ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26) NEWS

YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10) OPEN GOVERNMENT

(2) OPINION (12) PARENT RIGHTS

ALIENATION

(1)

PARENTAL

PAULA

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

06 February 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged Litigants Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16)

This actual notice of appeal was filed by an unrepresented, indigent family court litigant and then unlawfully unfiled by a family court clerk. The clerk's conduct violates state law and constitutes unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. Click here to view the full image.

Sacramento County Family Court clerks are unlawfully refusing to file appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to a family court whistleblower. The policy constitutes an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings under California Rules of Court rule 8.23. The rejection occurs when a pro per party attempts to file a notice of appeal for child custody, support and other immediately appealable orders more than 60-days after order after hearing paperwork is filed. By law, the time frame to take an appeal from the orders is 180-days.The longer time frame applies because in family court cases, the court clerk must give the parties notice of entry of judgment using the Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form. As policy, Sacramento Family Court does not issue the FL-190 form for appealable orders from motion and OSC hearings. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. When the form is issued, the appeal time frame is 60-days. In Sacramento Family Court, all appealable motion and OSC orders are appealable for 180-days, yet court clerks are illegally rejecting the appeals after 60-days. To continue reading Part 3 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) Unrepresented Sacramento Family Court litigants report that the second floor "appeals unit" at the Family Relations Courthouse is an unfriendly place. Sacramento Family Court News audits of several pro per appeals reveal that appeals unit employees routinely do not follow state laws governing appeals.

CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5)

As Sacramento Family Court News documented in parts one and two of our Color of Law series, court administrators - including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts - have directed subordinate employees to ignore state law requiring the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form be filed and served for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to read part one and here to read part two. The FL-190 form notifies the parties of appeal rights and contains an important clerk's certificate of mailing which determines the time frame for an appeal, according to state law, including a 2007 California Supreme Court decision.

When the FL-190 form is correctly issued, the 60-day appeal time frame applies and begins to run when the clerk's certificate of mailing is completed and the form is served by the court on all parties. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. Sacramento Family Court clerks both do not issue the FL-190 form, and still apply the shorter 60-day notice of appeal filing window using the filing date of order after hearing paperwork filed by attorneys. Court records leaked by a whistleblower include a letter from a court clerk "unfiling" a valid notice of appeal. In the letter, under penalty of perjury the clerk misstates the law, and notifies the unrepresented party that the previously filed appeal has been "unfiled." Attached to the letter is the litigants original filed notice of appeal with a red "X" scrawled over the original filing stamp, along with the notation "unfiled" and "SH," the initials of the clerk. SFCN has verified the authenticity of the documents by inspecting the original court file. The documents leaked to SFCN are identical to those in the file. Click here to view the original filed, and then unfiled notice of appeal. Click here to view the letter from the court clerk.

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Lawyer Magazine Shortly after filing a notice of appeal, this indigent, unrepresented family court litigant received this letter from Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman "unfiling" the appeal. Hinman misstated the law, and signed the letter under penalty of perjury. Click here to view the full letter.

"A Deception That Is Demonstrably False" To justify the 60-day time frame used to reject the appeal, the letter from the court clerk refers to "a Judgment (sic)...filed and signed on May 18, 2012," and that the litigant was "noticed via mail with said judgment on May 25, 2012." The original court file from the case shows that the May 18 "judgment" referred to by the clerk was not a judgment. The May 18 document is a "findings and order after hearing" filed by the opposing attorney. Click here to view the complete May 18 document. The May 25 notice referred to by the clerk is a proof of service filed by the opposing attorney for the findings and order after hearing document. The clerks rejection of the appeal is based on applying a 60-day appeal window using the May 25 date, making July 25, 2012 the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on August 8, 2012, beyond the incorrect date used by the clerk, but well within the 180-day lawful time frame. The 60-day time frame is only applicable when an FL-190 is filed and served by the court clerk. The court file does not contain an FL-190. A findings and order after hearing filed and served by an opposing attorney is not a substitute for an FL-190, and does not result in a 60-day appeal time frame, according to state law and the family law references used by family court judges and attorneys, including California Practice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group. Click here to view the legal authority that applies to the connection between the FL-190 and the 180-day time frame. And in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the state Supreme Court pointed out that the title of the FL190 and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the form are specifically designed to eliminate disputes about the time frame for an appeal in family law cases. The alleged motive of the clerk's letter is to deceive a selfrepresented litigant with limited knowledge of family law, according to the whistleblower. "The letter from the clerk is designed to confuse the unrepresented party, and make them believe the appeal was untimely," the whistleblower explained. "A typical pro per unfamiliar with the law would fall for this deception. But it is exactly that - a deception - and a deception that is demonstrably false, and illegal under [California Rules of Court] rule 8.23. It is an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings."

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

The clerk's certificate of mailing is a critical part of the mandatory FL-190 form because it determines the time fame within which a family case appeal can be taken, according to the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.

The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento also confirms that any appealable order is considered a

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children

judgment, and therefore requires filing and service of the FL-190 form. Without the form, the 180-day appeal time frame applies. The information is provided in a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants published by the appellate court. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual includes: "Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.

California Protective Parents Association Center for Judicial Excellence Courageous Kids Network Divorce & Family Law News Divorce Corp Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com

The notice of appeal filed by the pro per specifically notified the Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerk that no entry of judgment was filed for the orders being appealed. Under state law, the time frame for the appeal was 180 days. Click here to view the complete notice.

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce

Oversight and Accountability Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. More than five months after the egregious error by Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman in rejecting a valid notice of appeal, the error remains uncorrected and, it is self-evident, no discipline has taken place. The refusal to file a lawful appeal constitutes unlawful interference with appellate court proceedings - a violation of California Rules of Court rule 8.23. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct." As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy. "It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the policy introduction.

News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

138819

Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.

Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. The constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and access to the courts apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth.

136

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

In Part 4 of our report Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals, a court clerk files for a judge pro tem attorney a faux notice of entry of judgment designed to unlawfully invoke a 60-day appeal time frame.

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI

Click here to read all published articles in the Color of Law series. Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the information and documentation for this article. We appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.

Related posts: Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct. Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct. Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator. Click here for family court whistleblower articles. Click here for family court watchdog coverage. If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.

Posted by PR Brown at 11:00 PM

+1 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO,

FERRIS CASE, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, S. HINMAN, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: County of Sacramento: Superior Court-William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

3 comments

AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

CARLSSON CASE (9) CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12) CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

(11) LAW SERIES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

Add a comment

Top comments

Thomas R 1 year ago - Shared publicly Can anyone explain to me how the court clerk can set a hearing date that that makes it completely impossible to abide by California civil code of procedure 1005 where it makes

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

20 February 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court Alleged: SCBA Family Law Section Officer and Judge Pro Tem Files Fake Notices with Court

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

To continue reading Part 4 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9)

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or

Sacramento County Bar Association

Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

138819

Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct. Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct. Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

136

Click here for family court whistleblower articles. Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click on the corresponding Labels below.

Posted by PR Brown at 10:20 PM

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

+3 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FLEC, JEFFREY POSNER, JUDGE PRO TEM, JULIE SETZER,

LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PAULA SALINGER, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS, WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Location: County of Sacramento Superior Court - FRC -William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

COA (6) AB

(1)

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

1 comment

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS (10) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS &

CULTURE

Add a comment

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK

Top comments

OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 8 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Paula Salinger files counterfeit "notice of entry" paperwork with court. Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice · +2

1 Reply

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

CARLSSON CASE (9) CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3) COLOR OF

Newer Post

Home

Older Post

(11) LAW SERIES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE

GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1) EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

27 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Attorney Misconduct: Diane Wasznicky Illegal Court Filing Not In Compliance With State Law - Ignored by Court Filing Clerks

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Family Court Clerks File Non-Compliant Documents for Judge Pro Tem Attorneys - Reject Pro Per Documents Monday Document Dump

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22)

As the court filing embedded at the bottom of this article reflects, Sacramento Family Court clerks file paperwork for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys which, by law, they are required to reject for filing. The California Rules of Court specify the format of papers filed with every court in the state. The requirements are mandatory, not optional. Under rule 2.118, court clerks must reject any papers that do not comply with court rules. Click here to view the rule. For example, under rule 2.108, line numbers must be placed in the left margin of papers filed with a court.

ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

The declaration filed by judge pro tem attorney Diane Wasznicky with the request for order embedded below is drafted on blank paper without line numbers. The illegal and unethical litigation tactic - which also is used by other judge pro tem lawyers prevents the opposition from filing written evidentiary objections.

WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

Line numbers are required because in order to make written objections to false or inadmissible evidence contained in a declaration, the opposing party must, by law, specify the line numbers to show exactly which portions of the declaration contain false, misleading, or incomplete facts. If inaccurate evidence is not objected to it is by law considered accurate.

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) Family court watchdogs assert that Diane Wasznicky and other judge pro tem attorneys receive preferential treatment, and kickbacks in the form of "rubber-stamped" court orders in exchange for running the family court settlement conference program.

To continue reading, and to view the the unlawful court filing click Read more >> below... The objections also are critical in any subsequent appeal, according to veteran Sacramento family law attorney Stephen James Wagner. "The failure to object to false evidence waives the right to challenge the court's ruling based on such evidence," according to California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, and Civil Trials &

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

Evidence, the legal reference books used by judges and attorneys. Family court watchdogs have documented that declarations filed by attorneys often contain false or otherwise inadmissible evidence - which becomes admissible if objections are not lodged. Court records indicate that divorce lawyer and temporary judge Diane Wasznicky routinely is allowed by family court clerks to file declarations on blank paper without line numbers in cases where the opposing party is unrepresented.

Under state law, the failure to comply with court rules constitutes moral turpitude, and a violation of Business & Professions Code § 6106 and the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical standards all judges must follow - family court judges are required to take appropriate corrective action against the attorney, including reporting the misconduct to the State Bar. In addition, family court reform advocates have documented that pro per drafted pleadings are closely scrutinized and often rejected for filing by court clerks because of trivial errors. Watchdogs point out that the failure of court employees to reject the defective filings, and the refusal of judges to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics and hold attorneys accountable is additional evidence supporting their long-running assertion that a "cartel" of SCBA Family Law Section attorneys, who also serve as temporary judges, receive preferential treatment from court employees and judges. They claim that the arrangement deprives the public of the right to honest government services, a federal crime.

LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

Diane Wasznicky Divorce Attorney - Unlawful Court Filing Sacramento County Superior Court Bartholomew & W... by Sacramento Family Court News

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Share

Posted by PR Brown at 10:10 PM

Embed

+5 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS, DIANE WASZNICKY, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, JUDGE PRO TEM, STEPHEN WAGNER

Location: William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

1 comment LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

14 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct: Court Order Authorizes Unlawful Child Abduction for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Richard Sokol

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Thadd Blizzard Approves Illegal Out-of-State Child Relocation for Temporary Judge Attorney Richard Sokol - Opposing Attorney Stunned

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

Tuesday Document Dump

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

A leaked court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that Judge Thadd Blizzard last November retroactively endorsed an unlawful outof-state "move away" and child abduction at the request of local judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol. The unprecedented ruling went against San Francisco attorney Archibald Cunningham, who the transcript reflects was dumbfounded by the decision.

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

The bizarre chain-of-events began after Cunningham's client, Robert Saunders, filed paperwork seeking child visitation under an existing temporary custody order. After the San Francisco attorney and social justice advocate Archibald Cunningham was visitation paperwork was lodged, shocked when Judge Thadd Blizzard authorized an illegal child abduction for Sokol's client, April Berger, Sacramento Superior Court judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol. abruptly moved to Hawaii with the parents' twin daughters without the permission of the court.

To continue reading, and to view the complete court reporter transcript, click Read more >> below...

Under state law, a parent may not take children and relocate out-of-state without court approval before the move, especially under a temporary custody order. A parent seeking to relocate must by law first seek court approval for the move, and "the noncustodial parent still has standing to oppose the relocation" in court, according to California Practice Guide: Family Law, the gold standard family law legal reference used by judges and attorneys. Without prior court approval, an out-of-state move away is considered criminal child abduction if it maliciously "deprives a person of a right to visitation," according to Penal Code § 278.5(a). The criminal statute also specifies that the retroactive, after-the-fact order issued by Blizzard for Sokol "does not constitute a defense" to the crime.

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28) FLEC (26)

SCBA (20) CHILD CUSTODY (19) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) ROBERT SAUNDERS (17) DOCUMENTS (16) CJP (15) DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) SATIRE (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

Cunningham's reaction to the outcome was similar to that of Stephen R. Gianelli, another San Francisco attorney who previously was "hometowned" in Sacramento Family Court. Hometowning refers to local judges giving preferential treatment to select, local attorneys. Click here for Gianelli's account of his experience as an "outsider" attorney. Hometowning is considered unethical and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to retired judge David Rothman, author of the California Judicial Conduct Handbook. Sacramento Family Court reform advocates have documented that judge pro tem attorneys often receive favorable treatment when representing clients in court in exchange for operating the court's settlement conference program. Click here for SFCN coverage of temporary judge controversies.

The transcript, case records, and a second transcript from a related, previous hearing also indicate that Blizzard manipulated the proceedings through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact in order to achieve the outcome demanded by Sokol, conduct prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Family court watchdogs assert that the collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, a racketeering crime under 18 USC 1346.

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(10) CARLSSON CASE (9) RAPTON-KARRES (9) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) FERRIS CASE (7)

The Robert Saunders-April Berger case is one of four Sacramento County Family Court cases included in the documentary film Divorce Corp, now playing in major U.S cities. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States," and portrays the Sacramento court system as the most corrupt in the country. For our continuing coverage of the film, click here.

JULIE SETZER (7)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (4) CONTEMPT (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)

LUAN CASE (4) THADD BLIZZARD (4)

11-25-13SAUNDERS (2).txt

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Share

Posted by PR Brown at 9:31 AM

Embed

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog The Divorce Artist

+6 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ANALYSIS, ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, JUDICIAL

Above the Law

MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, THADD BLIZZARD

Location: Sacramento Superior Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse

5 comments

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION California Lawyer Magazine

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

20 February 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Peter J. McBrien Misconduct: Divorce Corp Documentary Reveals Sacramento Family Court Most Corrupt In Nation

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Judge Peter McBrien and Sacramento County Family Court System Disemboweled in Divorce Corp Documentary

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) SCBA (22) ARTS & CULTURE (21) CHILD CUSTODY (21) PETER J. McBRIEN (20) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20) WATCHDOGS (19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16)

Sacramento Family Court litigant Ulf Carlsson's startling story is central to the documentary Divorce Corp.

Movie Review and Opinion by PelicanBriefed It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court system - rebuilt more than 20 years ago to the specifications of local judge pro tem family law attorneys by Judge Peter McBrien, then-Judge Vance Raye, divorce attorney Robert O'Hair, and others - has become the most corrupt family court in the nation. The proof is now available to anyone for $20: the cost of the documentary film Divorce Corp, recently released on DVD, and also available by download at the iTunes store. In his first, full-length documentary film, director Joe Sorge meticulously documents the epidemic of corruption and collusion in family courts throughout the United States. And the Sacramento County system rises to the top of the toxic slurry pond.

DIVORCE CORP (13) JAMES M. MIZE (12) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) SATIRE (11)

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11)

A parade of litigants from Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, California and other locales recount their nightmare

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

experiences in child custody and other divorce-related court disputes. Retired judges, active attorneys, child custody evaluators and court reform advocates are interviewed over the one hour, 33 minute run time of the film. In one compelling segment, Nevada County Superior Court whistleblower Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of California family courts is effectively nonexistent. In a tacit admission, the Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts declined Sorge's request to be interviewed and respond to Gallup's documented accusations.

But the local, well-known Ulf Carlsson case takes center stage and is woven throughout the movie, overshadowing the horror stories of other litigants. Judge Peter McBrien's clinically sociopathic, personal vendetta against Carlsson - which in 2012 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing called a "judicial reign of terror" - is chronicled in all its perverse glory. Sacramento family court litigants Andrew Karres, Mike Newdow and Robert Saunders, and Nevada County pro per Elena Haskins also make appearances criticizing virtually every aspect of local court operations. Judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, the family law facilitator, and even the "child's best interest" legal standard are all held under the microscope and come away nakedly exposed and tarnished. Sometimes, only a cliché will do: Must be seen to be believed. Missing only interviews with family court child victims. Four and a half stars.

Click here to order the movie at the Divorce Corp web page. To download the film from the iTunes store, click here. Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the photos:

3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3) MIKE NEWDOW (2)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware Andrew Karres recounts his own hellish experience in Sacramento Family Court in the documentary Divorce Corp.

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS &

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

07 July 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Woodruff O'Hair Posner & Salinger Inc Criminal Conduct by Partner Paula D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All Firm Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(66)

Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18) PRO PERS (18)

Allegations that judge pro tem lawyer Paula Salinger committed obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented pro per have gone viral throughout family court reform social media.

DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15)

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge. Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge

JAMES M. MIZE (14) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is embedded below.

Obstruction of Justice The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.

As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct. The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7) 3rd DISTRICT COA (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)

Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party: "As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter. The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

As page one of the document set reflects, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim has been criticized for not enforcing state attorney ethics laws against lawyers contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative - like Paula Salinger - for misconduct against pro per litigants. relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set shows, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

LUAN CASE (4) MIKE NEWDOW (4)

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog Law Librarian Blog Law Professor Blogs Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog Kafkaesq Above the Law The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Witness Tampering Law As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set below, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding. Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128. SFCN is completing an indepth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise California Official Case Law Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH California Courts Homepage California Courts YouTube Page Judicial Council Commission on Judicial Performance Sacramento County Family Court 3rd District Court of Appeal

An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees. The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

Paula Salinger - Witness Intimidation-Influence Witness by Fraud-Obstruction of Justice - Divorce Attorney... by Sacramento Family Court News

State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

WOODRUff, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. A LAW CORPORATION D. Thomas Woodruff. C.F.L.S.", AAML"*

2251 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento. California 95825 Telephone : (916) 920-0211 Facsimile: (916) 920 0241

Robert J. O'Hair. C.F.L.S.", AAML*" Jeffrey J. Posner, C.F.L.S.• Paula D. Salinger

Email: paula@woplaw.com

October 28, 2010

PO Box 60662 Sacramento, CA 95860 VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO Re: Marriage ofDearAs the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt. Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October 20, 201O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271 for the necessity of defending the motions. Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271. Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC §271. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay. Paula D. Salinger pds:sbo cc: •

Certified Family Law S.oecralisl. The Slate Bar ofCalifomiaBoarr,

>f Legal Speoalzat1on

··Fellow. Amencan Academy of Matnmonia/,

1wyers

Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 18-B California Practice Guide: Family Law Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black (Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman Chapter 18. Enforcement Of Orders And Judgments B. Enforcement Remedies And Procedures

1. Contempt a. [18:105] Nature of contempt—in general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties (see CCP §§ 1218 & 1219, ¶ 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864–865]…

…(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally, respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. § 213, discussed at ¶ 5:372 ff.] However, Fam.C. § 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citee’s responsive declaration may only be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above). [Fam.C. § 213(a)—“In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration)” (emphasis and parentheses added)]

§ 13:107. Witness intimidation, L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.) Expert Series California Criminal Law Database updated December 2011 Laurie L. Levenson, Alex Ricciardulli Chapter 13. Crimes Against the Administration of Government § 13:107. Witness intimidation Whoever attempts to prevent or dissuade a victim or crime witness from reporting the incident to law enforcement officials, prosecutors or the judge, is guilty of witness intimidation.1 A person may be guilty of aiding and abetting witness intimidation, but the evidence must show that the defendant had the specific intent for witness intimidation to be committed. If the aider and abettor has such intent, he or she is guilty not only of the intended or target offense, but also of any other crime the direct perpetrator of the crime commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.2 However, witness intimidation is not the natural and probable consequence of vehicle burglary or illegal possession of a weapon.3 Footnotes 1 Penal Code § 136.1(b). 2

People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

End of Document

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 608 California Jurisprudence 3d Database updated May 2012 Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D. II. Crimes Against Public Justice D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses 3. Particular Offenses Involving Interference With or Influencing of Witnesses Topic Summary Correlation Table References § 608. Bribe or deceit of witness West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4) West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21 A.L.R. Library Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156 A person who gives or offers or promises to give to a witness or person about to be called as a witness a bribe upon an understanding or agreement that such person will not attend any trial or other judicial proceeding is guilty of a felony. The attempt to commit the crime is also a felony. 1 A bilateral agreement is not a necessary element of the crime. There need be no meeting of the minds between the briber and the witness. It is sufficient if the defendant offers the bribe with the intent of persuading the witness to agree not to testify. 2 A misdemeanor is committed by anyone who practices any fraud or deceit or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing to a witness or person about to be called as a witness in any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation with intent to affect the testimony of the witness. 3 Footnotes Pen. Code, § 138, subd. (a). 1 2 3

As to bribery, generally, see §§ 526 to 553. People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685, 646 P.2d 847 (1982). As to agreement or understanding in a prosecution for bribery, generally, see § 534. Pen. Code, § 133.

End of Document

§ 604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604 California Jurisprudence 3d Database updated May 2012 Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D. II. Crimes Against Public Justice D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses 2. Preventing or Dissuading Attendance, Testimony, or Reporting of Crimes by Witness or Victim Topic Summary Correlation Table References § 604. Generally West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4) West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21 A.L.R. Library Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156 It is a public offense to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law or to attempt to do so. 1 Advising a witness to conceal himself or herself for the purpose of avoiding service of a subpoena is a violation of this provision. 2 Evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim creates a presumption that the act was without malice. 3 It is a crime to attempt to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crime from doing any of the following: • making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge 4 • causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation, or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof 5 • arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization 6 Footnotes Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a). 1 In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790 (2d Dist. 1983). 2 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(3). 3 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1). 4 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2). 5 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(3). 6 End of Document

0030

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

2622. Intimidating a Witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b)) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with intimidating a witness [in violation of Penal Code section 136.1]. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: <Alternative 1A—attending or giving testimony> [1. The defendant maliciously (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from (attending/ [or] giving testimony at) <insert type of judicial proceeding or inquiry authorized by law>;] <Alternative 1B—report of victimization> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from making a report that (he/she/someone else) was a victim of a crime to <insert type of offıcial specified in Pen. Code, § 136.1(b)(1)>;] <Alternative 1C—causing prosecution> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from cooperating or providing information so that a (complaint/indictment/information/probation violation/parole violation) could be sought and prosecuted, and from helping to prosecute that action;] <Alternative 1D—causing arrest> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from (arresting[,]/ [or] (causing/ [or] seeking) the arrest of [,]) someone in connection with a crime;] 2.

<insert name/description of person defendant 542

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0031

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

allegedly sought to influence> was a (witness/ [or] crime victim); AND 3. The defendant knew (he/she) was (trying to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(preventing/ [or] discouraging)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from <insert appropriate description from element 1> and intended to do so. [A person acts maliciously when he or she unlawfully intends to annoy, harm, or injure someone else in any way, or intends to interfere in any way with the orderly administration of justice.] [As used here, witness means someone [or a person the defendant reasonably believed to be someone]: <Give the appropriate bracketed paragraph[s].> • [Who knows about the existence or nonexistence of facts relating to a crime(;/.)] [OR] • [Whose declaration under oath has been or may be received as evidence(;/.)] [OR] • [Who has reported a crime to a (peace officer[,]/ [or] prosecutor[,]/ [or] probation or parole officer[,]/ [or] correctional officer[,]/ [or] judicial officer)(;/.)] [OR • [Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any state or federal court.]] [A person is a victim if there is reason to believe that a federal or state crime is being or has been committed or attempted against him or her.] [It is not a defense that the defendant was not successful in preventing or discouraging the (victim/ [or] witness).]

543

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0032

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

[It is not a defense that no one was actually physically injured or otherwise intimidated.] New January 2006

BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime. In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(a), which prohibits “knowingly and maliciously” preventing or attempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives 1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b). Subdivision (b) does not use the words “knowingly and maliciously.” However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation of either subdivision (a) or (b) is done “knowingly and maliciously,” and one of the other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made that the knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Code section 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factors under subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, the committee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intent requirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malice requirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court should give the bracketed word “maliciously” in element 1, in alternatives 1B through 1D, and the definition of this word. If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness: Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factor based on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623 and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless the court has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendant has stipulated to the conviction. Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, “For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.” It is unclear whether the court must instruct on this presumption. 544

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0033

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

AUTHORITY •

Elements.

Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b).

•

Malice Defined.

•

Witness Defined.

•

Victim Defined.

•

Specific Intent Required. People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, § 136(1). Pen. Code, § 136(2). Pen. Code, § 136(3).

Secondary Sources 2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Governmental Authority, §§ 5, 6. 4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, § 84.11 (Matthew Bender). 5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91, Sentencing, §§ 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender). 6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person, § 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order, § 144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES A violation of Penal Code section 136.1(a) or (b) is a felony-misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of three years in state prison. If the defendant is also charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section 136.1(c), then the offense is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years. In the defendant is charged under Penal Code section 131.6(c), then the offenses under subdivisions (a) and (b) are lesser included offenses. The court must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury will indicate if the prosecution has proved the sentencing factor alleged. If the jury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should be set at the level of the lesser offense. The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser included offense of Penal Code section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].) 545

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0034

CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

RELATED ISSUES Penal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138 Because one cannot “influence” the testimony of a witness if the witness does not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistent with a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires that a defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)

546

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0027

2621. Influencing a Witness by Fraud (Pen. Code, § 137(b)) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with using fraud to influence a person to (give false (testimony/ [or] information)/ [or] withhold true (testimony/ [or] information)) [in violation of Penal Code section 137(b)]. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant used fraud against <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence>; AND <Alternative 2A—to give or withhold testimony> [2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> to (give false testimony/ [or] withhold true testimony).] <Alternative 2B—to give or withhold information> [2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> to (give false material information about a crime to/ [or] withhold true material information about a crime from) a law enforcement official.] A person uses fraud when he or she makes a false statement, misrepresents information, hides the truth, or otherwise does something with the intent to deceive. [Information is material if it is significant or important.] [(A/The) (district attorney[,]/ [or] deputy district attorney[,]/ [or] city attorney[,]/ [or] deputy city attorney[,]/ [or] Attorney General[,]/ [or] deputy attorney general[,]/ [or] <insert title of peace offıcer included in Pen. Code, § 830 et seq.>) is a law enforcement official.] [The People do not need to prove that <insert name/ description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> 539

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0028

CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

actually (gave false (testimony/information)/ [or] withheld true (testimony/information)).] New January 2006

BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime. Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The People do not need to prove that” if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of the alleged target was not affected.

AUTHORITY •

Elements.

Pen. Code, § 137(b).

•

Fraud Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 770].

•

Law Enforcement Official Defined.

•

Specific Intent Required. People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, § 137(e).

Secondary Sources 2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Governmental Authority, § 12.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser included offense of section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

RELATED ISSUES Deceiving a Witness Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133: Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to any witness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with 540

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

0029

CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

intent to affect the testimony of such witness, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

541

(Pub. 1284)

This version provided by LexisNexis速 Matthew Bender速, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

23 November 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Court Corruption: Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley Case Featured in Divorce Corp. Documentary

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67) JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35) MATTHEW J. GARY (33) FLEC (28) ARTS & CULTURE (23) CHILD CUSTODY (22) PETER J. McBRIEN (22) SCBA (22) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21) WATCHDOGS (20)

Click play > to watch the Divorce Corp trailer. Best viewed at full-screen setting.

Entertainment Tonight has just released the world premiere trailer of the documentary film Divorce Corp. A scathing indictment of the divorce industry in the United States, the documentary reportedly will include the notorious Carlsson case from Sacramento Family Court. The compelling trailer foreshadows many of the same issues reported here at Sacramento Family Court News, which last May was the first media organization worldwide to report on the pending production.

From the plot summary at IMDb: "A documentary that exposes the appalling fiscal waste, shameless collusive practices and rampant corruption within the U.S. family law industry. More money and more people flow through the family courts than any other court system in America combined - now grossing over $50 billion a year. But because of good intentions run amok, misplaced financial incentives, cronyism, and a lack of checks and balances, family courts have become self-

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CJP (18) PRO PERS (18) DOCUMENTS (16) DIVORCE CORP (15) JAMES M. MIZE (15) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) RAPTON-KARRES (11) SATIRE (11) WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

corrupting, extra-constitutional fiefdoms that serve the local legal community instead of the The documentary Divorce Corp will be released Jan. 10, 2014 general public. Rather than help victims of crimes, these courts often create them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts - and their associates - drag out their cases for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills including bankruptcy, violence, the bastardization of feminism and the criminalization of civil laws. Solutions to the crisis are sought out in Scandinavian countries where marriage dissolution is handled without attorneys, courts, or the turbulence and family disintegration so common in the United States." In the updated credits, James Scurlock has both a producer and writer credit. Scurlock is the writer/director of the critically acclaimed documentary Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders. Divorce Corp is set for release in theaters on January 10, 2014. For further information and updates, visit the Divorce Corp Twitter page at @divorcecorp. Sacramento Family Court News will have continuing coverage of Divorce Corp. Click here for a list of SFCN articles about the film.

For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Posted by PR Brown at 1:24 PM

+6 Recommend this on Google

(11) CARLSSON CASE (10) JAIME R. ROMAN (10) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS (10) SHARON A. LUERAS (10) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) FERRIS CASE (8) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) JULIE SETZER (7) YOUTUBE (7)

Labels: AGGREGATED NEWS, ARTS & CULTURE, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CARLSSON CASE, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, DIVORCE

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CORP, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, PETER J. McBRIEN

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

3 comments

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5) Add a comment

THADD BLIZZARD (5) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4) LUAN CASE (4)

Top comments

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Judge Peter J. McBrien via Google+ 10 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly Judge Peter McBrien, Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley Case Featured in Divorce Corp Documentary Entertainment Tonight has just released the world premiere trailer of the documentary film Divorce Corp. A scathing indictment of the divorce industry in the United States, the ·

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware