Justice Vance Raye Charged in RICO Racketeering & Color of Law Conspiracy Scheme in 3rd District by Dylan Smith

Advanced Search

Judicial Branch Home Courts

Self-Help

Forms & Rules

Opinions

Programs

Policy & Administration

News & Reference

Courts > Courts of Appeal > 3rd District Court of Appeal > Justices > Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice

Courts

Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice

Supreme Court

Courts of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal 2nd District Court of Appeal 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices Forms & Rules Fees & Filing Electronic Filing / Submissions Practices & Procedures Self Help Manual Court Programs News Releases Calendars Contact Us About the 3rd District 4th District Court of Appeal 5th District Court of Appeal 6th District Court of Appeal About the Courts of Appeal Appellate Briefs ADA Information FAQs Superior Courts Jury Service About California Courts Find My Court FAQs

Vance W. Raye, Presiding Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal, was born in Hugo, Oklahoma, on September 6, 1946. He was educated in the public schools of Muskogee, Oklahoma, and was awarded undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Oklahoma, where he received the President’s Leadership Award and was inducted into the Pi Sigma Alpha honor society. He is married to Sandra Raye, a retired social worker, and has an adult daughter. Raye was in private practice briefly in Oklahoma City following law school before entering the United States Air Force. He served as an Assistant Judge Advocate at Beale Air Force Base, near Marysville, California, for four years in various positions, including Chief of Civil Law and Chief Prosecutor (Chief of Military Justice). Following the completion of his military service, Raye began a career with the California Attorney General’s Office, serving first as a Deputy Attorney General and later as a Senior Assistant Attorney General in charge of legislative affairs. With the election of Governor George Deukmejian, he was appointed to serve as the Governor’s Deputy Legislative Secretary and later as the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary. Raye was appointed to the Sacramento Superior Court in 1989 and sworn into office as an Associate Justice on the Third District Court of Appeal in 1991, following confirmation by the people. He was again confirmed to the office in 2003. In December 2010, Raye was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to serve as the Court’s Presiding Justice. Raye is a member of the California Judges Association, the Council of Chief Judges, and has been involved in many law related activities including service as chair of the National Governors Association Staff Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety (1988); the California Council on Criminal Justice Gang Violence Task Force (1988); the Task Force on Victim Restitution (1989); chair of the Judicial Council Committee on Family Law (1992-1993); Executive Committee of the California Judicial Council Commission on the Future of the Courts and chair of the Commission’s Family Relations Committee (1993); Member, American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards Committee; Member, California Judicial Council Appellate Courts Advisory Committee and chair of the Committee’s Legislative Subcommittee; chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance; and member of the Elkins Family Court Reform Task Force. He currently serves as President and Master of the Bench, Milton Schwartz/ David Levi Inn of Court, and co-chair of the State Child Welfare Council, in addition to service on numerous civic associations including the UC Davis Medical School Leadership Council, Board of Directors of the Center for Health Care Decisions, and the 100 Black Men of Sacramento. Raye has taught at Lincoln Law School, been an instructor/participant at various educational institutes, and served as a contributor to “California Public Contract Law” and co-author of “California Civil Practice, Family Law Litigation,” a three volume treatise on California family law.

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

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

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

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) 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

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 (5) LAWYER

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

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3

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)

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) 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)

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 (5) LAWYER

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)

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

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

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

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

Advanced Search

Judicial Branch Home Courts

Self-Help

Forms & Rules

Opinions

Programs

Policy & Administration

News & Reference

Courts > Courts of Appeal > 3rd District Court of Appeal > Justices > Arthur G. Scotland, Presiding Justice

Courts

Arthur G. Scotland, Presiding Justice

Supreme Court

Associate Justice, February 1989-December 1998 Presiding Justice, December 1998-September 2010 Justice Scotland is a native Californian born in Sacramento on October 19, 1946. Upon graduating from the University of California, Davis, he became a law enforcement officer with the California Department of Justice, 1968-71. He then attended the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, graduating with honors in 1974. After serving as a Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento County, 1974-76, California Deputy Attorney General, 1976-83, and Cabinet Secretary to the Governor, 1983-87, he was appointed a Superior Court Judge by Governor George Deukmejian in 1987. Since 1989, he has served on the Court of Appeal, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. In 1998, he became the Presiding Justice, appointed to the position by Governor Pete Wilson. He also is an instructor of judicial education and has served in various organizations and committees created to improve the administration of justice, including the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal, a national organization of which he was President in 2006-2007, and the California Judicial Council, the policy-making body for California state courts, to which he was appointed by the Chief Justice of California from 1994 through 1997. And he has served as President of the Anthony M. Kennedy American Inn of Court, an organization of judges, attorneys, and law students that is dedicated to promoting civility, ethics, and professionalism in the practice of law. In 2004, Justice Scotland was named Judge of the Year by the Sacramento County Bar Association. Active in his community, Justice Scotland was named Humanitarian of the Year in 2002 by the Sacramento County Bar Association for his volunteer work on behalf of the Sacramento Children's Home, a residential and treatment facility for abused and neglected children. He also received a Community Service Award from the Center for Youth Citizenship for his volunteer work helping to educate school children about our legal system and their rights and responsibilities as Americans. In 2005, he received a public service award from the American Board of Trial Advocates, Sacramento Valley Chapter, for "having tirelessly given his time and effort to make the community we live in a better place for those less fortunate and in need." In 2007, the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, presented him with its Volunteer Leadership Award. And in 2008, Friends CARE (Children in At Risk Environments) honored him with an award for his "continued support of the children left behind." Married to Susan Silva Scotland, with a son, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren, he enjoys family events, theater, basketball, and running, including having completed marathons and team triathlons. Justice Scotland retired from the Court in 2010.

ÂŠ 2014 Judicial Council of California

Advanced Search

Judicial Branch Home Courts

Self-Help

Forms & Rules

Opinions

Programs

Policy & Administration

News & Reference

Courts > Supreme Court > Justices > Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Courts

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Supreme Court

Case Information e-Submissions Calendars Practices & Procedures

Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye is the 28th chief justice of the State of California. She was sworn into office on January 3, 2011, and is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s chief justice.

Justices Past & Present Justices Committees Recent News Contact Us About the Supreme Court

After former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated her as Chief Justice on July 22, 2010, the California State Bar Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission rated her as exceptionally well qualified for the position. At a public hearing on August 25, 2010, she was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, and in a general election on November 2, 2010, an overwhelming majority of voters elected her to that position.

Courts of Appeal Superior Courts Jury Service About California Courts Find My Court FAQs

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye chairs the Judicial Council of California, the administrative policymaking body of state courts, and the Commission on Judicial Appointments. For more information read about her recent outreach activities and civics initiatives. She has served for more than 20 years on California appellate and trial courts, and has been appointed or elevated to higher office by three governors. In 1990, Governor George Deukmejian appointed her to the Sacramento Municipal Court and in 1997, Governor Pete Wilson elevated her to the Superior Court of Sacramento County. On the superior court, she presided over both criminal and civil assignments. In 1997, she established and presided over the first court in Sacramento dedicated solely to domestic violence issues. In addition, then-Judge Cantil-Sakauye chaired the court’s criminal law committee and was a member of the presiding judge’s task force on domestic violence and the Home Court committee. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger nominated her to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Chief Justice Ronald M. George appointed her to the Judicial Council of California in September 2008. She has also served as chair of the council’s Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch, a member of the Domestic Violence Practice and Procedure Task Force and chaired its Best Practices Domestic Violence subcommittee, vicechair of the Executive and Planning Committee, vice-chair of the Rules and Projects Committee, co-chair of the Judicial Recruitment and Retention Working Group, and as a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts Implementation Committee. The Chief Justice was a Special Master, selected by the Supreme Court of California to hear disciplinary proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. She was president of the Anthony M. Kennedy American Inn of Court, an organization dedicated to promoting civility, ethics, and professionalism in the practice of law. And was a member of the national Conference of Chief Justices Board of Directors. Born in 1959 in Sacramento, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye attended C. K. McClatchy High School (1977) and Sacramento City College (1978) before receiving her BA from the University of California, Davis, graduating with honors in 1980. After taking a year off to visit her ancestral homeland, the Philippines, the Chief Justice entered the UC Davis, Martin Luther King, Jr., School of Law in 1981. After receiving her JD in 1984, she worked as a deputy district attorney for the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted a variety of criminal offenses. From 1988 to 1990, she served on the senior staff of Governor Deukmejian in two capacities: first as deputy legal affairs secretary and later as a deputy legislative secretary. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye is a former board member of several nonprofit organizations and has been active in numerous professional community organizations, including membership in the California Judges Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the Sacramento Asian Bar Association, and received the Filipina of the Year Award. She is currently a member of the Board of Directors for the Conference of Chief Justices, The American Law Institute, the Board of Visitors for UC Davis, an Advisory Board member of the Sacramento Federal Judicial Library and Learning Center Foundation, an honorary member of the Foundation for Democracy and Justice, a private nonprofit organization devoted to civics education, and is actively engaged in a civic learning initiative Your Constitution: The Power of Democracy. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye is married to Mark Sakauye, a retired police lieutenant, and they have two daughters.

Awards and Honors 2014 Judge of the Year, Western San Bernardino County Bar Association

2013 Public Interest Excellence Award, Public Interest Law Foundation Justice Award, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice Civic Action Award, California Council for the Social Studies San Francisco Board of Education (Honorarium) 2012 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, American Bar Association Beacon of Justice Award, Friends of the Los Angeles County Law Library Hero of Hope Award, My Sister’s House Person of the Year Award, Metropolitan News-Enterprise Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce (Honorarium) Filipino Bar Association of Northern California (Honorarium) Outstanding and Influential Leadership Award, Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce 2011 Woman of Distinction, California Legislative Women’s Caucus (Honorarium) Distinguished Jurist, UC Davis School of Law Distinguished Alumna Award, Community College League of California Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws, Southwestern Law School Outstanding Judge, Pinoy Reporter Distinguished Lecturer, Golden Gate University School of Law Dedication to the Legal Profession & Inspiration to Others, Inland Empire Legal Association of Women Policy Impact Award, California Asian Pacific Islander Policy Summit Honorarium for Ongoing Support of Students, Sutter Middle School Japanese American Bar Association/Philippine American Bar Association (Honorarium) STARblazer Award, Philippine American Business Improvement And Development Legal Impact Honoree, Asian Law Alliance Asian Pacific American Women Lawyers Alliance Honoree Asian Law Alliance Legal Impact Honoree, Filipino American Community San Mateo County Bar Association (Honorarium) Sonoma County Bar Association (Honorarium) Admiration and Appreciation, The Armenian Bar Association 2010 Inspire Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 2007 Judge of the Year Award, Capitol City Trial Lawyers Association 2005 President’s Award, Sacramento Asian/Pacific Bar Association 2003 Trailblazer’s Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 1998 Sacramento Domestic Violence Coordinating Council Award of Appreciation, Indigent Defense Panel