Sacramento Superior Court Corruption: Judge Jerilyn Borack Whistleblower Retaliation - Judge Hight by Dylan Smith

Sacramento Superior Court Corruption: Judge Jerilyn Borack, Judge Robert Hight, Judge James Mize, Judge Steve White, Judge Laurie Earl, Judge Matthew Gary Judge Thadd Blizzard, Julie Setzer, Jake Chatters, Edward Pollard, Dennis Jones.

NDORSED

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ 2 3

OCT

STEWART KATZ, State Bar# 127425

2 2008

555 University Avenue, Suite270 Sacramento, California95825 Telephone: (916)444-5678

4 5 6

Facsimile: (916)444-3364 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES LOCKE

7 8

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

9 10

Case No. 34-2008-00007644-CU-WT-GDS

JAMES LOCKE, 11 12

Plaintiff, vs.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Sacramento

Director of Operations JULJE SETZER;

17 18 19 20 21

RELIEF

Superior Court Family Law and Probate Sacramento Superior Court Deputy Executive Officer JAKE CHATTERS; Sacramento Superior Court Chief Deputy Executive Officer EDWARD POLLARD; and Sacramento Superior Court Executive Officer DENNIS JONES; and DOES 1to10, Defendants.

22 23

Plaintiff JAMES LOCKE complains and alleges as follows:

This complaint arises out of the wrongful termination of Plaintiff from his position as

"Probate Manager" with the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO.

whistle-blowing activities and exercise of free speech rights, and made him a scapegoat for

internal problems at the Probate Court that arose following the implementation of the new

Defendants terminated Plaintiff from his position in retaliation for his

statewide case management system which was later determined to have design flaws. 2

Defendants further deprived Plaintiff of his procedural due process rights by denying him the

opportunity to appeal his wrongful termination in violation of his constitutional and statutory

rights. Had Plaintiff been afforded a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard, he would not

have been terminated. Through this complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover for the losses he

suffered as a result of the Defendants' actions and/or appropriate injunctive/declaratory relief.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks compensation for lost wages, the loss of his retirement pension,

reinstatement of his position, the opportunity to be heard, as well as punitive and/or exemplary

damages as allowed by law.

10 11

I. PARTIES 1.

During all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff JAMES LOCKE (hereafte

"Plaintiff") was, and is, a United States citizen residing in the County of Sacramento, California.

At the time of his termination, Plaintiff's position was entitled "Probate Manager," however, he

was not treated as a true manager or otherwise exempt employee, and Plaintiff alleges that he

was not an exempt employee.

16 17 18

Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO is a branch of the Superior Court of California state court system. 3.

Defendant JULIE SETZER was, during all times mentioned herein, the Family

Law and Probate Director of Operations employed by the Sacramento Superior Court and acting

in that capacity. Defendant SETZER is being sued for federal constitutional torts only, in her

individual and official capacities.

Defendant JAKE CHATIERS was, during all times mentioned herein, an

Executive Officer employed by the Sacramento Superior Court and acting in that capacity.

Defendant CHATTERS is being sued for federal constitutional torts only, in his individual and

official capacities.

26 27

Defendant EDWARD POLLARD was, during all times mentioned herein, an

Executive Officer employed by the Sacramento Superior Court and acting in that capacity.

Defendant POLLARD is being sued for federal constitutional torts only in his individual and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II

official capacities. 6.

Defendant DENNIS JONES was, during all times mentioned herein, an Executive

Officer employed by the Sacramento Superior Court and acting in that capacity. Defendant JONES is being sued for federal constitutional torts only in his individual and official capacities. 7.

The identity of Defendants DOES 1 to 10 is presently unknown to Plaintiff.

However, Plaintiff a1leges that DOES l to 10 each, individually or jointly, are/were responsible for the acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint and clarify the names/identities of DOES 1 to 10 once that information is known. 8.

Defendants SETZER, CHATTERS, POLLARD, JONES and DOES 1 to

LO,

the extent they engaged in any acts or omissions alleged herein, and unless otherwise indicated

by the Complaint, engaged in such acts and/or omissions under color of state law.

II. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM REQUIREMENTS

15 16

Plaintiff filed a timely government tort claim, pursuant to Government Code

section 915 et seq., with the Administrative Office of the Courts, on or about November 6, 2007,

regarding the claims/causes of action set forth herein. The Administrative Office of the Courts

rejected the claim on or about November 13, 2007.

10.

Plaintiff's presentation of the timely tort claim to the Administrative Office of the

Courts, on or about November 6, 2007, also served as a timely statutorily sufficient filing with

the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. The SUPERIOR

COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO rejected said claim, by operation of

law, pursuant to Government Code section 912.4.

11.

After both entities had rejected Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff petitioned the Superior

Court for relief from the provisions of Government Code section 945.5 on or about April 4,

2008 on grounds of mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect.

12.

On July 8, 2008 the Superior Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's

application to proceed pursuant to Government Code section 946.6 against Defendant 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.

III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

4 s 6 7

13.

Prior to initiating this lawsuit and after his termination, Plaintiff sought to have

his termination reviewed internally, as he contended that the termination was improper. 14.

Plaintiff was explicitly told that he had no internal reviews available to him to

review his termination or any grievances relating to his termination. Consistent with this

explicit statement that he had no internal remedies available to him, Plaintiff was not given any

pre or post deprivation hearings or further advised that there were any internal processes

available to him.

12 13

15.

Thus, Plaintiff was not presented with any administrative remedies to exhaust

prior to initiating suit and/or any resort to administrative remedies would have been futile.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Plaintiff JAMES LOCKE is a former employee of the SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Probate Court Unit. 17.

Plaintiff began working as a temporary court investigator for the Superior Court

Probate Unit in May of 2001. 18.

On or about May 2004, Plaintiff became a permanent court investigator.

19.

A permanent court employee is afforded the protections of California

Government Code section 71653, which requires that each trial court establish in its personnel rules a process for conducting evidentiary due process hearings to review disciplinary decisions, including terminations. 20.

In August 2004, after receiving a favorable performance review, Plaintiff was

promoted to the position of "Probate Supervisor." 21.

Plaintiff received another promotion to "Probate Coordinator" in October 2005,

and shortly thereafter the name of that position was changed to "Probate Manager," although the

pay, responsibilities and character of the position were unchanged.

aware that the Probate Court was systemicaJly failing in its statutory duties towards

conservatees.

Specifica11y, Plaintiff believed that many conservatees were being financially,

23.

physically and/or emotionally abused without the Court's knowledge given the Court's failure to

conduct foUow up investigations as required by Sections 1850 et seq. and 2620 of the Probate

Code.

Plaintiff publicly raised concerns about the Probate Court's failure and this

24.

matter of public interest on severaJ occasions. For instance, on or about May 24, 2006, Plaintiff

spoke before the Probate Conservatorship Task Force (a task force appointed by the Judicial

Council of California to review the entire conservatorship process in California) regarding the

complete lack of review of conservatorships, the need for greater resource allocation so that

required reviews could be undertaken, and the dire problems that had arisen as a result of the

failure to conduct these reviews, such as the abuse of conservatees.

Judge Jerilyn Borack

While employed at the Probate Court in Sacramento, Plaintiff became acutely

22.

25.

These comments were perceived by Def endants SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SETZER, CHATTERS, POLLARD and

JONES as placing them in a bad light and demonstrating that they were violating their statutory

duties to conservatees.

26.

A judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO told Plaintiff he was "dead" a s a result of his public comments. Plaintiff

interpreted this as a statement that his employment status would be shortly terminated.

27.

Prior to his presentation to the Conservatorship Task Force, Plaintiff's most

recent performance evaluation had indicated that he "exceeds expectations" or "meets

expectations" in all of the six categories of review.

As a consequence of Plaintiffs ongoing efforts to ensure the Court comply with

its statutory duties, including his comments to the Probate Conservatorship Task Force which

were critical of the Court's efforts to that date and disclosed illegal/unlawful practices, Plaintiff

faced sudden hostility culminating in his ultimate discharge. 29.

Defendants terminated Plaintiff from his employment on May 7, 2007. Prior to

his termination, Plaintiff was properly performing all of his job duties (including receiving an

award in recognition for his work) and there was no proper reason to terminate his employment.

30.

Plaintiff believes and alleges that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for

his whistle-blowing activities and exercise of his free speech rights, and that he was made a

scapegoat for the internal problems at the Probate Court.

9 10

31.

In addition to wrongfully terminating Plaintiff, Defendants further failed to

provide Plaintiff with any opportunity for a pre or post-termination hearing, as explicitly required by the California Government Code section 71653, and constitutional law.

32.

Plaintiff believes and alleges that the Defendants' failures to provide him with his

due process rights were deliberate and undertaken in retaliation for his engaging in the protected

activity discussed herein and that he received a fair post-termination hearing, he would not have

been terminated.

33.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff was wrongfully

terminated and retaJiated against, deprived of the opportunity to appeal his wrongful

termination, Jost his job and retirement pension, and suffered humiliation and other damages.

Plaintiff seeks compensation for these damages, declaratory and/or injunctive relief so that he

may be afforded his due process rights, reinstatement of his position and punitive and/or

exemplary damages as allowed by law to punish and deter these Defendants from engaging in

such acts in the future.

34.

Plaintiff alleges that the termination and other acts of retaliation described herein

were done by all Defendants jointly and severally, and said Defendants conspired to violate

Plaintiff's rights as set forth herein.

Ill

///

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation/Wrongful Termination Violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Against Superior Court of California County of Sacramento 35.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34, as

though fully set forth herein. 36.

The actions of Defendants as alleged herein, including terminating Plaintiff from

employment in retaliation for his disclosing and/or reporting of unlawful practices within the Probate Unit, were unreasonable and constituted a violation of California State Law, specifically Labor Code Section 1102.5. 37.

As set forth herein, Plaintiff did not have any internal or administrative remedies

to exhaust prior to initiating the lawsuit. 38.

As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants,

Plaintiff suffered the loss of his job, wages, and retirement pension, humiliation and other damages alleged herein.

16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Denial of Procedural Due Process Rights Violation of Art I ยง 7 of the California Constitution and Statutory Law

18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Against Superior Court of California County of Sacramento 39.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 38, a

though fully set forth herein 40.

As a Court employee, Plaintiff had a protectable property interest in his positio

with the court as established by California Government Code Section 71650 et seq. and th California Constitution. 41.

Defendants, and each of them, intentionally deprived Plaintiff any avenue t

challenge his termination either by pre or post termination hearing, in violation of the rights se forth above and his procedural due process rights. 42.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions

Plaintiff was denied his right to appeal his wrongful termination, suffered lost wages, the loss o

his retirement pension and other damages as alleged herein. 2

Plaintiff seeks damages, as appropriate, and/or appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Free Speech Rights

Violation of Art I ยง 2 of California Constitution

Against Superior Court of California County of Sacramento

6 7

43.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 42, a

though fully set forth herein

8 9

Through this cause of action

44.

The conduct of Plaintiff described herein was protected by the free speec

provjsions of the California Constitution, Article

45.

I, section 2.

The conduct of the Defendants alleged herein, in retaliating against an

terminating Plaintiff's employment was done in response to the exercise of his free speech right

as set forth herein.

46.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions

Plaintiff suffered lost wages, the loss of his retirement pension and other damages as allege

herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Procedural Due Process Rights

42 U.S.C. Section 1983

18 19 20 21

Against Defendants Setzer, Chatters, Pollard, Jones and Does1to10 47.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46, as

though fulJy set forth herein. 48.

As an employee of the Sacramento Superior Court, Plaintiff had a protectable

property interest in his position with the court, and, therefore, he was entitled to a post-

termination evidentiary due process hearing.

49.

Defendants Setzer, Chatters, Pollard, Jones and Does l to 10 acting individuaJly

and in concert, intentionaJly deprived Plaintiff if this entitlement in violation of Plaintiff's

procedural due process rights as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

50.

As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants,

Plaintiff was denied his statutory right to appeal his wrongful termination, suffered lost wages, 2 3

the loss of his retirement pension and other damages as alleged herein. 51.

The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were malicious,

reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights thereby entitling

Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation/First Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C. Section1983

Against Defendants Setzer, Chatters, Pollard, Jones and Does 1to10

9 52 .

Plaintiff re- alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs J through 51 , a

JO though fully set forth herein 11 53.

As a public employee, Plaintiff had a constitutional right to speak regardin

12 matters of public concern. 13 54 .

The actions of Defendants as alleged herein, including terminating Plaintiff fro

14 employment in retaliation for his expressing his opinion regarding matters of public concer 15 including specifically disclosing and/or reporting of unlawful practices within the Probate Uni 16 that had violated Probate Code sections 1850 et seq. and 2620, were unreasonable an 17 constituted a violation of Plaintiff's free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment t 18 the United States Constitution. 19 55.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions

20 Plaintiff suffered lost wages, the loss of his retirement pension and other damages as allege 21 herein. 22 23

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

26 27 28

For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant, jointly

and severally, in the amount proven at trial; 2.

For declaratory and/or injunctive relief ordering that Plaintiff be afforded his due

process and/or statutory rights to a pre or post-deprivation hearing;

2 3

For injunctive relief reinstating him to the Probate Unit;

For punitive and exemplary damages against each nonentity Defendant, a

allowed by law. 5.

4 5

For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988 and a

otherwise authorized by statute or law;

For costs of the suit;

For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

8 9

Dated:

JO- )-o ďż˝

Respectfully submitted,

!-+

10 11

ďż˝

Stewart Katz,

Attorney for Plaintiff

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 3 4 5 6

CASE:

James Locke v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento. et al.

COURT:

Sacramento County Superior Court

CASE NO:

34-2008-00007644-CU-WT-GDS

the undersigned, declare tha. t I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to or

interested in the within entitled cause.

and my business address is 555 University Avenue, Suite 270, Sacramento, CA 95825.

On October 2 2008,

am an employee of The Law Office of Stewart Katz,

served the attached PLAINTIFF,S SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

be sent via first class mail, facsimile and email to the fo1lowing address(ees):

12 13 14 15

by causing a true copy to

Terry Filliman ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 240 Sacramento, CA 95833 Fax No.: (916) 923-1222 tmerrvweather@aalrr.com

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Marleen L. Sacks ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO 5776 Stoneridge Mall #200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Fax No. (925) 227-9202 msacks@aaJn-.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 2, 2008 at Sacramento, California.

1ictU1.ďż˝ i- k

Victoria L. Burau

Multi-Print Viewer

Page 7 of 8

Ex-probate manager sues to get his job back - Two lawsuits contend his fight for rights of elderly, disabled led Sacramento court to terminate him. Sacramento Bee, The (CA) - Thursday, April 10, 2008 Author: Denny Walsh dwalsh@sacbee.com James Locke fought for the rights of elderly and disabled people to be free from abuse by court-appointed conservators, and for that he was fired by Sacramento Superior Court, he claims in federal and state lawsuits. The 59-year-old Locke started in May 2001 as an investigator for Probate Court. With excellent performance reviews, he rose through the ranks and became probate manager. He was terminated without an administrative hearing May 7, in violation of his rights under federal and state laws and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process, according to the suits, filed this past week by lawyer Stewart Katz. The abrupt dismissal was ostensibly because of glitches in the implementation of a new online filing system for Probate Court. But his suits allege it was retaliation by the Superior Court and its executive staff for Locke's persistent, outspoken and constitutionally protected advocacy of needed improvements to the court's legally mandated oversight of conservatorships. "I never quit harping on it," Locke said in an interview. Conservators take control of the lives and finances of elderly and infirm people when they lose the ability to make their own decisions and no relative or friend is willing or able to step in and assume the responsibility. Locke recalled that his role as a whistle-blower, not appreciated by the executive staff, came to a head when Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, contacted probate's then-supervising judge. Jones cited Locke's testimony before a judicial panel and expressed concern that the court was not in compliance with the law. "You're dead," Judge Jerilyn Borack told him after her January 2007 conversation with the assemblyman, Locke said. Jones spearheaded a successful 2006 effort in the Legislature to tighten court oversight of conservatorships. The assemblyman contacted Borack to make sure his own county's Probate Court did not lag in implementing a package of reform legislation, Locke said. Referring to Dennis Jones, Superior Court executive officer, Locke said, "He was concerned that his county was not complying with the law and it was going to embarrass the court. "I was really afraid I would wake up one morning and see in The Bee that a conservatee had been found wandering the streets and the court had not done an investigation." Assemblyman Jones did not respond to a call seeking comment. Borack's clerk said Wednesday the judge was out of town and referred an inquiry to the court's executive staff. Gerry Root, a court spokesman, said the judge would not be available until Monday. Gwenda Ornelas, executive secretary of the court, responded Wednesday via e-mail to a written request to interview Dennis Jones. She said, "Mr. Jones has been advised by counsel not to discuss or respond to

http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

1/1/2013

Multi-Print Viewer

Page 8 of 8

questions regarding current pending litigation." The ax fell on Locke last spring, when the court executives made him a "scapegoat for internal problems at the Probate Court arising after implementation of the new ... case management system, which was later determined to have design flaws," his suits say. He was lauded for his court's case management advances and recognized across the state as a champion of conservatees. On May 9, two days after he was fired, he received the California Association of Superior Court Investigators' Golden Quill Award for outstanding service. Locke's suits name as defendants Dennis Jones, Edward Pollard, chief deputy executive officer of the court, and two deputies, Julie Setzer and Jake Chatters. His state court suit also names the Superior Court and the Administrative Office of the (California) Courts. He seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, an administrative due process hearing and reinstatement. Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189. Caption: Randy Pench / rpench@sacbee.com James Locke, shown in his home office in Carmichael on Tuesday, is the former probate manager for the Sacramento Superior Court. He's suing to get his job back. Edition: METRO FINAL Section: METRO Page: B3 Record Number: SAC_0405218977 Copyright 2008 The Sacramento Bee

http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

1/1/2013

Multi-Print Viewer

Page 4 of 8

Letters: Traffic, Night Life, Energy, Health, Religion, Etc. Sacramento Bee, The (CA) - Tuesday, April 15, 2008 I-5 closures: Stagger work shifts Re "I-5 outlook: Unsettled congestion," April 14: With all of the worry about the horrible traffic congestion expected due to the Interstate 5 closures that begin next month, Caltrans is asking people to take alternate routes, use more public transportation, etc. If employers would allow it, why not ask people who work downtown to volunteer to "stagger start" their work times? Rather than have all state employees and other downtown workers work the usual 8 to 5, ask them to do 7 to 4, 8 to 5, 9 to 6. Something like that may help ease the problem on freeways and city streets. - Heather Almy, Sacramento Probate manager's strange firing Re "Ex-probate manager sues to get his job back," April 10: H-u-b-r-i-s. The supreme arrogance of a local judge and the administrative office of the Superior Court in damning the messenger for pointing out the flaws in the case management system of public probate guardianship used in Sacramento County cannot go without notice. If ever a case called for investigation of the Probate Court itself, the termination of James Locke from his position as probate manager is the classic case of malfeasance by those the most vulnerable trust most. Administrative Law 1A in any law school teaches "due process" and the requirement of an opportunity to be heard before any person is deprived of life, liberty or property. If, as Locke claims, the case management software was not working as designed, then the court should acknowledge the facts, and join in the review that Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, asked for. The County Adult and Aging Commission should start an independent review, based on its own prior experiences with past failures in the Sacramento County Probate Office. - Peter D'Anna, Carmichael When yahoos party in midtown Re "Some residents complain about midtown's raucous night life," April 12: My first reaction to my fellow complaining midtown neighbors is if they don't like the noise, then they should move out of the city -- that they are just a bunch of old-timers who can't stand change. Then I remembered that I also do a lot of complaining about the weekenders' bad behavior. We cannot blame the problem on alcohol alone. I've lived in other cities with more bars and nightclubs, and I honestly can say that the crowd that comes to midtown is by far the least sophisticated I've ever encountered. Too many people here act as if they are at some sort of frat party where getting drunk and making excessive noise at all hours of the night is acceptable, even desirable behavior. Some are completely oblivious to the fact that real people with jobs and kids actually live in those charming houses and apartments. I guess some of these suburbanites-at-heart think that's how they are supposed to act in a city. Well, it's not. In fact, I'm embarrassed for them. I love the fact that people have "discovered" midtown, but we need to keep it an enjoyable experience for everyone -- visitor and resident.

http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

1/1/2013

Multi-Print Viewer

Page 3 of 8

Some of these statistics can be explained by the high number of uninsured, 47 million, and the fact that we have the highest poverty rate of any industrialized county. The poor and uninsured often don't seek care until it is too late. The time is past due for a reality check and real reform. - Margaret MacDonald, Yuba City The probate whistle-blower Re "Ex-probate manager sues to get his job back," April 10: James Locke seems to be another victim of the probate court. I admire, as I'm sure many do, his intentions. Standing alone against what seems to be a very corrupt system can't be an easy task. Elderly people are being subjected to abuse inflicted on them by the very persons put in place to protect them. It looks as if Locke tried to place some accountability on the abusers -- and for that he lost his job? What is it going to take for someone to step up to the plate and investigate laws that are being ignored in our probate courts? Judges, guardians, conservators and attorneys practicing in probate court need to be made accountable. Locke deserves our gratitude for bringing much needed attention to a serious existing problem. - Jamie Lamborn, Sacramento Caption: Nancy Ohanian / Los Angeles Times Syndicate Nick Anderson / Houston Chronicle Edition: METRO FINAL Section: EDITORIALS Page: B6 Record Number: SAC_0405220518 Copyright 2008 The Sacramento Bee

http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

1/1/2013

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

10 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(67)

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

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

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

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

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

WATCHDOGS (20) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

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

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

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

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

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

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

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

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

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

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

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

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

JULIE SETZER (7)

Posted by PR Brown at 1:10 PM

YOUTUBE (7) +4 Recommend this on Google

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

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

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

Relations Courthouse

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CONTEMPT (5)

3 comments

THADD BLIZZARD (5) Add a comment

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

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

Top comments

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

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE Family Law Professor Blog

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

1 Reply

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

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

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

News

Video

Opinions

More...

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

143

VIEWS

COMMENTS

About this iReport Not verified by CNN

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal

Posted July 26, 2014 by Follow LegalNews

By LegalNews | Posted July 26, 2014 | Sacramento, California

Location Sacramento, California

Assignment

This iReport is part of an assignment: Impact Your World

More from this assignment - Sound off

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

News

Video

Opinions

More... SIGN UP

625

449

VIEWS

COMMENTS

About this iReport Not verified by CNN

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

Posted December 30, 2014 by Follow LegalNews

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

Location Sacramento, California

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

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

443

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

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

Venus, Mars, and a sliver of South Georgia moon

addition to other perks."

By RobertE

Frozen Florida By wasta1

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

Crisp Sunshine at Niagara Falls By xyzman99

Deep Freeze

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

By LonnaDFisher

Icicle Wonderland

judges.

By ingridsilvia

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

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

TAGS: vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,

3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud

Comments (5)

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

garyonthenet January 8, 2015

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

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

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

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

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

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

Center for Judicial Excellence

Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

Courageous Kids Network

Click here for family court whistleblower articles.

Divorce & Family Law News

Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

Divorce Corp

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

Posted by PR Brown at 11:15 PM

Divorced Girl Smiling Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

+2 Recommend this on Google

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

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Relations Courthouse

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

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

16 January 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

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

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

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

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

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

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

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

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

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

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

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

JDSupra Law News

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

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

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

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

Third District Court of Appeal Verifies Facilitator Dispensing False Information

138819 136

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

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

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

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

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

ABA

1102 (1) AB 590 JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

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

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

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

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

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

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

AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

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

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

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

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

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

(11) LAW SERIES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

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

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

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

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

(1) DENISE

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

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

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

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

EFFICIENCY

GOVERNMENT

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

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

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

FAMILY COURT (9) FAMILY COURT

COURT

AUDITS (1) FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2)

FAMILY COURT

MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE

(1)

FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

LAW

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

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

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)

FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

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

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS

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

FLEC (28) FOIA (2) FOX

(1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

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

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

NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN

(1) GINGER

GREGORY

SYLVESTER (1)

DWYER (1)

HAL

BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET

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

Posted by PR Brown at 10:17 PM

(9)

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

Recommend this on Google

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

DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER

(2) HONEST SERVICES (4)

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

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

BROSNAHAN (1)

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

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

(1)

JERRY

GUTHRIE

(1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS

2 comments

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

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

Add a comment

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDGES

(10) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)

COUNCIL

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63) JUDY HOLZER

Top comments

1 year ago

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

HERSHER (1) JULIE SETZER

(7) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

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

(5) LAWYER (1) LAWYERS

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

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

Newer Post

JUDICIAL (3)

Older Post

(1)

LUAN

CASE

(4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7)

MATTHEW J. GARY

(33) MCGEORGE

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL

SOL (2) T. GARCIA

(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) NANCY

GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

Home

LOLLIE LINCOLN

(1)

ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26) NEWS

YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10) OPEN GOVERNMENT

(2) OPINION (12) PARENT RIGHTS

ALIENATION

(1)

PARENTAL

PAULA

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

06 February 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

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

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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

CONTEMPT (5) THADD BLIZZARD (5)

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

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

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

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

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

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

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory California Coalition for Families and Children

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

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

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

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce

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

News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

CONTRIBUTORS Cathy Cohen ST Thomas PR Brown PelicanBriefed FCAC News RoadDog

Total Pageviews

138819

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

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

136

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (6) AB

(1)

1102 (1) AB 590

ABA

JOURNAL

ADMINISTRATORS

(1)

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(14) AL SALMEN (1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANALYSIS (36)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

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

CULTURE

(21)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

ETHICS (2)

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by PR Brown at 11:00 PM

+1 Recommend this on Google

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

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

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

3 comments

AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(3)

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

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(18) CHILD CUSTODY

(21) CHILD SUPPORT (3)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (3)

CJP (18) ClientTickler (2)

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

(11) LAW SERIES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

COURT CONDITIONS (2)

COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

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

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9) CRIMINAL

FAMILY LAW (1)

Add a comment

Top comments

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

LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)

DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

(1) DENISE

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

RICHARDS (1)

DIANE WASZNICKY (2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

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

(5)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

20 February 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

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.

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

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

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

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

More Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

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

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

27 January 2014

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

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

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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

(18) PRO PERS (18)

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

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

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

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

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

(11) JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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

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

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

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

YOUTUBE (7)

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

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

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

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

WE SUPPORT Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

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

Posted by PR Brown at 10:10 PM

Embed

+5 Recommend this on Google

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

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

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

1 comment LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION