Sacramento Attorney Elizabeth Niemi Misonduct: Fraud on the Court - Moral Turpitude - Whistleblower

Page 1

Saturday, April 2, 2016

HOME

ATTORNEYS

ATTORNEYS

PUBLIC

FUTURE LAWYERS

Search Calbar Site

ABOUT US

Home > Public > Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

PUBLIC FUTURE LAWYERS ABOUT US

QUICKLINKS

Consumer Information

ATTORNEY SEARCH Elizabeth Noreen Niemi - #226740

How Can I Find and Hire the Right Lawyer?

Current Status: Active

ATTORNEY PROVIDED INFORMATION

Will Form

This member is active and may practice law in California.

The information below was provided by the attorney and has not been verified or monitored. The State Bar does not recommend or endorse any attorney.

FAQs State Bar Overview

See below for more details.

Practice Area(s):

Appellate Practice Family Law

Profile Information The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Website: www.niemilaw.com

Bar Number: 226740 Address:

LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH N. NIEMI 2315 Capitol Ave Ste 110 Sacramento, CA 95816

Phone Number: (916) 239-2315 Fax Number: (916) 498-9592 e-mail: eniemi@NIEMILAW.com Undergraduate School:

Rice Univ; Houston TX Law School:

Notre Dame Law School; Notre Dame IN County: Sacramento District: District 3 Sections: Family Law

Solo & Small Firm

Certified Legal Specialty: Family Law (State Bar of California)

Status History Effective Date

Status Change

Present

Active

12/1/2003

Admitted to The State Bar of California

Page 1

Page 2 Government whistleblower leaked court records: Moral turpitude misconduct and fraud on the court by attorney Elizabeth N Niemi is documented in this 86-page document collection. Pages 3-4 comprise a defective, and illegal sworn declaration for attorney fees by Niemi and filed in Sacramento Superior Court.

A controlling, decisional law California court of appeal case is at pages 7-10. The case outlines the state legal requirements for attorneys making attorney fee requests in court. The case illustrates that Niemi has not met the requirements.

Pages 11-24 are two attorney fee declarations filed by other attorneys that do meet state law requirements. When compared to the Niemi declaration, the differences are obvious.

Niemi provides no itemized list of the fees she billed for, and apparently guesstimates the amount of attorney fees which, coincidentally, are just below the $5,000 threshold that would allow an immediate appeal of the attorney fees order. The $5,000 threshold law is described at pages 5-6.

Niemi did not appear in court to testify to the accuracy of the declaration, did not set forth the hours expended, did not provide her hourly rate, a detailed description of her services, or what, exactly, the client paid for each service. Niemi did not assert that her work was reasonably necessary, as required by state law.

The included sample declarations filed by attorneys who did comply with state law illustrate the moral turpitude problems with the declaration filed by Niemi.

As shown by the Niemi declaration, Niemi's co-counsel was attorney Paula Salinger.

As the news reports included in the document set show (pages 25-51), Salinger has been involved in egregious unethical and illegal conduct, including obstruction of justice crimes, filing counterfeit court documents, and violating court rules and state law. The news stories include dozens of hyperlinks to additional court records and supporting documents.

Pages 52-87 contain additional news reports alleging corruption in Sacramento Superior Court and the adjacent 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Page 2

Page 3

Page 3 CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

Page 4

Page 4

Page 5

Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(III)-F California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Hon. William F. Rylaarsdam, Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon, Contributing Editors: Atty. Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Atty.

Richard B. Goetz, and Atty. David J. Pasternak Chapter 9. Part III Sanctions F. Appellate Review Of Sanctions 1. [9:1286] Limited Right of Appeal a. [9:1288] Effect => [9:1289]

PRACTICE POINTER

b. [9:1290] No aggregation of sanctions c. [9:1290.1] Discovery sanctions?

2. [9:1290.5] Law Firm’s Standing to Appeal Sanctions Against Member 3. [9:1291] Compare—Sanctions Against Nonparties

1. [9:1286] Limited Right of Appeal: Except in a “limited civil case” (below), an immediate appeal lies from superior court sanctions against a party or counsel exceeding $5,000. [See CCP § 904.1(a)(11),(12)—appeal lies from either order or interlocutory judgment imposing sanctions] Appellate review of lesser superior court sanctions may be obtained only on appeal from the final judgment in the action or by petition for extraordinary writ. [See CCP §§ 904.1(b), 904.2] (But an immediate appeal is allowed where the action is dismissed; see Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 CA4th 967, 974, 131 CR2d 296, 300.)

Compare—limited civil cases: In a limited civil case, any appeal is to the appellate division of the superior court (CCP § 904.2). A sanctions award (not involving discovery) in a limited civil case, regardless of amount—i.e., whether or not it exceeds $5,000—is immediately appealable as a “collateral order.” [Drum v. Sup.Ct. (2006) 139 CA4th 845, 850–851, 43 CR3d 279, 283–284—failure to file timely notice of appeal precludes review of sanctions award on appeal from final judgment] It is an open question whether a sanctions order for less than $5,000 made before a case is transferred from an unlimited civil court to a limited civil court is immediately appealable. [Drum v. Sup.Ct., supra, 139 CA4th at 852, 43 CR3d at 284–285] [9:1287] Reserved. a. [9:1288] Effect: Unless the sanctions against parties or their counsel exceed $5,000 (which is rare), the only possibility for immediate appellate review in an unlimited civil case is by petition for extraordinary writ (which is rarely granted).

Conversely, if the sanctions exceed $5,000, any appeal must be taken immediately.

Page 5

Page 6

Note, however, that courts are split on whether § 904.1(a) applies to discovery sanctions; see ¶ 8:875.5. => [9:1289] PRACTICE POINTER: Don’t wait until the final judgment to appeal superior court sanctions exceeding $5,000 that are imposed against you or your client. Because an immediate appeal lies from such sanctions, the right to appeal will be waived unless notice of appeal is filed within 60 days after notice of entry of the order or judgment (CRC 8.104 (a)). [See Imuta v. Nakano (1991) 233 CA3d 1570, 1578–1579, 285 CR 681, 686] b. [9:1290] No aggregation of sanctions: Unrelated sanctions, each less than $5,000, may not be aggregated to reach the appealability threshold ... even if payable to the same person and awarded at the same time. [See Champion/L.B.S. Associates Develop. Co. v. E–Z Serve Petroleum Marketing, Inc. (1993) 15 CA4th 56, 59, 18 CR2d 726, 728 (decided under former law with $750 threshold)] Nor may sanctions of less than $5,000 payable to several parties be aggregated for purposes of appeal.

[Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 CA4th 39, 44, 24 CR2d 337, 340 (likewise decided under former law with $750 threshold)] c. [9:1290.1] Discovery sanctions? Courts have been split as to whether orders imposing monetary discovery sanctions are directly appealable, even if they meet the $5,000 threshold. See ¶ 8:875.5.

Cross-refer: See further discussion in Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Appeals & Writs (TRG), Ch. 2.

[9:1290.2–1290.4] Reserved.

2. [9:1290.5] Law Firm’s Standing to Appeal Sanctions Against Member: Because a law firm (employer) must indemnify its employee-associate for sanctions ordered to be paid by the latter (Lab.C. § 2802), the firm is an “aggrieved party” and thus has standing to appeal the sanction order. [20th Century Ins. Co. v. Choong (2000) 79 CA4th 1274, 1278, 94 CR2d 753, 754–755] 3. [9:1291] Compare—Sanctions Against Nonparties: The statutes limiting the right to appeal do not apply to sanctions against nonparty witnesses (e.g., for refusal to answer deposition questions; CCP § 2025.480, see ¶ 8:842).

A sanction against someone who is neither a party nor counsel in the action is treated as a final judgment on a collateral matter, and hence immediately appealable. [Marriage of Lemen (1980) 113 CA3d 769, 778, 170 CR 642, 646; Barton v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (1993) 17 CA4th 1358, 1361, 22 CR2d 56, 58—sanctions imposed against former attorney] © 1983-2012 by The Rutter Group, a Thomson Reuters Business (2012)End of Document

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Page 6

Page 7

Page 1

1 of 1 DOCUMENT

Cited As of: Feb 20, 2015 In re the Marriage of MAUREEN J. DURIS and WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY. MAUREEN J. DURIS, Appellant, v. WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY, Respondent.

B222002 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX 193 Cal. App. 4th 510; 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 275

March 14, 2011, Filed PRIOR-HISTORY: Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, No. 1112027, Colleen K. Sterne, Judge.

William August Urbany, in pro. per., for Respondent.

JUDGES: Opinion by Gilbert, P. J., with Yegan and Coffee, JJ., concurring.

HEADNOTES-1 OPINION BY: Gilbert CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES (1) Costs ยง 11--Sanctions--Notice and Hearing Requirement--Opportunity to Present Evidence.--The trial court erred in awarding attorney fees as sanctions against a former wife because (1) there was no notice that sanctions were an issue at a child support modification hearing, (2) there was no hearing on sanctions, and (3) there was no evidence to support the findings on the award of attorney fees.

[Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2010) ch.

226, Dissolution of Marriage: Attorney's Fees, ยง 226.12; 11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Husband and Wife, ยง 10.]

COUNSEL: Vanessa Kirker Wright for Appellant.

OPINION GILBERT, P. J.--Summary proceedings are common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in mind an immutable principle that cuts across all areas of the law: sanctions may not be summarily imposed. Due process demands more.

Petitioner Maureen J. Duris appeals a postjudgment order requiring her to pay $10,000 to respondent William August Urbany as sanctions for unnecessary litigation filed by Duris's former attorney in this dissolution of marriage action. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court erred by (1) awarding sanctions without

Page 7

Page 8

first giving advance notice to Duris that sanctions were an issue at a child support modification hearing, and (2) not affording Duris a hearing to present evidence to contest the imposition of sanctions and the amount of the fees. We reverse and remand for a new hearing.

FACTS Duris filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Urbany. On June 2, 2004, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. The court subsequently ordered the custody of their two children to be shared by Duris and Urbany.

On January 29, 2009, Duris filed a motion to modify the shared custody order. She sought "100% physical and legal custody" of her two sons and increased child support. Urbany filed an opposition.

Duris represented herself, but on September 8, 2009, she substituted Jacqueline Misho as her attorney. Misho commenced discovery and filed a motion to compel Urbany to produce documents. The trial court denied the motion. It ordered the parties to meet and confer to complete discovery.

On November 16, 2009, Duris substituted herself in place of Misho.

On November 23, 2009, the trial court held a hearing on Duris's custody and support motion. At the beginning of this proceeding, it described the issue to be decided as "modification of child support." After the completion of the testimony on the child support issues, the court said it would impose $10,000 in sanctions against Duris because of "unnecessary legal activity" filed by Misho. The court referred to Misho's prior motion to compel as a "fee sink" that "nonetheless required response on the other side." It said, "And for that reason of the approximately $25,000 that Mr. Urbany has expended in attorney's fees to date, I'm going to order Ms. Duris to absorb $10,000."

Duris told the trial court that she was an unemployed attorney, trying to find a job, and could not pay $10,000 and support her children. She said, "How am I being penalized for hiring [Misho]? How was I supposed to know? I thought she was the best there was." The court did not take evidence on the sanctions and attorney fee issues.

DISCUSSION

Page 2

Notice, Hearing and Evidence for Findings Duris contends the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees as sanctions because (1) there was no notice that sanctions were an issue at the child support hearing, (2) there was no hearing on sanctions, and (3) there was no evidence to support findings on the award of attorney fees. We agree.

Notice The trial court awarded attorney fees as sanctions against Duris because of the conduct of her prior attorney. But "for awards based principally on the wrongful conduct of a party or attorney, notice and a hearing [are] required before sanctions may be imposed."

(In re Marriage of Hublou (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 956, 964-965 [282 Cal. Rptr. 695].) "[N]otice prior of imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute but also by the due process clauses of both state and federal Constitutions." (In re Marriage of Fuller (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1077 [210 Cal. Rptr. 73].)

Here there was no advance notice on the issue of sanctions. The trial court summarily awarded them because of actions involving a prior proceeding in this case. But this hearing involved a different issue. Duris filed a motion to modify child support. In his response, Urbany could have raised attorney fees and sanctions as an issue if he had completed the information on point 15 of the income and expense declaration form (Judicial Council form FL-150). But he did not fill out that portion of that document and he never filed a notice of motion for sanctions for the November 23 hearing. The court's minute orders describe the hearing only as a motion to modify child support; there is no reference to sanctions.

At the beginning of the hearing, the court said the issue was child support; it did not mention sanctions.

Consequently, Duris had no warning that this issue would be decided. "[C]ase authority condemns imposition of sanctions without prior notice." (In re Marriage of Fuller, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1078.)

Hearing Duris was not provided a hearing on sanctions. The trial court first raised the sanctions issue during closing arguments after it had completed the evidentiary hearing on support modification. It then summarily imposed sanctions finding that Misho's motion to compel discovery was unnecessary litigation. Duris was at a

Page 8

Page 9

substantial disadvantage because the court raised the issue about Misho's conduct when Misho was not present.

Because Duris appeared in propria persona and had no prior notice, she had no opportunity to subpoena Misho to explain the reasons for filing the discovery motion.

Facts known by Misho were relevant. As Duris's counsel, Misho was legally responsible for developing the discovery strategy the court was challenging. (Gdowski v.

Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 [95 Cal. Rptr.

3d 799].) Whether Misho reasonably believed that the discovery motion might lead to admissible evidence is an important factor in deciding whether sanctions are appropriate. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 [105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 115].)

Misho and Duris had no forum to present opposition evidence. In a proceeding to determine whether an attorney's conduct justifies sanctions, there must be a sufficient opportunity to present opposing evidence. (In re Marriage of Quinlan (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1417, 1422 [257 Cal. Rptr. 850]; see also Lesser v. Huntington Harbor Corp. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 922, 933 [219 Cal. Rptr. 562] [two days' notice for a sanctions hearing is insufficient time to prepare declarations showing that litigation was filed in good faith].) Duris had no time to file declarations, and Misho was denied an opportunity to challenge the accusation against her and defend her reputation. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 652 [183 Cal. Rptr. 508, 646 P.2d 179] [sanctions determination may harm attorney's professional reputation]; see also Annex British Cars, Inc. v. ParkerRhodes (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 788, 793 [244 Cal.Rptr.

48] ["it is basic that counsel must have the opportunity to be heard on the issue before sanctions can be imposed"].)

As Duris correctly notes, a hearing would also assist the trial court in determining who should pay the sanctions and the size of the award. The court may decide that (1) the attorney who filed the challenged litigation should pay (In re Marriage of Quinlan, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 1422), or (2) the amount of sanctions should be "scaled to the payor's ability to pay" (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 828 [79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588]). Here the court acknowledged that Duris was not working. Duris's claim that paying $10,000 would hamper her ability to support her children is a factual issue that cannot be decided during the brief colloquy of a closing argument. (In re Marriage of Fuller, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1078; In

Page 3

re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 652.)

Findings and Evidence Urbany suggests that the trial court's findings on attorney fees are supported by evidence in the record.

Duris disagrees. She claims the court acted without taking evidence and that Urbany's appellate brief does not comply with the rules of court. She is correct. Duris prepared a two-volume appellant's appendix. Urbany does not challenge the completeness of it or cite to a single document in it. Most of the factual assertions in his brief involve allegations against Duris that are not accompanied by any citations to the record. (Crestmar Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232 [69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231] [appellate courts are not required to consider issues that are not supported by references to appropriate authority and citations to the record].)

Even so, Duris's claims also are well taken on the merits. The trial court said Urbany "expended" $25,000 in attorney fees, and consequently Duris should "absorb" $10,000 of that sum. But Urbany does not cite any evidence in the record to support the finding that he incurred or paid $25,000 to his attorney. Paul Capritto, Urbany's counsel, filed a trial brief on the day of the hearing. In a passing comment in that brief, he requested the court award $25,000 in attorney fees. A closing brief is not a proper method to seek sanctions. (Niko v.

Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 369 [50 Cal. Rptr.

3d 398].) The allegations of a brief are not evidence and a brief is not a sworn document. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222, fn. 5 [87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339].) Capritto did not testify. He did not file a declaration setting forth his hours, his hourly rates, a description of his services, or what Urbany paid as fees.

Urbany's income and expense declaration sets forth no amounts incurred as fees.

The absence of evidence "disclosing the nature and extent of counsel's services" hampered the trial court's ability to make fact findings. (In re Marriage of Cueva (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 290, 303 [149 Cal. Rptr. 918].) It could not impose monetary liability based on speculation or on opposing counsel's unsworn statements. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p.

1222, fn. 5.) "Without ascertaining whether or at what hourly rate the work for which reimbursement was sought was actually done, much less that the work was 'reasonably necessary' ... , the trial court could not

Page 9

Page 10

properly find that imposing" liability for the other spouse's legal fees was appropriate. (In re Marriage of Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 860, 869 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 525].)

Duris was prevented from presenting evidence to challenge the basis for the award, the reasonableness of the fees and the hourly rates. This summary imposition of attorney fees as sanctions is not consistent with due

Page 4

process procedural protections. (In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 652.)

The order requiring Duris to pay $10,000 is reversed.

The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a new hearing with proper notice. Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of appellant.

Yegan, J., and Coffee, J., concurred.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

Page 10 CJBNS.ORG

Page 11

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

Page 11 CJBNS.ORG

Page 12

Page 12

Page 13

Page 13

Page 14

Page 14

Page 15

Page 15

Page 16

Page 16

Page 17

Page 17

Page 18

Page 18

Page 19

Page 19

Page 20

Page 20

Page 21

Page 21

Page 22

Page 22

Page 23

Page 23

Page 24

Page 24

Page 25

2

More

Next BlogÂť

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court Report Investigative reporting, analysis, and opinion about Sacramento County family law and divorce court.

HOME

RACKETEERING-HONEST SERVICES FRAUD

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT Terms & Conditions

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE

RoadDog SATIRE

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

ABOUT SFCN

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Privacy Policy

07 July 2014

Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Family Court Temporary Judge and Sacramento County Bar Officer Paula Salinger

A California Judicial Branch News Service site California Judicial Branch News Service Sites

Third District Court of Appeal Report Supreme Court of California Report Commission on Judicial Performance Report

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 Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger partner Paula Salinger allegedly engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, disabled domestic violence victim without an attorney. Oversight authorities, including Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully and the State Bar have declined to investigate the allegations.Â

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case - embedded at the bottom of this post - indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party.

The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is disabled with a cognitive disability, and is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.

Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of

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

Page 25

Page 26

oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating Under California law, witness intimidation is punishable by maximum of state laws and three years in state prison. court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge.

Court 3rd District Court of Appeal State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

We Support

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

Shortcuts to Popular Subjects & Posts

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(82) JUDGE PRO TEM (52) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (44) MATTHEW J. GARY (42) KICKBACKS (33) FLEC (28)

Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case.

Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

PETER J. McBRIEN (28)

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is embedded below.

CARLSSON CASE (20)

Obstruction of Justice

CHILD CUSTODY (26) JAMES M. MIZE (25) ARTS & CULTURE (24) ROBERT SAUNDERS (24) SCBA (22) CJP (21) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (20) WATCHDOGS (20) DIVORCE CORP (19) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19) PRO PERS (19) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (19) DOCUMENTS (17)

The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.

ROBERT HIGHT (17) PAULA SALINGER (15) RAPTON-KARRES (15) SATIRE (13) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12) JAIME R. ROMAN (12) WHISTLEBLOWERS (12)

As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct.

APPEALS (11)

The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10)

Page 26

Page 27

issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) FERRIS CASE (9) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) ROBERT O'HAIR (8)

Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.

3rd DISTRICT COA (7)

Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:

MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

THADD BLIZZARD (7)

"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...

YOUTUBE (7)

...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness.

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) MIKE NEWDOW (6) CONTEMPT (5) RACKETEERING (5) CHILD ABDUCTION (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4) LUAN CASE (4)

Page one of the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

MALPRACTICE (4) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings.

SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

VANCE W. RAYE (3)

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be genderspecific)

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

As page one of the document set reflects, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case.

As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set shows, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

Total Pageviews

2 2 9 2 0 1 231

Witness Tampering Law

Page 27

Page 28 As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set below, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding. Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct.

Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.

Google+ Badge

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (7) AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1)

ABA JOURNAL (1) ABOVE THE ADA (11) LAW

(1)

ADMINISTRATORS

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(22) AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION

ANALYSIS (38)

(1)

ANDY

FURILLO (2) AOC (1) APPEALS

(11) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM

(1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5)

ARTS & CULTURE (24)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (8) ATTORNEY ETHICS (6) ATTORNEY

(44)

MISCONDUCT

ATTORNEYS (12) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.

(20) CHILD

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubberstamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees.

The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct.

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

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 set: Paula Salinger - Witness Intimidation-Influence Witness by Fraud-Obstruction of Justice - Divorce Attorney... by Sacramento Family Court News

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (1)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12)

CARLSSON CASE (20)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY ABDUCTION (4)

CHILD CUSTODY (26)

CHILD SUPPORT

(5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (6)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (7)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (4) CJE

(2) CJEO (1)

CJP (21)

ClientTickler (2) CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

CODE OF SILENCE (2)

COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

CORRUPTION (4) COURT CONDITIONS

(2)

COURT

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

COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (14)

CRIMINAL LAW

(3)

Page 28

Page 29

CRONYISM

(2)

DAVID

KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION (1)

DENISE RICHARDS (1) DIANE

WOODRUff, O'HAIR

A

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (8) DIVORCE

AW CORPORATION Sac am T l p Fa Ema il:

•

S

(2)

WASZNICKY

SA

2251 Fa i Oaks Bou

D . Thomas Woodru . C F L S ",ML" ML * Rober J O'Hai C S

ey J Pos n C F Pa la D Sa ling r

&

POSNER

nt on il pa

DIVORCE CORP (19) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS

(17) DONALD TENN (3) ATTORNEY (5)

DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD

October 28 , 2010

FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1) ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1)

EMILY GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

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

FAMILY COURT (10) FAMILY Show me more about this topic



COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY

COURT of 16

1

 

 

FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2) COURT

MEDIA

COVERAGE (1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT

Posted by PR Brown at 2:53 PM

SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY

+2 Recommend this on Google

Labels: ADA, ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, FLEC,

JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, KICKBACKS, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS, PAULA SALINGER, SACRAMENTO DA, SCBA, WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

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

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW

FACILITATOR (4) FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1) FEDERAL LAW (2)

FEDERAL LAWSUITS (4) FEE WAIVERS (2) FERRIS CASE

(9) FIRST AMENDMENT (2)

FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

2 comments

LAW

(10)

FLEC (28)

FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4) GANGNAM STYLE (1)

GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. Add a comment

APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN

(1) GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2)

Top comments

HONEST

SERVICES

(4)

INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J. PR Brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly Criminal Conduct by Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner Paula D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All WOPLAW Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer ATTORNEY PAULA ·

1 Reply



STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2) JAIME R. ROMAN

(12) JAMES BROSNAHAN (2)

JAMES M. MIZE (25)

JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOE SORGE (3)

JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1)

JOYCE TERHAAR (1) JRC (1) JUDGE Karen Rose 1 year ago (edited) - Shared publicly

Page 29

Page 30 WOODRUff, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. A LAW CORPORATION D. Thomas Woodruff. C.F.L.S.", AAML"*

2251 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento. California 95825 Telephone : (916) 920-0211 Facsimile: (916) 920 0241

Robert J. O'Hair. C.F.L.S.", AAML*" Jeffrey J. Posner, C.F.L.S.• Paula D. Salinger

Email: paula@woplaw.com

October 28, 2010

PO Box 60662 Sacramento, CA 95860 VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO Re: Marriage ofDearAs the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt.

Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October 20, 201O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271 for the necessity of defending the motions.

Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay.

Paula D. Salinger pds:sbo cc: •

Certified Family Law S.oecralisl. The Slate Bar ofCalifomiaBoarr,

>f Legal Speoalzat1on

··Fellow. Amencan Academy of Matnmonia/,

1wyers

Page 30

Page 31

Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 18-B California Practice Guide: Family Law Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black (Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman Chapter 18. Enforcement Of Orders And Judgments B. Enforcement Remedies And Procedures

1. Contempt a. [18:105] Nature of contempt—in general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties (see CCP §§ 1218 & 1219, ¶ 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864–865]…

…(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally, respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. § 213, discussed at ¶ 5:372 ff.]

However, Fam.C. § 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citee’s responsive declaration may only be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above).

[Fam.C. § 213(a)—“In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration)” (emphasis and parentheses added)]

Page 31

Page 32

Page 32

Page 33

Page 33

Page 34

Page 34

Page 35

L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

Expert Series California Criminal Law Database updated December 2011 Laurie L. Levenson, Alex Ricciardulli Chapter 13. Crimes Against the Administration of Government § 13:107. Witness intimidation Whoever attempts to prevent or dissuade a victim or crime witness from reporting the incident to law enforcement officials, prosecutors or the judge, is guilty of witness intimidation.1 A person may be guilty of aiding and abetting witness intimidation, but the evidence must show that the defendant had the specific intent for witness intimidation to be committed.

If the aider and abettor has such intent, he or she is guilty not only of the intended or target offense, but also of any other crime the direct perpetrator of the crime commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.2 However, witness intimidation is not the natural and probable consequence of vehicle burglary or illegal possession of a weapon.3 Footnotes 1 Penal Code § 136.1(b).

2

People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

3

People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

End of Document

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Page 35

Page 36

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 608 California Jurisprudence 3d Database updated May 2012 Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D. II. Crimes Against Public Justice D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses 3. Particular Offenses Involving Interference With or Influencing of Witnesses Topic Summary Correlation Table References § 608. Bribe or deceit of witness West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4) West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21 A.L.R. Library Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156 A person who gives or offers or promises to give to a witness or person about to be called as a witness a bribe upon an understanding or agreement that such person will not attend any trial or other judicial proceeding is guilty of a felony. The attempt to commit the crime is also a felony. 1 A bilateral agreement is not a necessary element of the crime. There need be no meeting of the minds between the briber and the witness. It is sufficient if the defendant offers the bribe with the intent of persuading the witness to agree not to testify. 2 A misdemeanor is committed by anyone who practices any fraud or deceit or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing to a witness or person about to be called as a witness in any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation with intent to affect the testimony of the witness. 3 Footnotes Pen. Code, § 138, subd. (a).

1 2 3

As to bribery, generally, see §§ 526 to 553.

People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685, 646 P.2d 847 (1982).

As to agreement or understanding in a prosecution for bribery, generally, see § 534.

Pen. Code, § 133.

End of Document

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Page 36

1

Page 37

§ 604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604 California Jurisprudence 3d Database updated May 2012 Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D. II. Crimes Against Public Justice D. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses 2. Preventing or Dissuading Attendance, Testimony, or Reporting of Crimes by Witness or Victim Topic Summary Correlation Table References § 604. Generally West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4) West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21 A.L.R. Library Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence a witness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156 It is a public offense to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law or to attempt to do so. 1 Advising a witness to conceal himself or herself for the purpose of avoiding service of a subpoena is a violation of this provision. 2 Evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim creates a presumption that the act was without malice. 3 It is a crime to attempt to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crime from doing any of the following: • making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge 4 • causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation, or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof 5 • arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization 6 Footnotes Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a).

1 In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790 (2d Dist. 1983).

2 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(3).

3 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1).

4 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2).

5 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(3).

6 End of Document

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Page 37

1

0030

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 38

2622. Intimidating a Witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b)) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with intimidating a witness [in violation of Penal Code section 136.1].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: <Alternative 1A—attending or giving testimony> [1. The defendant maliciously (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from (attending/ [or] giving testimony at) <insert type of judicial proceeding or inquiry authorized by law>;] <Alternative 1B—report of victimization> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from making a report that (he/she/someone else) was a victim of a crime to <insert type of offıcial specified in Pen. Code, § 136.1(b)(1)>;] <Alternative 1C—causing prosecution> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from cooperating or providing information so that a (complaint/indictment/information/probation violation/parole violation) could be sought and prosecuted, and from helping to prosecute that action;] <Alternative 1D—causing arrest> [1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from (arresting[,]/ [or] (causing/ [or] seeking) the arrest of [,]) someone in connection with a crime;] 2.

<insert name/description of person defendant 542

(Pub. 1284)

Page 38

0031

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 39 CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

allegedly sought to influence> was a (witness/ [or] crime victim); AND 3. The defendant knew (he/she) was (trying to (prevent/ [or] discourage)/(preventing/ [or] discouraging)) <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> from <insert appropriate description from element 1> and intended to do so.

[A person acts maliciously when he or she unlawfully intends to annoy, harm, or injure someone else in any way, or intends to interfere in any way with the orderly administration of justice.]

[As used here, witness means someone [or a person the defendant reasonably believed to be someone]: <Give the appropriate bracketed paragraph[s].> • [Who knows about the existence or nonexistence of facts relating to a crime(;/.)]

[OR] • [Whose declaration under oath has been or may be received as evidence(;/.)]

[OR] • [Who has reported a crime to a (peace officer[,]/ [or] prosecutor[,]/ [or] probation or parole officer[,]/ [or] correctional officer[,]/ [or] judicial officer)(;/.)]

[OR • [Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any state or federal court.]]

[A person is a victim if there is reason to believe that a federal or state crime is being or has been committed or attempted against him or her.]

[It is not a defense that the defendant was not successful in preventing or discouraging the (victim/ [or] witness).]

543

(Pub. 1284)

Page 39

0032

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 40 CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

[It is not a defense that no one was actually physically injured or otherwise intimidated.]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.

In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(a), which prohibits “knowingly and maliciously” preventing or attempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives 1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b).

Subdivision (b) does not use the words “knowingly and maliciously.”

However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation of either subdivision (a) or (b) is done “knowingly and maliciously,” and one of the other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made that the knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Code section 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factors under subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, the committee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intent requirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malice requirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court should give the bracketed word “maliciously” in element 1, in alternatives 1B through 1D, and the definition of this word.

If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness: Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factor based on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623 and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless the court has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendant has stipulated to the conviction.

Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, “For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.” It is unclear whether the court must instruct on this presumption.

544

(Pub. 1284)

Page 40

0033

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 41 CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

AUTHORITY •

Elements.

Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b).

•

Malice Defined.

•

Witness Defined.

•

Victim Defined.

•

Specific Intent Required. People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, § 136(1).

Pen. Code, § 136(2).

Pen. Code, § 136(3).

Secondary Sources 2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Governmental Authority, §§ 5, 6.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82, Witnesses, § 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, § 84.11 (Matthew Bender).

5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91, Sentencing, §§ 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person, § 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order, § 144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES A violation of Penal Code section 136.1(a) or (b) is a felony-misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of three years in state prison. If the defendant is also charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section 136.1(c), then the offense is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years.

In the defendant is charged under Penal Code section 131.6(c), then the offenses under subdivisions (a) and (b) are lesser included offenses. The court must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury will indicate if the prosecution has proved the sentencing factor alleged. If the jury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should be set at the level of the lesser offense.

The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser included offense of Penal Code section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

545

(Pub. 1284)

Page 41

0034

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 42 CALCRIM No. 2622

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

RELATED ISSUES Penal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138 Because one cannot “influence” the testimony of a witness if the witness does not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistent with a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires that a defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)

546

(Pub. 1284)

Page 42

0027

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 43

2621. Influencing a Witness by Fraud (Pen. Code, § 137(b)) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with using fraud to influence a person to (give false (testimony/ [or] information)/ [or] withhold true (testimony/ [or] information)) [in violation of Penal Code section 137(b)].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant used fraud against <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence>; AND <Alternative 2A—to give or withhold testimony> [2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> to (give false testimony/ [or] withhold true testimony).] <Alternative 2B—to give or withhold information> [2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> to (give false material information about a crime to/ [or] withhold true material information about a crime from) a law enforcement official.]

A person uses fraud when he or she makes a false statement, misrepresents information, hides the truth, or otherwise does something with the intent to deceive.

[Information is material if it is significant or important.] [(A/The) (district attorney[,]/ [or] deputy district attorney[,]/ [or] city attorney[,]/ [or] deputy city attorney[,]/ [or] Attorney General[,]/ [or] deputy attorney general[,]/ [or] <insert title of peace offıcer included in Pen. Code, § 830 et seq.>) is a law enforcement official.]

[The People do not need to prove that <insert name/ description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence> 539

(Pub. 1284)

Page 43

0028

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 44 CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

actually (gave false (testimony/information)/ [or] withheld true (testimony/information)).]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.

Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The People do not need to prove that” if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of the alleged target was not affected.

AUTHORITY •

Elements.

Pen. Code, § 137(b).

•

Fraud Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 770].

•

Law Enforcement Official Defined.

•

Specific Intent Required. People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Pen. Code, § 137(e).

Secondary Sources 2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Governmental Authority, § 12.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a law enforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesser included offense of section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made.

(People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

RELATED ISSUES Deceiving a Witness Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133: Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to any witness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with 540

(Pub. 1284)

Page 44

0029

[ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012 XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

Page 45 CALCRIM No. 2621

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

intent to affect the testimony of such witness, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

541

(Pub. 1284)

Page 45

Page 46

Fair Oaks-Carmichael

 Find Your Patch

43° Partly Cloudy

 Home

 All Topics  Opinion

Paula Salinger Charged with Obstruction of Justice Crimes by Family Court Watchdog Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Accused of Criminal Acts Against Domestic Violence Victim.

By Cathy Cohen (Open Post)

 July 14, 2014 at 4:46pm 



Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner

Page 46



Page 47 Implicated in Unsettling New Report from Sacramento Family Court News

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.

Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and

court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and

obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge.

Attorney Collusion with Judge Matthew J. Gary Documented by Court Records

Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence

Page 47

Page 48 victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and

Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set also is embedded with the original article at Sacramento Family Court News.

Obstruction of Justice Crimes

The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the

Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness.

Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes.

The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary. As reflected by page one of the document set posted at Scribd and SFCN, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Salinger then

Page 48

Page 49 used the unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party: "As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt... ...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set posted at Sacramento Family Court News is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

Contempt Filing Against Salinger Client Triggers Criminal Acts

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

As page one of the document set posted at SFCN reflects, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect,

Page 49

Page 50 Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set indicates, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

Witness Intimidation - Influencing a Witness by Fraud

As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness.

Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding.

Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for

egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings,

Page 50

Page 51 and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. The report will be published by SFCN in the near future.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a

racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubberstamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees.

The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge.

California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

Click here to view the original article at Sacramento Family Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism organization publishing investigative reporting, news analysis, opinion and satire about the local family court system.

Share









Page 51

Page 52

316

More

Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court Report Investigative reporting, analysis, and opinion about Sacramento County family law and divorce court.

HOME

RACKETEERING-HONEST SERVICES FRAUD

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT Terms & Conditions

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE

RoadDog SATIRE

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

ABOUT SFCN

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Privacy Policy

A California Judicial Branch News Service site

RACKETEERING-HONEST SERVICES FRAUD Sacramento County Family Law Court Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers

California Judicial Branch News Service Sites

Third District Court of Appeal Report

Hyperlinks throughout this special investigative report link to whistleblower leaked documents and other original source material.

Supreme Court of California Report

The family court division of Sacramento Superior Court is controlled and operated by an illegal parallel government structure made up of local divorce lawyers who also work as part-time judges, court employees and clerks, and full-time judges, according to whistleblower leaked documents and court watchdogs.

Commission on Judicial Performance Report

The shadow government is without the same transparency and accountability required of legitimate Judicial Branch agencies, and meets the legal definition of a criminal racketeering enterprise, whistleblowers charge.

Law Blogs We Like

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

Legal News & Information

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise

The alleged criminal organization Whistleblowers allege that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court operates as a racketeering reportedly has operated for more than enterprise similar to the Kids for Cash scheme uncovered 20 years under the direction of in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a prior Sacramento County criminal conviction and two misconduct convictions by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for violations of state judicial ethics laws.

Court watchdogs assert that many current and former Sacramento County judges have direct or indirect ties to the corruption, including James Mize, Matthew Gary, Jaime Roman, Thadd Blizzard, Vance Raye, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Thomas Cecil and Dave Sterling.

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

Page 52

Page 53

Some judges were active participants or effectively facilitated the racketeering as accessories, while others - including virtually every judge assigned to the family law division over the last 20 years - knew or should have known that systemic lawbreaking, institutionalized socioeconomic bias, and criminal activity were occurring, yet turned a blind eye and failed to report the misconduct to oversight authorities, whistleblowers charge.

Court 3rd District Court of Appeal State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

We Support

Judge Peter McBrien quietly retired in 2014 and, due to his prior CJP misconduct convictions, is prohibited from continuing to work as a retired judge, according to former CJP prosecutor and current Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum.

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition Californians Aware

But, using a loophole in state law and his local court administration contacts, before he retired McBrien arranged to be immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight, according to a court employee whistleblower. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.

As detailed later in this report, the alleged corruption is so pervasive that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court was featured in the 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp. The movie documented family court corruption throughout the United States and designated Sacramento County as one of the most corrupt family courts in the nation.

Shortcuts to Popular Subjects & Posts

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(82) JUDGE PRO TEM (52) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (44) MATTHEW J. GARY (42) KICKBACKS (33) FLEC (28) PETER J. McBRIEN (28) CHILD CUSTODY (26)

Rubber-Stamped Court Orders

JAMES M. MIZE (25) ARTS & CULTURE (24)

Court whistleblowers assert that divorce lawyers in the organization receive preferential treatment, "kickbacks," and other forms of compensation from judges, court employees and clerks because they volunteer to work as part-time judges and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

ROBERT SAUNDERS (24)

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders issued when the attorneys file motions while representing clients in court.

SATIRE (13)

Court records show that the reciprocal quid pro quo agreement also includes the rubberstamped denial, and

SCBA (22) CJP (21) CARLSSON CASE (20) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (20) WATCHDOGS (20) DIVORCE CORP (19) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19) PRO PERS (19) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (19) DOCUMENTS (17) ROBERT HIGHT (17) PAULA SALINGER (15) RAPTON-KARRES (15) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12) JAIME R. ROMAN (12) WHISTLEBLOWERS (12) APPEALS (11) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designated Sacramento County as one of the most corrupt divorce and family law courts in the United States.

LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10)

Page 53

Page 54

even summary denial of motions filed by opposing parties, and especially unrepresented opposing parties who are indigent or disabled, or both.

The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings go far beyond the boundaries of, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. The orders themselves often are deliberately structured without facts, law, or findings, effectively making any potential appeal futile under two legal principles called the "doctrine of implied findings," and the "presumption of correctness."

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) FERRIS CASE (9) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) 3rd DISTRICT COA (7) JULIE SETZER (7) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7) THADD BLIZZARD (7) YOUTUBE (7)

The orders clearly are illegal as a matter of law, according to court reform advocates, "outsider" attorneys, and the law practice reference publications used by judges and lawyers. SFCN has posted examples of the orders online at Scribd and other document publishing sites. Order links are provided throughout this report.

CHRISTINA ARCURI (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) MIKE NEWDOW (6) CONTEMPT (5) RACKETEERING (5)

Court case files also indicate that in some cases, judges simply ignore the requests in motions filed by pro pers, or even collude with judge pro tem attorneys to block the motions from being heard.

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5) CHILD ABDUCTION (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

LUAN CASE (4)

Statistical case sampling data compiled by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that, when compared to other counties, Sacramento County has a significantly higher proportion of family court divorce cases where only one side has an attorney, despite state laws mandating a "level playing field" - meaning both sides have a lawyer - where the marital community income and assets make legal representation economically feasible.

THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

An important component of the alleged racketeering scheme is keeping pro per parties disadvantaged by preventing them from obtaining counsel. Oral and written requests for attorney fee funds are one of the most often denied, or ignored, motions made by pro pers.

MALPRACTICE (4) VANCE W. RAYE (3)

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be genderspecific)

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 The Sacramento County Bar Association openly acknowledges its unorthodox relationship with the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court.

Whistleblowers emphasize that it is hard to overstate the significance of this specific benefit provided under the reciprocal agreement between judges and judge pro tem attorneys. Divorce lawyers liken winning cases against pro per parties to shooting fish in a barrel. Both state and federal courts have long mocked and derided attorneys who represent themselves in court as having a "fool for a client," especially in emotionally charged divorce cases.

Published decisional law makes clear that if lawyers - who have formal education and training in the law - are fools for attempting to represent themselves in court, indigent and disabled family court pro pers with no education or training in the law have virtually no chance of prevailing against an experienced family law attorney.

Yet this manifestly unfair power imbalance goes unacknowledged, and is in fact facilitated by many Sacramento Family Court judges, according to whistleblower leaked

Family Law Courts.com Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News Fathers 4 Justice HuffPost Divorce Leon Koziol.Com Moving Past Divorce News and Views Riverside Superior Court Weightier Matter

Total Pageviews

2 2 9 2 0 1 231

Page 54

Page 55

court records and court reform advocates.

Google+ Badge

PR Brown

Follow

Racketeering Scheme Targets Divorce Cases Where Only One Side Has a Lawyer Labels

Most of the demonstrably unlawful orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many pro per litigants - who make up over 70 percent of court users - also are disabled.

In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged to intentionally, and illegally mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights. Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructions erected by court employees and trial court judges, and most eventually give up.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (7) AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1)

ABA JOURNAL (1) ABOVE THE ADA (11) LAW

(1)

ADMINISTRATORS

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(22) AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION

ANALYSIS (38)

(1)

ANDY

FURILLO (2) AOC (1) APPEALS

(11) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM

Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse of vexatious litigant law and Family Code case management law, according to whistleblowers and court records. The illegal litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of federal law.

(1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5)

In exchange for acting as sworn temporary judges, operating the settlement program and reducing the caseload and workload of judges and court employees, the attorneys also receive preferential trial scheduling, an unlawful "emolument, gratuity or reward" prohibited by Penal Code § 94.

OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI

The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include one-sided divisions of community property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and spousal support terms.

Court reform advocates also assert that the racketeering enterprise enables rampant fee churning and unjust enrichment by judge pro tem divorce lawyers, results in pro per financial devastation, homelessness, and imprisonment, and has caused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.

Years of illegal, pay-to-play child custody orders have resulted in the formation of several Sacramento-based court reform and oversight organizations, including Fathers 4 Justice, California Protective Parents Association, and the Family Court Accountability Coalition. The same family court watchdog group phenomenon has not occurred in any other county in the state.

ARTS & CULTURE (24)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (8) ATTORNEY ETHICS (6) ATTORNEY

(44)

MISCONDUCT

ATTORNEYS (12) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK

AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (1)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12)

CARLSSON CASE (20)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(20) CHILD

ABDUCTION (4)

CHILD CUSTODY (26)

CHILD SUPPORT

(5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (6)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (7)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (4) CJE

(2) CJEO (1)

CJP (21)

ClientTickler (2) CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

CODE OF SILENCE (2)

COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

CORRUPTION (4) COURT CONDITIONS

(2)

COURT

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

During three days of sworn testimony at his Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution, Judge Peter McBrien inadvertently revealed aspects of an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise operating in the Sacramento County family court system.

COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (14)

CRIMINAL LAW

(3)

Page 55

Page 56

CRONYISM (2) DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION (1)

Violations of State and Federal, Criminal and Civil Laws, with Predicate Acts

DENISE RICHARDS (1) DIANE

The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children, according to several "outsider" attorneys.

DIVORCE CORP (19) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS

(17) DONALD TENN (3)

Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice, child abduction, and receipt of an illegal emolument, gratuity, or reward by a judicial officer (Penal Code § 94).

With the help of court employee whistleblowers, Sacramento Family Court News has partially reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals the Kids for Cash court scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently exposed by the FBI.

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

(2)

WASZNICKY

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (8) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5)

DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1) ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1)

EMILY GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

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

FAMILY COURT (10) FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY

COURT

FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2) COURT

MEDIA

COVERAGE (1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT

SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

LAW

(10)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW

FACILITATOR (4) FATHERS FOR

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and judge pro tem attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by Judge Vance Raye, Judge Peter McBrien and lawyers from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution.

JUSTICE (1) FEDERAL LAW (2)

FEDERAL LAWSUITS (4) FEE WAIVERS (2) FERRIS CASE

(9) FIRST AMENDMENT (2)

FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

FLEC (28)

FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4) GANGNAM STYLE (1)

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

(1) GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET

Click here to read the transcript of the controversial judge's testimony.

DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2)

3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye is the co-architect of the current Sacramento County Family Court system. Click here for details.

In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.

Judge Vance Raye is now the Presiding Justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court. The appellate court has been embroiled in a number of controversies

HONEST

SERVICES

(4)

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

(12) JAMES BROSNAHAN (2)

JAMES M. MIZE (25)

JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JODY PATEL (1) JOE SORGE (3)

JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1)

JOYCE TERHAAR (1) JRC (1) JUDGE

(1)

JUDGE PRO

Page 56

Page 57

surrounding the review of Sacramento family court cases.

In 2012, troubled Sacramento County Judge James Mize, - a personal friend of McBrien - further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called "One Day Divorce Program."

Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does serve the needs and financial interests of family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.

Reducing the Caseload and Workload of Judges and Court Staff in Exchange for Kickbacks

TEM (52)

SALARIES (1)

JUDGE

JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK JUDICIAL COUNCIL (6)

(1)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(82) JUDY HOLZER HERSHER

(1)

JULIE

SETZER

KICKBACKS (33)

(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) LEON KOZIOL

(1) LINCOLN (1) LISTS (4)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARTIN HOSHINO (2) MARY MOLINARO

(1) MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ

(7) MATTHEW J. GARY

(42)

Unrepresented "pro per" litigants who can't afford a lawyer report that temporary judges use coercion and deceptive tactics during mandatory settlement conferences.

MCGEORGE SOL (2)

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA (1)

MIKE NEWDOW (6) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

One objective of the allegedly illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.

At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.

In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.

In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90 percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion mornings," the judge added.

Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil laws.

Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.

In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit

NEWS (35) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (24) NEWS YOU CAN USE (5) News10 (1)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2)

OPINION (12) PARENTAL PAULA ALIENATION

(1)

SALINGER (15) PERJURY (1)

PETER J. McBRIEN (28)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3)

PRESIDING JUDGE (2) PRO PERS (19) PROTEST (9) PSY

(1)

PUBLIC

RECORDS

(1)

RACKETEERING (5) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1) RAPTONKARRES

(15)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (4)

REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

RICHARD SOKOL (13) RICO

(2) ROBERT

HIGHT (17)

O'HAIR

ROBERT

(8)

ROBERT SAUNDERS

(24) ROLAND L. CANDEE (1) RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD ROBIE (1)

RUSSELL CARLSON (4)

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

SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR

BEE (7)

COUNTY COURT (2)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (16)

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (19)

Page 57

Page 58

the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.

The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws, including the California Unfair Business Practices Act.

Racketeering Scheme Immunizes Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1) SATIRE (13)

SCBA

(22)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

BUCHANAN

(5)

SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE

SELF-HELP

(1)

(1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (1)

SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

SHARON HUDDLE (6) SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4) SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6)

STATE BAR (9) STEPHEN WAGNER

(2)

LEAVENWORTH

STEUART

(1)

STEVE

WHITE (2) STEVEN GEVERCER

(1)

STEVEN

SPIELBERG

(1)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (17)

SUNSHINE WEEK

(2)

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (5) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADD BLIZZARD (7) THADDEUS STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP

(1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5)

TIMOTHY ZEFF (7) TOMMY LEE JONES (1) ULF CARLSSON (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

Government whistleblowers allege that Sacramento Family Court corruption results in the misuse of federal funds, deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, and deprives unrepresented, disabled, and financially disadvantaged court users of their civil rights.

VANCE

W.

RAYE

(3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5)

VICTORIA HENLEY (1) VICTORY OUTREACH

CHURCH (1) VL-

CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET

The quid pro quo arrangement also involves what whistleblowers assert is a reciprocal protection racket that conceals the organization from discovery by law enforcement agencies and state oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, responsible for judge misconduct, and the State Bar Association, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline.

Case audits conducted by SFCN show that judge pro tem attorneys routinely violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules, but are never reported to the State Bar, or assessed fines, penalties or "sanctions" by full-time judges as required by state law.

JOURNAL

(1)

WASTE

WATCHDOGS

(1)

(20)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (12)

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

(3)

YOLO

COUNTY (1) YOUTUBE (7)

Pro pers who attempt to report judge pro tem attorney misconduct to the State Bar are told they need a court order from a judge before a disciplinary investigation against an opposing attorney can take place. There are no known instances where a judge issued such an order.

Court records leaked by whistleblowers also indicate that the under quid pro quo agreement, judges effectively shield attorneys from criminal investigation and prosecution for alleged crimes, including witness intimidation, child abduction, filing counterfeit documents, and violations of state and federal civil rights laws.

On the other hand, at the request of cartel attorneys, pro per litigants are routinely

Page 58

Page 59

punished by judges with illegal fines, draconian financial sanctions, and other types of punishment to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing judge pro tem lawyers.

Attorneys provide judges reciprocal protection by not reporting the judicial misconduct, Code of Judicial Ethics violations, and criminal conduct committed by full-time judge cartel members. And the lawyers do more.

To help conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, on the rare occasion when full-time judges do face investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance, members of the cartel provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge.

The testimony and support is designed to, and does reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP, ensuring judge members remain on the bench.

Racketeering Conduct of Court Clerks, Supervisors and the Family Law Facilitator

The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, and pattern and practice misconduct by court clerks, supervisors, and the Family Law Facilitator office.

In this case, a court clerk illegally "unfiled" a notice of appeal

Court clerks routinely refuse filed by an indigent, disabled pro per litigant. to file legally sufficient paperwork for pro per parties, while at the same time filing legally insufficient, and even counterfeit paperwork which they are required by law to reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.

In some cases, judges and court clerks work in tandem to prevent pro per parties from filing documents at court hearings for the benefit of judge pro tems, deliberately creating an incomplete and inaccurate trial court record in the event the pro per files an appeal.

Court records show that clerks also deliberately withhold and delay the filing of time sensitive pro per documents until after filing deadlines have expired.

Family Law Facilitator staff provide pro per litigants with false information designed to conceal state law violations by court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys with written legal advice and "bench tips." When pro pers ask facilitator staff for similar information, they are told that facilitator employees are prohibited from giving legal advice.

Alleged Racketeering Whistleblower Evidence Catalog Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and bias

Page 59

Page 60

against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys, including: * Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014.

After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction. * Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie.

The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp. * After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now Divorce Corp, chronicling Sacramento Superior Court corruption, is now available on Netflix. abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete, scathing account. * Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order.

Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys. * Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client.

The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative report, click here.

*Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in

Page 60

Page 61

2006 override a California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details. * Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest posts.

* Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the 70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers. F For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial Performance, McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule.

Click here and here. * In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law.

Divorce attorney and temporary judge Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton of Mel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.

The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley.

The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case. * Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for our investigative report. * An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan.

The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.

* Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal

Page 61

Page 62

judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121.

Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report...

* ...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here.

In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details. Watch the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News video below:

* In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial.

6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's conduct in the case as a "judicial reign of terror." McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009. Click here to read the court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP. * Judge pro tem attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009.

As sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge.

Page 62

Page 63

In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues. * Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008.

The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report. * Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem.

A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.

* In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers make it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence.

Click here for our report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities. * Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report. * Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were clients and potential clients of the attorney.

The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court

Page 63

Page 64

administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to read our report. * Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall was disbarred from the practice of law on Nov. 24, 2011.

Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without notifying the client or obtaining court permission.

Court administrators concealed from the public that Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge. Click here to view our report. * Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in 2008 helped Donna Gary - the wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy. * In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section.

Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court administrators and judges. Click here for our report. * Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, reform advocates claim. * Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources. * Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and "outsider attorneys."

Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to the

Page 64

Page 65

Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated. * The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about FLEC. * Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of office.

To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons, Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical selfpolicing component of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.

Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program and Roster For information about the role of temporary judges in family court, click here. For official Sacramento County Superior Court information about the Temporary Judge Program click here.

Using public records law, Sacramento Family Court News obtained the list of private practice attorneys who also act as judge pro tems in Sacramento Family Law Court.

Each lawyer on the list below is currently a temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. SFCN cross-checked each name on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list with California State Bar Data.

The first name in each listing is the name that appears on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list, the second name, the State Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived from the official State Bar data for each attorney. The State Bar data was obtained using the search function at the State Bar website.

For-profit, private sector lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge: Sandy Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1

Page 65

Page 66

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

TV

Opinions

More...

SIGN UP

625 VIEWS

5

COMMENTS

449

SHARES

About this iReport Not verified by CNN

|

LOG IN

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

Posted December 30, 2014 by Follow LegalNews

443

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.

Page 66

Page 67

"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 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

More iReports you should see

Venus, Mars, and a sliver of South Georgia moon

By RobertE

Frozen Florida By wasta1

addition to other perks."

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 By ingridsilvia

judges.

"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

Page 67

Page 68

settlement conference run by a judge pro tem lawyer who often is a personal friend of the other attorney. As we've now documented, the outcome of these rigged settlement conferences is not fair, ethical, or legal. The conflicts of interest are required by state law to be disclosed, but never are."

The alleged criminal enterprise deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, a crime under 18 USC 1346, includes predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, and thereby constitutes a RICO racketeering enterprise under federal criminal law (18 USC 1962), according to the watchdog group.

Carlsson said the judge-attorney collusion also violates a number of state laws as well. "The scheme results in unjust enrichment for the judge pro tem attorneys, constitutes unfair business practices, and implicates antitrust laws," Carlsson asserted. "Due to their consistent, virtually perfect success rate in obtaining favorable outcomes in court proceedings, the temporary judge lawyers have achieved a significant monopoly on the family law and divorce business in the greater-Sacramento area."

The 43-page set of documents compiled by the group is posted online at Scribd, and can be viewed at this URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/251282897/Justice-Vance-W-Raye-Charged-inColor-of-Law-Conspiracy-RICO-Racketeering-Scheme-in-3rd-District-Court-ofAppeal-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Sacramen

TAGS: vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,

3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud

What do you think of this story?

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

Comments (5)

Log in to comment

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

Page 68

Page 69

3

More

Next Blog»

Create Blog Sign In

Sacramento Family Court Report Investigative reporting, analysis, and opinion about Sacramento County family law and divorce court.

HOME

RACKETEERING-HONEST SERVICES FRAUD

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT Terms & Conditions

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE

RoadDog SATIRE

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

ABOUT SFCN

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Privacy Policy

A California Judicial Branch News Service site

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY Third District Court of Appeal:

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

California Judicial Branch News Service Sites

Third District Court of Appeal Report Supreme Court of California Report Commission on Judicial Performance Report

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

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation This ongoing investigative project was updated in December, 2015.

Legal News & Information

California Lawyer Magazine Courthouse News Service Metropolitan News Enterprise

Sacramento Family Court News is conducting an ongoing investigation of published and unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family courts. This page is regularly updated with our latest news, analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an unsettling link between how an appeal is decided and the political ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of appeal judges assigned to the appeal.

Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw and the undisclosed connections between the trial court judge whose order is appealed, the trial and appellate court attorneys, and the judges assigned to resolve the appeal.

The collusive atmosphere falls hardest on unrepresented or "pro per" appeal parties

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

Page 69

Page 70

who can't afford to hire a local appellate attorney. 3rd District appeal outcome statistical data reveals a virtually perfect record of success for attorneys in cases where the opposing party is a pro per. Appeals taken by pro per litigants rarely, if ever, succeed.

Court records, statistical sampling of family court appeals, appellate court docket entries, litigant interviews and anecdotal evidence indicate that the court conveys hostility - if not outright contempt - for financially disadvantaged parties who cannot afford counsel. Many financially disadvantaged litigants who attempt appeals in the 3rd District also are disabled.

Court 3rd District Court of Appeal State Bar of California State Bar Court Sacramento County Bar Association

We Support

Electronic Frontier Foundation First Amendment Coalition

In addition, a separate SFCN investigation has uncovered evidence that both trial and appellate court judges, part-time judges, and court employees deliberately obstruct appeals by indigent, unrepresented parties. Appeal data from the Third District reveals that most pro per appeals are never decided on the merits and are instead dismissed on legal technicalities, which often are caused by the deliberate acts of government employees.

Californians Aware

Shortcuts to Popular Subjects & Posts

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(82) JUDGE PRO TEM (52)

Court whistleblowers assert and have documented that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal effectively operate as a RICO racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (44) MATTHEW J. GARY (42) KICKBACKS (33) FLEC (28)

The alleged federal crimes also include the misuse or conversion of federal funds received by the courts, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice, child abduction, and receipt of illegal emoluments, gratuities or rewards by judicial officers (Penal Code § 94). To read our complete report on the allegations click here.

PETER J. McBRIEN (28) CHILD CUSTODY (26) JAMES M. MIZE (25) ARTS & CULTURE (24) ROBERT SAUNDERS (24) SCBA (22)

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, designated Sacramento County as the most corrupt family court in the United States. The movie is now available on Netflix. Court watchdogs contend that the scale and scope of the corruption rivals the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which also became a documentary film.

Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of ten judges. The background of each judge appears to be a critical factor in how an appeal is decided.

CARLSSON CASE (20) CHARLOTTE KEELEY (20) WATCHDOGS (20) DIVORCE CORP (19) EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19) PRO PERS (19) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (19)

Friends in Low Places

For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from Sacramento County Superior Court will often effectively cover for judicial errors in appeals from the same court.

CJP (21)

DOCUMENTS (17) ROBERT HIGHT (17) PAULA SALINGER (15) RAPTON-KARRES (15) SATIRE (13) CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12) 3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal outcomes are inconsistent, and in large part determined by the work history, and social or professional connections of the three judges assigned to decide an appeal.

Third District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye previously were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Each have personal, social, or professional ties to family court judges and attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on the

JAIME R. ROMAN (12) WHISTLEBLOWERS (12) APPEALS (11) COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

(11) LAURIE M. EARL (10) NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10)

Page 70

Page 71

bench.

"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do that for two reasons. One, I think it's a responsibility of a judge to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it. But I really like the people.

I really like going to these events. I enjoy friendships and that sort of thing." Click here to view Scotland's statement.

Sacramento Lawyer, the monthly magazine of the Sacramento County Bar Association each month publishes accounts of recent social, educational and charitable events sponsored by the association, its 17 specialty law sections including the family law section - and its eight local affiliates, including the Asian/Pacific Bar Association, and Women Lawyers of Sacramento. Most are well attended by a mix of state and federal judges, court administrators, supervisors and employees, and lawyers.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) FERRIS CASE (9) JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) 3rd DISTRICT COA (7) JULIE SETZER (7) MATTHEW HERNANDEZ

(7) THADD BLIZZARD (7) YOUTUBE (7) CHRISTINA ARCURI (6) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) MIKE NEWDOW (6) CONTEMPT (5) RACKETEERING (5)

To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.

Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating from Sacramento Family Law Court.

Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial Performance prosecution of family court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal and CJP decision against McBrien, click here. The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions.

It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to avoid the appearance of partiality.

Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California due to personal and professional relationships with local state court judges.

The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5) CHILD ABDUCTION (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4) LUAN CASE (4) MALPRACTICE (4) THOMAS M. CECIL (4) VANCE W. RAYE (3)

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be genderspecific)

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

History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System

Total Pageviews

2 2 9 2 0 1 In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien

231

Google+ Badge

Page 71

Page 72

and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the presentTani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien day family court structure. The public

in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997court system was built to the 2005. specifications of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here.

To view the same, current day collusion, click here.

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

PR Brown Follow

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2) 3rd DISTRICT

COA (7) AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1)

ABA JOURNAL (1) ABOVE THE ADA (11) LAW

(1)

ADMINISTRATORS

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(22) AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION

ANALYSIS (38)

(1)

ANDY

FURILLO (2) AOC (1) APPEALS

(11) ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM

(1) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5)

ARTS & CULTURE (24)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (8) ATTORNEY ETHICS (6) ATTORNEY

(44)

MISCONDUCT

ATTORNEYS (12) BAR ASSOCIATION (11) BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI

(1)

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

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

Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys - which then essentially was rubberstamped by the bench. "[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented the whole of

(1) CALIFORNIA

LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (1)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (12)

CARLSSON CASE (20)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY

(20) CHILD

ABDUCTION (4)

CHILD CUSTODY (26)

CHILD SUPPORT

(5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (6)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (7)

CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJA (4) CJE

(2) CJEO (1)

CJP (21)

ClientTickler (2) CNN (1) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

CODE OF SILENCE (2)

COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3) CONTEMPT (5)

CORRUPTION (4) COURT CONDITIONS

(2)

COURT

EMPLOYEE (1) COURT EMPLOYEE

Page 72

Page it to the 73 full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view.

In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if any, consideration of the needs of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli said.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."

"In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as 'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge. To view a list of similar CJP decisions, click here.

According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf], published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. To view this section of the Handbook, click here.

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties to the family law bar.

"The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported.

CODE OF ETHICS (1) COURT POLICIES (1) COURT RULES (4)

COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (14)

CRIMINAL LAW

(3)

CRONYISM (2) DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION (1)

DENISE RICHARDS (1) DIANE WASZNICKY

(2)

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DIVORCE (8) DIVORCE

DIVORCE CORP (19) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS

(17) DONALD TENN (3) ATTORNEY (5)

DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1) ELAINE VAN BEVEREN (13) ELECTIONS (1)

EMILY GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)

EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

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

FAMILY COURT (10) FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY

COURT

FAMILY

CONDITIONS (2) COURT

MEDIA

COVERAGE (1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT

SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY

LAW

(10)

FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW

FACILITATOR (4) FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1) FEDERAL LAW (2)

FEDERAL LAWSUITS (4) FEE WAIVERS (2) FERRIS CASE

(9) FIRST AMENDMENT (2)

FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2)

FLEC (28)

FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4) GANGNAM STYLE (1)

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

(1) GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2)

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

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section

Holiday Luncheon.

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law

HONEST

SERVICES

(4)

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

(12) JAMES BROSNAHAN (2)

JAMES M. MIZE (25)

JEFFREY POSNER (6) JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

Page 73

Page 74

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

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

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

JODY PATEL (1) JOE SORGE (3)

JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1)

JOYCE TERHAAR (1) JRC (1) JUDGE

JUDGE PRO TEM (52) JUDGE

(1)

SALARIES (1) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1) JUDICIAL COUNCIL (6)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(82) JUDY HOLZER HERSHER

(1)

JULIE

SETZER

KICKBACKS (33)

(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) LEON KOZIOL

(1) LINCOLN (1) LISTS (4)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5) LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARTIN HOSHINO (2) MARY MOLINARO

(1) MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ

(7) MATTHEW J. GARY

(42)

MCGEORGE SOL (2)

MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA (1)

MIKE NEWDOW (6) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH

(4) NEW YORK TIMES (2) One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?

NEWS (35) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (24) NEWS YOU CAN USE (5) News10 (1)

Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease.

Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.

One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family Court system was the 2008 decision In re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate Justices M. Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims. The opinion criticized explicitly the conduct of controversial Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. None of the three 3rd District justices who decided the appeal had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County.

A fourth outsider jurist, Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing subsequently characterized McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror." In addition to ordering a full reversal and new trial, the 3rd District decision subjected McBrien to a second disciplinary action by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

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

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2)

OPINION (12) PARENTAL PAULA ALIENATION

(1)

SALINGER (15) PERJURY (1)

PETER J. McBRIEN (28)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3)

PRESIDING JUDGE (2) PRO PERS (19) PROTEST (9) PSY

(1)

PUBLIC

RECORDS

(1)

RACKETEERING (5) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1) RAPTONKARRES

(15)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (4)

REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

RICHARD SOKOL (13) RICO

(2) ROBERT

HIGHT (17)

O'HAIR

ROBERT

(8)

ROBERT SAUNDERS

(24) ROLAND L. CANDEE (1) RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD ROBIE (1)

RUSSELL CARLSON (4)

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

SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO

BEE (7) COUNTY

Page 74

Page 75

complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.

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

McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.

SUPERIOR

COURT

(2)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (16)

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (19)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1) SATIRE (13)

SCBA

(22)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

BUCHANAN

(5)

SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE

(1)

SELF-HELP

(1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (1)

SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

SHARON HUDDLE (6) SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4) SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6)

STATE BAR (9) STEPHEN WAGNER

(2)

STEUART

STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN GEVERCER LEAVENWORTH

(1)

STEVEN

(1)

SPIELBERG

(1)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (17)

SUNSHINE WEEK

(2)

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (5) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien.

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADD BLIZZARD (7) THADDEUS

Using misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in McBrien CJP Prosecution On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland delivered in a big way.

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5)

TIMOTHY ZEFF (7) TOMMY LEE JONES (1) ULF CARLSSON (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE

W.

RAYE

(3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5)

VICTORIA HENLEY (1) VICTORY OUTREACH

CHURCH (1) VL-

CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL

(1)

WASTE

WATCHDOGS

(1)

(20)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (12)

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

Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.

Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. A critical self-

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP

(1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

VILLAPUDUA

(3)

YOLO

COUNTY (1) YOUTUBE (7)

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and

Peter McBrien all worked for former California Attorney General

and Governor George Deukmejian. All were appointed to the

Sacramento County bench by Deukmejian.

Page 75

Page 76

policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1) requires judges who have reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.

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

By his own admission, Scotland's career in the Judicial Branch of government was the result of connections and preferential treatment. The former justice candidly recited his life history in a nearly three-hour interview for the California Appellate Court Legacy Project in 2011. Like other gratuitous "tough-on-crime" conservative ideologues from a law enforcement background who rose to power in the 1980's, Scotland apparently lived the cliche of being born on third base and going through life thinking he hit a triple. His interest in law developed when he worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the state Department of Justice. "[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view.

Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster performance as a college student, law school presented a problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family connection. "[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into Law...[M]y grades weren't all

a law school with liberal admission standards. that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a serious student.

So I went to University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained.

"I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D. Schaber], but my dad did.

And my dad had done some life insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my dad was an influence on my life because he knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School of Law is my dad's

Page 76

Page 77 with the dean." Click here to view. relationship After graduation, but before he was licensed to practice law, Scotland nonetheless practiced law while employed as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. In the outside world, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime. But in Scotland's protective law enforcement bubble, "laws" are only enforced against drug addicts and the unwashed masses. As Scotland explained in his own words, laws are actually only "rules" when a sworn peace officer breaks one.

"Actually, before I even got sworn in in the bar, I was assigned out to juvenile hall and we prosecuted...I prosecuted cases without any supervision - you know, against...really against the rules...we were trying cases without any supervision." Click here.

In McGregor v. State Bar, the seminal case on the unauthorized practice of law, the California Supreme Court explained why a nonlicensed person is prohibited from exercising the special powers and privileges of a lawyer.

"The right to practice law not only presupposes in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust. It is manifest that the powers and privileges derived from it may not with propriety be delegated to or exercised by a nonlicensed person." Click here.

25 years after he obtained his license to practice law, Justice Arthur G. Scotland exploited the implied integrity of his court of appeal office and exercised his special privilege in a way that to many Sacramento Family Court litigants was a manifest violation of the public trust.

The Artifice

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

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

While testifying for McBrien, Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge's behalf effectively was voluntary. Before subpoenaing Scotland to testify, McBrien's defense attorney confirmed that Scotland would not object to the subpoena. Click here. Judicial ethics Canon 2B restricts use of the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal interests of the judge or others. Canon 2B(2)(a) permits a judge to testify as a character witness only when subpoenaed.

Page 77

Page 78

The transcript of Scotland's testimony also showed that - to prepare his CJP testimony - the presiding justice of the 3rd District affirmatively and voluntarily took the initiative (presumably on his own time) to research 3rd District family court appeals where McBrien was the trial court judge. His objective was to show the CJP that McBrien had a low reversal rate in the appellate court.

"I also, by the way -- when you called me to ask if I would object to being Subpoenaed as a witness, and I said no, I did research. I looked up -- I knew what this was all about, so I researched the number of appeals from cases from Judge McBrien's court. And so I -- and I looked -- I read all the opinions in which he was reversed in full or in part...

I've known Judge McBrien for 32 years. I got to know, then, Deputy Attorney General Pete McBrien. When I left the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and went to work for the California Attorney General's Office, he was already a Deputy Attorney General there. So I got to know him there, mainly professionally. Socially to a relatively minor extent. We had -- we had two co-ed softball teams. He played on one; I played on another. Of course, we would attend office functions together. His -- one of his very best friends was my supervisor in the Attorney General's Office. So, on occasion -- not frequently, but on occasion we would attend social events with others from the office....

[McBrien had] seven reversals in whole or in part, out of 110 appeals, which is about 6%, which actually is a remarkably good reversal rate.

Because our average reversal rate in civil cases is 20 to 25 percent."

Scotland testified at pages 549-553 of the reporter's transcript. Click here.

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

What Scotland withheld Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his days as an from the CJP is the fact

undercover cop. Trained to lie and deceive in order to make that the vast majority of undercover

drug buys, Scotland acknowledged his skill in the role. appeals from family

"You have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in 2011. court are never decided on the merits. Unlike appeals from civil cases, most family court appeals are taken by unrepresented parties who fail to navigate the complexities of appellate procedure and never make it past the preliminary stages of an appeal. In other words, Scotland rigged his statistics. While McBrien may have had seven reversals out of 110 appeals filed, only a small portion of the 110 appeals filed were actually decided on the merits.

Scotland then made a disingenuous, self-serving apples-to-oranges comparison between the reversal rate in civil case appeals - where both sides are usually represented by an attorney, or team of attorneys, and appeals are decided on the merits - with the reversal rate in family court cases, where neither qualifier is

Page 78

Page 79

true. SFCN currently is conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.

Blame the Victim In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-worker Pete McBrien, and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson case resulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland had the balls to suggest that disciplining McBrien for his conduct in Carlsson would be a "miscarriage of justice," that would allow "incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges."

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

However, Scotland's incompetence assertion to the CJP did, coincidentally, perfectly dovetail with the carefully crafted defense McBrien's legal team presented during three days of CJP testimony to the three-judge CJP panel assigned to decide McBrien's fate.

A key component of McBrien's defense relied on suspiciously consistent witness testimony portraying Ulf Carlsson's attorney Sharon Huddle as Contrary to the explicit findings by his colleagues at the 3rd District Court of Appeal, in his deceptive CJP testimony Justice Arthur incompetent and effectively Scotland blamed attorney Sharon Huddle for the egregious provoking McBrien's multiple misconduct of his old friend, Judge Peter McBrien. violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. CJP prosecutor Andrew Blum mocked the risible defense in a confidential court reporter transcript leaked to SFCN. Click here to view the transcript.

Ironically, the time-tested, repugnant but effective blame the victim strategy, was coldly aided and abetted by Scotland, a justice who rose to power with the backing

Page 79

Page 80

and endorsements of victims rights groups including Crime Victims United of California, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's defense team, Scotland dusted off the dog-eared playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to advance his personal agenda.

Scotland's irony-infused blame the victim testimony, misleading appeal reversal data, and the weight of character witness testimony from a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with similar character testimony from Sacramento County Superior Court Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currently Of Counsel at the family, family law firm Cecil & Cianci) , Michael Garcia and Robert Hight, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys and judge pro tems Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair and Russell Carlson all tipped the scale just enough to enable McBrien to keep his job. Click here to view the complete, 12-page CJP summary of the McBrien character witness testimony.

Despite the parade of former law enforcement co-workers, friends, and family court judge pro tem cronies McBrien marshaled on his behalf, two of the voting CJP members saw through the ruse and dissented from the decision to let the judge remain on the bench, stating they would have removed McBrien from office. Click here. When he referred to McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror," 6th District Justice Rushing also noted that "two of the nine participating members [voted] to remove him from the bench." Click here.

The Carlsson case is prominently featured in Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States."

The production team for the film conducted a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion, and four Sacramento County cases are included in the movie. Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, Divorce Corp opened in theaters in major U.S. cities on January 9, 2014. Following the theatrical run, the documentary will be released on DVD, RedBox, Netflix, broadcast and cable TV. Click here for our continuing coverage of Divorce Corp. To view trailers for the movie on YouTube, click here.

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

Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement Blue Code of Silence In addition, unpublished Third District Court of Appeal decisions indicate that justices who come from a law enforcement background appear to take to the bench with them the "Blue Code of Silence" culture often found in law enforcement agencies. 3rd

Page 80

Page 81

District Associate Justice George Nicholson worked as a prosecuting attorney for more than 15 years before being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County. The first time Governor George Deukmejian submitted Nicolson's name to the bar for review as a judge in 1983, he was rated as "not qualified," according to the Sacramento Bee. Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson

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

"George Nicholson, Republican candidate for attorney general in 1982, has been pursuing all manner of public legal positions: U.S. District Court judge, California Superior Court judge, U.S. Attorney, public defender in Riverside County. The other day, when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him a Sacramento Municipal Court judge, he finally got one. It's an appointment that ought to cause serious concern both within the State Bar and in the community. When Deukmejian submitted Nicholson's name to the bar for review on a possible appointment to the Superior Court in 1983, he was rated 'not qualified.' The bar now ranks him 'qualified', the lowest acceptable rating of three the bar can give.

No one can be certain precisely why Nicholson received such low ratings, but there is enough in his public record to raise serious questions about his temperament and judgment. In 1979, he left a job as director of the District Attorneys Association after an audit showed that the organization's finances had been badly mismanaged and that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Later, as a senior assistant attorney general, he was twice admonished by superiors for promoting a ballot measure in ways that could be mistaken as an official state Justice Department endorsement of the measure. More recently, a federally funded $4 million 'National School Safety Center' affiliated with Pepperdine University that he directed was embroiled in an extended controversy during which 18 of 30 staff members either resigned or were fired.

The U.S. General Accounting Office, which conducted an audit into the management of the Pepperdine program and into how the federal money was being spent, cleared the center of fiscal irregularities, attributing the problems to Nicholson's 'combative' personality and management style. But because of those problems, Pepperdine named a new executive director, who, the auditors said, restored stability to the management of the program 'while retaining Nicholson's creative talents,'" the Sacramento Bee said in 1987. Click here.

Nicholson subsequently was elected to both Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal with backing from law enforcement, Crime Victims United and other Astroturf "victims rights" and "law and order" groups. Crime Victims United is funded by - and acts essentially as a subsidiary of - the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the controversial prison guard union.

A principal architect of Proposition 8 the "The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights", after a failed run as the GOP candidate for attorney general Nicholson rode an anti-Rose Bird, tough-on-crime platform to the bench. Over several decades, Associate Justice Nicholson played a significant role in giving the United States one of the highest per capita rates of incarceration in the world. Thanks to Nicholson, the prison guard union, and Astroturf "victims rights" groups bankrolled by the union, California now spends a significantly larger portion of the state budget on corrections than on higher education.

Page 81

Page 82

Role of Political Ideology

In 1985, Nicholson was demoted from his position as director of the federally financed National School Safety Center in Sacramento. The center was administered by Pepperdine University at Malibu, and established with a $3.8 million Justice Department grant awarded without competitive bidding.

Under Nicholson's leadership, 20 of the original 30 staff members who set up the Center resigned or were dismissed.

The Associated Press reported that that the debacle was rooted in ideological conflicts between Nicholson and staff whom Nicholson perceived as too liberal. According to the AP coverage: "Several [staffers] described Nicholson as a political conservative who mistrusted his mostly liberal staff members, argued with them unceasingly about the direction of projects, and accused them of disloyalty when they questioned his ideas.

3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that Justice George Nicholson is ethically-challenged, 'When it became obvious to him and not particularly qualified to speak on the subject. he attracted a number of us with a different political philosophy, we were not permitted to do our work,' said Shirley Ruge, a former principal of schools for delinquent children and one of those dismissed. 'We were considered troublemakers and he wanted to shut us up.'"

Nicholson and former 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland have been close friends and colleagues for more than 30 years. For the California Appellate Court Legacy Project Nicholson conducted an almost three-hour interview with Scotland on December 8, 2011. The transcript of the interaction reads like a meeting of the Nicholson-Scotland mutual admiration society. Nicholson opened the interview detailing the joint work history of the BFFs. "George Nicholson: We are here with retired Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland, who served on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, for more than 20 years, from 1989 to 2011, and that...the last dozen of which he was the Administrative Presiding Justice. I'm George Nicholson, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and I had the pleasure of serving with Presiding Justice Scotland for 20 years on this court. Before that, we served together as trial judges on the Sacramento Superior Court, and even before that we served together in the Governor's Office during the Deukmejian administration and in the California Department of Justice. This has been a long time coming, Scotty, hasn't it?Arthur Scotland: Nick, it has, and it's a delight for me to have you interview me for this project."

Click here to view the full interview transcript.

Page 82

Page 83

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

Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento: Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice.

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

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

Page 83

Page 84

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

+3 Recommend this on Google

Home

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye & Oversight of California Courts

State officials and agencies responsible for oversight and accountability of California courts, Sacramento Family Law Court, administrators, judges and employees include:Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice - Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State

Audits - Victoria B. Henley Director Chief Counsel Commission on Judicial Performance - Steven Jahr Administrative Director of the Courts - Phillip J. Jelicich Principal Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Janice M. Brickley Legal Advisor to Commissioners Commission on Judicial

Performance - Judicial Council and Court Leadership Services Division Jody Patel Chief of Staff - Doug D. Cordiner Chief Deputy State Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Bradford L. Battson Senior Attorney III Commission on Judicial Performance - Judicial and Court Operations Services Division Curtis L. Child Chief Operating Officer – Donna L. Neville Staff Counsel IV Bureau of State Audits - Sei Shimoguchi Senior Attorney III Commission on Judicial Performance - Tani Cantil-Sakauye Judicial Council of California - Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division Curt Soderlund Chief Administrative Officer The Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye is the leader of the state's third branch of government, the Judicial Branch. Her responsibilities include serving as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, chair of the Judicial Council, and chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

Sacramento Family Court News Subjects and Topics

Sacramento Family Court News reports on former

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Tani G. Cantil-

Sakauye - Judge Pro Tem, Temporary Judges, Office of Temporary Judge, Oath of Office of Temporary Judge, California Rules of Court, California Code of Judicial Ethics, County of Sacramento Superior Court, Sacramento Family Law Court, Family Court Sacramento, William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, Judge Stephen W. White, Judge Steve White, Judge Matthew J. Gary, Hon. Matthew J. Gary, Judge Laurie M. Earl, Hon. Laurie M. Earl, Judge Peter J. McBrien, Hon. Peter J. McBrien, Judge Jaime R. Roman, Hon. Jaime R. Roman, Judge Sharon A. Lueras, Hon. Sharon A. Lueras, Judge Thadd A. Blizzard, Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, Sacramento County Superior Court Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Sacramento Family Court Manager Colleen McDonagh, Sacramento Family Court Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, County of Sacramento Superior Court, Attorney Steven R. Burlingham; Gary, Till & Burlingham, Attorney Camille H. Hemmer; Law Offices of Camille Hemmer, Attorney Jeffrey Posner; Woodruff, O’Hair, Posner & Salinger, Attorney Hal Bartholomew; Bartholomew & Wasznicky, Attorney Diane Wasznicky, Family law attorney Charolotte Keeley, Charlotte Leigh Keeley, Attorney Fredrick Cohen, Law Offices of Fredrick Cohen, Attorney Bunmi Awoniyi, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi, Attorney Richard Sokol, Law Offices of Richard Sokol, Attorney John O’Malley, Downey Brand, attorney Robert O’Hair, Robert James O’Hair, Attorney Joseph Winn, Law Offices of Winn & Winn, Family Law Paula Salinger, attorney Paula Dawn Salinger, Attorney Elaine Viola Van Beveren, Elaine Van Beveren, Attorney Mark Ambrose, Law

Offices of Mark Ambrose, Attorney Nancy Perkovich, Perkovich Law Offices, Attorney Gary Michael Appelblatt, attorney D. Thomas

Page 84

Page 85

Woodruff, Daniel Thomas Woodruff, family law attorney Russell Carlson, Russell Association, Family Law Section, Family Law Executive Committee,

William Carlson, Sacramento County Bar

Sacramento Family Court News - Newsroom Law Library & Legal Resources

The news analysis and opinion content at Sacramento Family Court News is partly based on the legal references and treatises used by judges and attorneys. Click here for a description of our newsroom law library and the publications we use to research and report Sacramento Family Law Court issues. Most family law attorneys belong to the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. The section is headed by the Family Law Executive Committee, also known by the acronym FLEC. The committee is composed of CHAIR RUSSELL CARLSON, VICE CHAIR ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, TREASURER FREDRICK COHEN, and SECRETARY PAULA SALINGER. Family court watchdogs charge that the committee acts as a shadow government controlling most operations, including dictating local court rules in Sacramento family law court.

Index

Index Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section - Family Law Executive Committee - FLEC

The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section - Family Law Executive Committee - FLEC - Sacramento Family Law Court Sacramento County Superior Court Court Executive Officer - Sacramento Bar Association - Sacramento Family Court Presiding Judge - child custody and visitation - divorce - spousal support - child support - alimony - family law attorneys - family law judges SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - Popular Searches and Subjects

Sacramento Family Law Court, Family Court Sacramento and all California courts are subject to oversight by Tani G. CantilSakauye the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, the California State Auditor, the whistleblower act, also known as the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Bureau of State Audits, the Commission on Judicial Performance or CJP, and the Judicial Council under the leadership of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The Judicial Council operates the Judicial Branch California Courts website. The motto of the California Judicial Branch website is "Committed to providing fair and equal justice for all Californians." Assertions by family court watchdogs and whistleblowers to Sacramento Family Court News indicate that the motto may not apply in Sacramento Family Court.

The Supreme Court of California is the ultimate authority on California law. Justices include Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard, Ming Chin, Carol Corrigan, Marvin Baxter, Goodwin Liu and Tani Sakauye.

Other search topics include: ATTORNEY DIVORCE, lawyers for divorce, family law, Sacramento Court, divorce, attorneys divorce, bar association, child custody California, lawyers, CALIFORNIA DIVORCE LAW, child custody, family court, whistleblower, dissolution, pro per, county superior, state bar, family lawyer, court rules, judge pro tem, family court attorneys, family law facilitator, legal representation, child support services, lawyer divorce, child support payment, attorney at law, domestic violence,

court, child support, attorney, lawyer, attorneys, TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, pro se, judge, divorce attorneys, divorce attorney, divorce lawyers, California family law attorneys, family court attorneys, child support payments, judges, LAWYER FOR DIVORCE, family law bar, superior court, spousal abuse, child support California, family lawyers, attorneys at law, California child custody, child custody in California, county bar association, Superior Court in California, in pro per, Sacramento County records, family facilitator, court order, court hearing, in pro se, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye

California Judicial Branch oversight and accountability is the responsibility of Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, Judicial Council Director Steven E. Jahr, Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, State Bar of California Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim, 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Vance Raye, and U.S. Attorneys Benjamin B. Wagner and Melinda L. Haag are responsible for the prosecution of federal crimes, including honest services fraud. The officers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee are Elaine V. Van Beveren, Fredrick S. Cohen, Paula D. Salinger, and Gregory W. Dwyer.

Family Court & Judicial Branch Information, Resources and Links

Family Court: Sacramento Superior Court - Family and Children

Page 85

Page 86

Family Court Services - Sacramento Superior Court - Child Custody Recommending Counseling, Family Court Services, Confidential Mediation, and Evaluation Family Court Self-Help Center: Sacramento Superior Court - Self-Help Center - Family Law Facilitator Family Court Records: Sacramento Superior Court - Order a File and Records Family Court Resource Referral Program: Sacramento Superior Court - Resource Referral Program E-Correspondence (Family Law Self-Help Assistance) - Family Law Facilitator Family Law - Court Appearances: Sacramento Superior Court - Court Hearings and Orders Divorce / Legal Separation / Annulment: Sacramento Superior Court - Divorce / Legal Separation / Annulment Child Custody / Visitation: Sacramento Superior Court - Child Custody / Visitation Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court - William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse Public Case Document Search - Sacramento Superior Court Complex Case Calendar: Sacramento Superior Court Tani Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Civil Motions and Hearings General: Sacramento Superior Court Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye - About the Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - Outreach Activities Joyce L. Kennard Supreme Court of California Justice Justice Cantil-Sakauye - Civics Initiatives Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - Chief in the News Tani Cantil-Sakauye - Chief Justice Speeches Marvin R. Baxter Supreme Court of California Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar Supreme Court of California Justice Ming W. Chin Supreme Court of California Justice Carol A. Corrigan Supreme Court of California Justice Goodwin Liu Supreme Court of California Justice J. Anthony Kline Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal Ignazio John Ruvolo Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal Barbara J.R. Jones Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal Sandra L. Margulies Acting Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal Robert M. Mallano Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Roger W. Boren Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Joan Dempsey Klein Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Norman L. Epstein Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Paul Turner Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Arthur Gilbert Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Dennis M. Perluss Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Tricia A. Bigelow Presiding Justice 2nd District Court of Appeal Vance W. Raye Presiding Justice 3rd District Court of Appeal Arthur G. Scotland Presiding Justice 3rd District Court of Appeal Manual A. Ramirez Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal Kathleen O'Leary Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal Judith McConnell Presiding Justice 4th District Court of Appeal Brad R. Hill Presiding Justice 5th District Court of Appeal Conrad L. Rushing Presiding Justice 6th District Court of Appeal William R. McGuiness Presiding Justice 1st District Court of Appeal

Copyright CJBNN - California Judicial Branch News Network. Simple template. Powered by Blogger.

Sacramento Family Court News Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

By Using This Site You Agree To The Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy - Sacramento Family Court News California Judicial Branch oversight and accountability is the responsibility of Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria B. Henley, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, Judicial Council Director Steven E. Jahr, Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. CantilSakauye, State Bar of California Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim, 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Vance Raye, and U.S. Attorneys Benjamin B. Wagner and Melinda L. Haag. The officers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee are Elaine V. Van Beveren, Fredrick S. Cohen, Paula D. Salinger, and Gregory W. Dwyer.

Page 86

Page 87 Sacramento Family Law Court users and our readers search for subjects including the California Supreme Court and Justices Goodwin Liu, Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin, Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard, Carol Corrigan, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and ATTORNEY DIVORCE, family laws in California, legal separation, judges and other family court information. Sacramento Family Court Judges include Thadd A. Blizzard, Peter J. McBrien, Matthew J. Gary, Jaime R. Roman, and SHARON LUERAS, and the Hon. Steve White. The current SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT SUPERVISING JUDGE is JAMES MIZE. Family Court Sacramento judges are required to comply with the CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS. The Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator is attorney LOLLIE ROBERTS. You can find an attorney for divorce or attorneys for divorce online.

DIVORCE COUNTY COURT is a popular search, and so is California legal separation. A lot of people want to know WHAT IS A LEGAL SEPARATION. Sacramento Family Court News reports on changes in California divorce law, also searched for using CA DIVORCE LAW, and Supreme Court of California. Judge Sharon Lueras has been implicated in contributing to the deaths of two children as a result of rulings she issued. In the baby Ryder Salmen case Judge Lueras was featured on Nancy Grace. Click here. Sacramento Family Law Court is a common search made by court users.

Most Sacramento Family Court attorneys are members of the Sacramento Bar Association, formally known as the Sacramento County Bar Association. The Sacramento Bar Association has a Family Law Section and a Family Law Executive Committee known by the acronym FLEC. The Sacramento County Family Law Section Executive Committee is composed of CHAIR Russell Carlson, VICE CHAIR Elaine Van Beveren, TREASURER Fredrick Cohen, and SECRETARY Paula Salinger. The PAST CHAIR is Judith Winn. Each member of the Family Law Section Executive Committee also holds the Office of Temporary Judge, also known as a Judge Pro Tem. The Bar Association Family Law Section publishes a monthly newsletter called The Family Law Counselor.The

Family Law Counselor is available at the Bartholomew &

Wasznicky website. Click here. UPDATE: In February, 2013 Bartholomew & Wasznicky terminated online public access to the Family Law Counselor newsletter, and scrubbed all Family Law Counselor newsletters from the firm website. CLICK HERE for our report on the controversy. Other common search terms include HON. LAURIE M. EARL, state audits, judges, divorce attorneys, state auditor California, family law facilitators, spousal support, protest, county superior, self-represented, legal representation, in pro per, social injustice, judicial misconduct, pro se, social justice, Sacramento family law, judge, James Mize, civil disobedience, unrepresented, PRO PER PRO SE, family superior court, whistleblowing protection act, sacramento family court, Sacramento Superior Court family law facilitator, judges in California, judicial judges. Sacramento family law court is located at the William Ridgeway Courthouse.

"So you can hurt, hurt us bad But still we'll raise, we'll raise the flag"

Page 87