14

CANON 3 1 2

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL 3 OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,* COMPETENTLY, AND 4

DILIGENTLY 5 6

A. Judicial Duties in General 7 8 All of the judicial duties prescribed by law* shall take precedence over all other 9 activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties, the following 10 standards apply. 11 12 B. Adjudicative Responsibilities 13 14

(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those 15 in which he or she is disqualified. 16

17 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(1) 18

Canon 3B(1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of 19 Civil Procedure section 170. 20

21 (2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public 22 clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the 23 law.* 24

25 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(2) 26 Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal 27 knowledge,* skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to 28 perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office. Canon 1 provides that an 29 incorrect legal ruling is not itself a violation of this code. 30 31

(3) A judge shall require* order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. 32 33

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, 34 witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official 35 capacity, and shall require* similar conduct of lawyers and of all staff and 36 court personnel under the judge’s direction and control. 37

38 (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge 39 shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or 40 other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice, 41 including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, 42

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

15

religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital 1 status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment. 2

3 (6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain 4 from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, 5 gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, 6 marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation against parties, 7 witnesses, counsel, or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate 8 advocacy when race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, 9 age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political 10 affiliation, or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding. 11

12 (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a 13 proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to 14 law.* Unless otherwise authorized by law,* a judge shall not independently 15 investigate facts in a proceeding and shall consider only the evidence presented 16 or facts that may be properly judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to 17 information available in all media, including electronic. A judge shall not 18 initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, any 19 communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties 20 concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding, and shall make reasonable 21 efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows: 22

23 (a) Except as stated below, a judge may consult with other judges. A judge 24 shall not engage in discussions about a case with a judge who has 25 previously been disqualified from hearing that matter; likewise, a judge 26 who knows* he or she is or would be disqualified from hearing a case shall 27 not discuss that matter with the judge assigned to the case. A judge also 28 shall not engage in discussions with a judge who may participate in 29 appellate review of the matter, nor shall a judge who may participate in 30 appellate review of a matter engage in discussions with the judge presiding 31 over the case. 32 33 A judge may consult with court personnel or others authorized by law,* as 34 long as the communication relates to that person’s duty to aid the judge in 35 carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities. 36 37 In any discussion with judges or court personnel, a judge shall make 38 reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of 39 the record or an evaluation of that factual information. In such 40 consultations, the judge shall not abrogate the responsibility personally to 41 decide the matter. 42

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

20

C. Administrative Responsibilities 1 2

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative 3 responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, 4 free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in 5 the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of 6 administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would 7 reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to 8 bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, 9 ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic 10 status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment. 11

12 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(1) 13

In considering what constitutes a conflict of interest under this canon, a 14 judge should be informed by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision 15 (a)(6). 16

17 (2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, 18 and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration 19 of court business. 20

21 (3) A judge shall require* staff and court personnel under the judge’s direction 22 and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct and to refrain from 23 manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national 24 origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, 25 socioeconomic status, or political affiliation in the performance of their official 26 duties. 27

28 (4) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other 29 judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of 30 matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial 31 responsibilities. 32

33 (5) A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall 34 exercise the power of appointment impartially,* on the basis of merit, without 35 bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes 36 public confidence in the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall avoid 37 nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of 38 appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered. 39

40 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(5) 41

Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel and officials such as 42 referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, and guardians. Consent by 43

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

May 2011

Speaking up about judicial misconduct

By Janice M. Brickley

Highly publicized corruption scandals involving government officials

provide fertile ground for Monday morning pundits. They can also be a

catalyst for education and positive change. Such is the case with the “kids

for cash” judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In

an article published in the March Bar Journal, I discussed the

Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board’s failure to follow through with a

complaint concerning the judges involved in the scandal and what the California

Commission on Judicial Performance has done to ensure that its rules and procedures

are not susceptible to the failures that occurred in Pennsylvania. This article examines

the role of an attorney in exposing judicial corruption and abuse in the context of the

“kids for cash” scandal.

Two former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, were charged with

federal crimes based on their participation in a scheme to close down a county juvenile

detention facility and contract for the placement of juveniles with for-profit facilities in

exchange for a secret “finder’s fee” of $997,600. Juveniles were sent to the private

detention facilities by Ciavarella at the same time both judges were accepting payoffs

from the owner of the facilities. Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering

and in February, Ciavarella was convicted by jury of 12 felony counts, including

racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. Both men are awaiting

sentence.

The Report of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, issued last

May, examines the circumstances that led to the “kids for cash” scandal, including the

role of attorneys who appeared regularly before Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court.

While these attorneys were not privy to Ciavarella’s financial “arrangement” with the

owners of the detention facilities, they did know that Ciavarella had a “zero-tolerance”

policy that resulted in juveniles being sent to detention facilities in unprecedented

numbers. Under Ciavarella’s zero-tolerance policy, juveniles were automatically sent to

out-of-home placement for certain offenses, such as fighting in school, without an

individual evaluation of the circumstances of the offense or the offender – contrary to a

judge’s obligation to decide sentences on a case-by-case basis.

Attorneys who regularly appeared in Ciavarella’s courtroom also knew that he routinely

adjudicated and sentenced juveniles who were unrepresented by counsel without

obtaining the required waiver of the right to counsel. In 2003, the statewide percentage

of juveniles who waived the right to counsel was 7.9 percent; in Ciaverella’s courtroom

the “attorney waiver” rate was 50.2 percent. Similar gaps appear in the statistics

throughout Ciavarella’s five-year reign in juvenile court.

A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign,

has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant

is accorded procedural justice. (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79

Top Headlines

OpinionFrom the PresidentJanice M. BrickleyLetters to the Editor

MCLE Self-Study

Attorney Discipline

You Need to Know

Trials Digest

Public Comment

Ethics Byte

Contact Us

Marketplace

Archived Issues

Share

L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50

Cal.4th 35, 48.) Nowhere is this responsibility more important than in juvenile court.

Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors have an

ethical obligation to ensure that the accused has been advised of the right to counsel

and has been given the opportunity to obtain counsel. (See also American Bar

Association Model Code of Professional Conduct 3.8 (b) [a prosecutor shall “make

reasonable efforts to assure the accused has been advised of the right to, and the

procedure for, obtaining counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain

counsel . . .”].) Before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel from juvenile

defendants, Pennsylvania’s Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure require a judge to

conduct on-the-record discussions or “colloquies” to ensure that the juveniles

understand the right they are giving up. (See also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.

806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77 [158 L.Ed.2d

209, 124 S.Ct. 1379].) Yet, prosecutors regularly witnessed Ciavarella deciding cases of

unrepresented juveniles without first engaging in the required colloquies but said

nothing. The Report of the Interbranch Commission concluded that “the prosecutors

clearly abdicated their roles as ministers of justice and simply became passive observers

to the tragic injustices that were perpetrated against juvenile offenders.”

Jonathan Ursiak’s first assignment when he joined the public defender’s office in 2007

was to represent juveniles in Ciavarella’s court. On a regular basis, he observed

juveniles admitting to crimes and being sentenced without an attorney and without the

required advisements of rights by the judge and waivers from the juveniles. This was

not the only practice in Ciavarella’s courtroom that troubled Ursiak – proceedings were

abbreviated, psychological evaluation reports were not provided to him before the

hearing, juveniles were being sent to placement at an alarmingly high rate, the judge’s

zero-tolerance policy impeded the juvenile’s right to be heard, and, in general, the

public defender was not given an adequate opportunity to advocate for his clients.

When Ursiak reported his concerns to his supervisor, he was told the public defender’s

office did not need more clients. Undeterred, Ursiak provided assistance to the Juvenile

Law Center of Philadelphia, which was investigating the suspected abuses in Luzerne

County’s juvenile court.

Ursiak’s courage and persistence in reporting Ciavarella’s improper practices should be

applauded. However, the silence of other attorneys who knew of the abuses in

Ciavarella’s courtroom is disturbing. Had others reported the misconduct when it first

occurred, the abuses and corruption might have been abated years earlier – saving

countless youthful offenders from a harsh and draconian fate suffered at Ciavarella’s

hand.

According to the Interbranch Commission’s report, no attorney practicing in Ciavarella’s

courtroom ever filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, the

agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct. Young

prosecutors recognized the inherent unfairness of Ciavarella’s practices, but did not

know what to do or to whom to turn for guidance. Many defense attorneys who

appeared before Ciavarella were equally derelict. Public defenders and private attorneys

routinely witnessed Ciavarella violate the rights of juveniles, including their own clients,

yet most took no action. The Interbranch Commission found that these attorneys

“clearly abdicated their responsibility to zealously defend their clients and to protect

their due process rights.” “At a bare minimum,” the commission concluded, “they

should have contacted their supervisors in the Public Defenders Office and the local bar

associations or notified the appropriate judicial or attorney disciplinary organizations.”

Many factors can deter an attorney from reporting judicial misconduct – indifference,

fear of retaliation, inexperience, ignorance. During its investigation, the Interbranch

Commission found that some attorneys did not know how or where to report judicial

misconduct. The commission encouraged Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board to

partner with the Pennsylvania Bar Association to create and implement programs to

educate attorneys and the public on the existence of the judicial disciplinary board and

on how to report judicial misconduct. The commission also recommended that the

Judicial Conduct Board revise and update its Website to provide clear, simple

directions for filing complaints. In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance

works with the State Bar to provide information concerning the process for reporting

judicial misconduct. The commission’s website offers user-friendly instructions on how

to file a complaint of judicial misconduct, as well as information on what constitutes

judicial misconduct.

As tragically illustrated in the “kids for cash” scandal, those in the legal community

share a mutual responsibility to take action when faced with abuses of judicial

authority. Indifference and inaction hurts not only the individual targets of the

misconduct but the reputation and integrity of the bar and the judiciary.

• Janice M. Brickley is Legal Advisor to Commissioners at the California Commission

on Judicial Performance.

Copyright © 2015 The State Bar of California Contact Us | Archived Issues | Notices | Privacy Policy Site Design by Duuplex

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY 3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT SFCN CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis special investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in October, 2015. Hyperlinks throughout this

report link to original source material including whistleblower leaked documents, records obtained under

public records law, public court documents, and our previously published articles with hyperlinks to source

material.

The family court division of Sacramento Superior Court is controlled and operated by an illegal parallel government structure made up of several judges and local divorce attorneys who also work as temporary judges, according to allegations and document leaks by court employee whistleblowers and watchdog groups.

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.

The alleged criminal organization reportedly has operated for more than 20 years under the direction of long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a prior Sacramento County criminal conviction and two misconduct convictions by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

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.

But, using a loophole in state law, after he retired McBrien was immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.

The 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.

Sacramento Superior Court Family Law Division Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge Whistleblowers

Sacramento Superior Court reform advocates assert that collusionbetween judges and local attorneys deprives pro per court users of

their parental rights, community assets, and due process and accessto the court constitutional rights.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (72)

JUDGE PRO TEM (51)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (37)

MATTHEW J. GARY (34)

KICKBACKS (33)

FLEC (28)

PETER J. McBRIEN (26)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (23)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (22)

SCBA (22)

CJP (21)

JAMES M. MIZE (21)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (19)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

WATCHDOGS (19)

PRO PERS (18)

DIVORCE CORP (17)

DOCUMENTS (17)

PAULA SALINGER (15)

ROBERT HIGHT (14)

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (13)

CARLSSON CASE (12)

RAPTON-KARRES (12)

APPEALS (11)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

270 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders issued when the attorneys represent clients in court. The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion.

As a matter of law, the orders are illegal, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Scheme Primarily Targets Divorce Cases Where Only One Side Has a Lawyer

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.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

FERRIS CASE (9)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

ROBERT O'HAIR (8)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

MATTHEW HERNANDEZ (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

MIKE NEWDOW (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4)

THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

CHILD ABDUCTION (3)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (3)

RACKETEERING (2)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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,

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Rayeis the co-architect of the current Sacramento County Family

Court system. Click here for details.

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

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

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

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 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.

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed courtcorruption throughout the United States and designated

Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst.

Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

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

Total Pageviews

183

Google+ Badge

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.

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 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.

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

Whistleblowers claim 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.

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

PR Brown

Follow

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

ADA (11) AGGREGATED NEWS (15) ANALYSIS (38)

APPEALS (11) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (37) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (7) CARLSSON CASE (12)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (19)

CHILD CUSTODY (23)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (7) CIVIL

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1) ABOVE THE LAW (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

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

BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE (1)CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD ABDUCTION (3)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

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.

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

Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.

Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.

Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.

Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative report, click here.

In this case, a court clerk illegally "unfiled" a notice of appeal filed by an indigent,disabled pro per litigant. Click here for details.

Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence

Divorce Corp, chronicling Sacramento Superior Court corruption,is available on Netflix.

RIGHTS (6) CJP (21)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (13)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (17) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (17)

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (9)

FLEC (28)

CJA (3) CJE (2) CJEO (1)

ClientTickler (2) CNN (1)

CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

CORRUPTION (1) 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 LAW (3)CRONYISM (2) DAVID

KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION (1)DENISE RICHARDS (1) DIANE

WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION (2)

DONALD TENN (3) DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)

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

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

ELECTIONS (1) EMILY GALLUP (3)EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)

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

FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT MEDIA COVERAGE

(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2) FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1)

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

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

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2) 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

Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details.

Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest posts.

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

In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.

Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for our investigative report.

An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.

Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to 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:

Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton ofMel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed

Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

JAMES M. MIZE (21) JEFFREY POSNER (6)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JUDGE PRO TEM (51)

JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (6)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (72)

JULIE SETZER (7) KICKBACKS (33) LAURIE M. EARL (10)

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (34)

MIKE NEWDOW (5)

NEWS (32) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (24)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPINION (12) PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (26) PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (12) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (14) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS

(2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.

STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)

JAMES BROSNAHAN (2)

JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JODY PATEL (1) JOE SORGE (2) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1)

JOYCE TERHAAR (1) JRC (1)

JUDGE (1)

JUDGE

SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)

JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1)

KIDS FOR CASH (2) LAW LIBRARY

(1) LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LEON KOZIOL (1) LINCOLN (1)LISTS (4)

LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4) MALPRACTICE (4)MARTIN HOSHINO (2) MARY

MOLINARO (1)

MCGEORGE SOL (2)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA

(1) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY

PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2)

PARENTAL ALIENATION (1)

PERJURY (1)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3)PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1)RACKETEERING (2) RAOUL M.

THORBOURNE (1)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (4)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

RICO (2)

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 a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues.

Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna

Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report.

Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.

In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per

Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Garyroutinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit of local attorneys who also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges

have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

(22)

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (14) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (13)

SATIRE (11) SCBA (22) SCOTT BUCHANAN (5)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (6)

ULF CARLSSON (7)

WATCHDOGS (19)

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

YOUTUBE (7)

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

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

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

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

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4)

STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

TOMMY LEE JONES (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (3)

VICTORIA HENLEY (1) VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHITE HOUSE (1)

XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (3) YOLO COUNTY (1)

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 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 Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.

After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete, scathing account.

The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been

Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize testified as a character witness insupport of controversial Judge Peter McBrien when McBrien was facing removal

from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about FLEC.

Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons, Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.

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 California Street, Auburn, CA 95603.

Mark Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of Mark A. Ambrose, 8801 Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826. Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.

Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator, 206 5th

Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.

Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610 American River Drive #112, Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 after being convicted of sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of Law.

Beth Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135, 1430 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816.

Bunmi Awoniyi, Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi, SBN 154183, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi a PC, 1610 Executive Ct. Sacramento, CA 95864. Awoniyi unethically advertises herself as a temporary judge. Awoniyi was appointed a Superior Court Judge in December 2012 and holds court in Department 120 of Sacramento Family Court.

A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court records indicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from

judges kickbacks and other preferential treatment in exchange for operating the family court settlement conference program.