crimes catalog: civil rights violations-vance raye misprision of felony third district court
DESCRIPTION
Justice Vance W. Raye failed or refused to report civil rights violations and other federal crimes, including honest services fraud and RICO racketeering by Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges, court employees and full-time judges. 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento Presiding Justice Vance Raye: RICO-Racketeering: 18 USC 1962; Honest services fraud: 18 USC 1346; Misprision of felony: 18 USC 4 Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Accessory after the fact: 18 USC 3 Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessorTRANSCRIPT
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
23 March 2013
Tani Cantil-Sakauye Defendant & Jaime R. Roman Implicated in Federal Class Action Lawsuit for Misuse of Vexatious Litigant Law
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS EXCLUSIVEA November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious litigant is being challenged in a landmark federal class action lawsuit filed yesterday in United States District Court in San Francisco. The controversial order was issued by family court Judge Jaime Roman at the request of temporary judge and veteran family law attorney Charlotte Keeley in a case with a long-running child custody dispute between Andrew Karres and Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. The order blacklisted [pdf] Karres as a vexatious litigant [pdf] and raised eyebrows in the legal community because Roman issued the ruling without providing Karres the court hearing required under state law and the due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.
The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts a litigants access to the courts by requiring them to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before they are permitted to file pleadings in any court in the state. Sacramento Family Court News in Nov. 2012 reported exclusively on Judge Roman's unorthodox order, which also is pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Taxpayers likely will now get two substantial bills in connection with the Keeley-Roman ruling. The state court appeal will cost the public between $8,500 and
Controversial Order for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Charlotte Keeley by Judge Jaime Roman Challenged in Federal Class Action LawsuitTaxpayers Face Financial Liability
Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is named as a defendant in this federal court litigation stemming from a vexatious litigant court order issued by Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
7 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
6 comments
Top comments
PR Brown via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly
A November, 2012 court order designating a Sacramento Family Court party as a vexatious litigant is being challenged in a landmark federal class action lawsuit filed yesterday in United States District Court in San Francisco. The controversial order was issued by family court Judge Jaime Roman at the request of temporary judge and veteran family law
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 8:19 PM
Labels: CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT, FEDERAL LAWSUITS, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, VL-CLASS-ACTION
Location: US District Court Clerk Northern District Of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue #36060, San Francisco, CA 94102,
USA
$25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. The public cost of defending the federal case could be significantly higher. For several years, court watchdogs and whistleblowers have asserted that full-time judges give preferential treatment to judge pro tem attorneys. They charge that the Rapton-Karres case is one of several cases emblematic of judge-attorney cronyism and its effects, including the unnecessary use of scarce court resources and the financial burden on taxpayers.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Named as defendants in the federal class action lawsuit are California Supreme Court Chief Justice and Judicial Council Chair Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and Steven Jahr, the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. In addition to Karres, the plaintiffs include eight other family court parties from throughout the state. All have been blacklisted as vexatious litigants in their respective courts.
"Plaintiffs, who are parents in on-going custody disputes, bring this class action against Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and the Judicial Council in the hope of overturning California's Vexatious Litigant Statute (VLS) as it applies to family law litigants, particularly parents caught in protracted custody battles. The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the VLS as it is applied in the context of family law custody proceedings. The Plaintiffs assert that the VLS on its face and as applied infringes on their fundamental custody rights," reads the introduction section of the complaint.
Click here to read the complete lawsuit filed March 22. Sacramento Family Court News will provide continuing coverage of the case.
Related articles and posts:
Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.
Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.
Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.
Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye is a former SacramentoCounty Superior Court Judge.
+7 Recommend this on Google
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS &
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
22 April 2013
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley, Judges Peter J. McBrien and Jaime R. Roman et al., vs. Sharon Huddle
News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding issuance of a controversial order designating her client Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant may be déjà vu all over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in the patently unlawful order as victims. For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here.
Judge Jaime R. Roman Vexatious Litigant Order for Attorney Charlotte Keeley Shows Judge Pro Tem Monopoly - Unfair Competition at Work
Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle continues to be subjected to retaliation by Sacramento County Family Court judges, apparently for her assertive client advocacy in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings
against troubled Sacramento Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
6 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006. McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy in sworn testimony before the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judge received his second round of discipline by the CJP. The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment and kickbacks given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges. The transcript and other records from the McBrien CJP proceedings also provide a troubling point of reference indicating that the unlawful, interdependent relationship between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys dates back at least seven years and is now all but institutionalized.
To read the sworn testimony of Robbi Joy and an incriminating admission by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, click Read more >> below.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowers have cataloged an array of other examples of judge pro tem favoritism, including undisclosed conflicts of interest and counterfeit court filings that impede the appeal rights of unrepresented litigants. They assert that financially disadvantaged, self-represented family court litigants with little or no knowledge of family law and court procedure are treated even harsher than outside-the-cartel lawyers like Huddle. Watchdogs point to informal audits of several family court cases and anecdotal evidence indicating that cartel attorneys obtain favorable rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate.
The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, according to court reform advocates.Whether a party is self-represented or represented by an "outsider" attorney, a judge pro tem attorney on the opposing side is the common denominator in lopsided, unfair and unlawful court rulings. They contend that taxpayers inevitably will be held liable for class action or institutional reform litigation [pdf], or government enforcement under B&P Code § 17200 on behalf of outside attorneys and pro per litigants against the court and the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille was one of three judges assigned to hear and decide the fate of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien in his 2009 disciplinary proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. [Click here to read the court of appeal decision that sent McBrien to the CJP woodshed a second time]. In her assessment of the testimony and evidence considered by the 3-judge panel, she candidly acknowledged that McBrien's favorable treatment of judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and harsh treatment of attorney Sharon Huddle was partly attributable to the fact that Huddle "wasn't an insider. She wasn't a pro tem." When San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli read an article in the ABA Journal on the court of appeal decision in the Carlsson case, he wrote about his own nightmarish experience as an outsider attorney in Sacramento Family Court. Like Huddle, Gianelli also faced off against judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley:
California Unfair Competition Law
"She Wasn't An Insider. She Wasn't a Pro Tem."
Judge Denise deBellefeuille made this unsettling observation in her assessment of the evidence presented at the Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien.
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
"[I] was attacked personally in court filing after court filing. I was required to drive from San Francisco to Sacramento (a three hour round trip drive) over six times on 24 hours notice, in my opinion to harass me and make me quit," the attorney said. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel."
Click here to read Gianelli's complete statement. In future posts, SFCN will have more, never before published information on the McBrien CJP proceedings, including transcripts of sworn statements by character witnesses who testified on McBrien's behalf, including full-time and temporary Sacramento County Superior Court judges. Judge pro tem lawyers who testified for McBrien include Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair, and current chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Russell Carlson.
The relevance of court reporter Robbi Joy's testimony about the contrast between how Judge McBrien treated outsider attorney Sharon Huddle and temporary judge attorney Charlotte Keeley during the Carlsson trial was described by CJP attorney Andrew Blum.
"Robbi Joy is a neutral third party. She's not friends with any of these people. She's been a court reporter for a long time, and she has seen a lot of what takes place in courtrooms. She testified that the judge was demeaning to Ms. Huddle, treated her with disdain and displayed irritation towards her throughout the trial, and she never saw Ms. Huddle do anything to justify that conduct. Even Judge McBrien admitted that some of his comments could make it appear that he was badgering Ms. Huddle in an inappropriate manner. Now, in addition to what these actual observers said, the record shows that he repeatedly threatened a mistrial from early on in the trial, curtailed her presentation of evidence, threatened her with contempt, and he would barely let her take breaks to go to the bathroom." To view Blum's statement, click here.
Robbi Joy's testimony included the following exchange:
Q. During the Carlsson trial, how would you describe Judge McBrien's behavior towards Attorney Huddle?
A [Robbi Joy]. Demeaning. This is hard. He is a judge. I have no ill will toward him. But it was remarkable to me that he seemed to have an amicable relationship with Ms. Keeley, but he seemed so irritated with Ms. Huddle. In fact, I asked the deputy -
MR. MURPHY: Objection –
SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Sustained.
MR. MURPHY: hearsay.
BY MR. BLUM:
Q. What did the judge do that makes you say that he was demeaning towards Ms. Huddle?
A. A couple of times she asked for just a brief break. She finally said, frankly, "I want to use the restroom, and you've given me a couple of tasks, phone calls to make," and he said, "one minute." And he repeatedly threatened a mistrial. I've seen this happen. If you say it's to wrap up Friday and it's already Friday and it seems to be going on and on, that the judge may say, "We're headed for a mistrial" or "none of us want a mistrial. " But he, I would say, at least five times said, "Do you want a mistrial? Just, let's have a mistrial, " which is something, of course, that nobody wants to have to go through.
Q. Did the judge's poor demeanor towards Ms. Huddle begin on the first day of trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it continue throughout the trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe Ms. Huddle do anything that would justify Judge McBrien's attitude towards her?
A. No. I felt that she and Ms. Keeley comported themselves as professionals.
Q. Would you say that Ms. Huddle was ever rude or disrespectful to the judge?
A. No.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Q. I think you touched on this, but how did Judge McBrien treat Ms. Keeley?
A. In a much more respectful manner.
Q. Did Judge McBrien treat you poorly?
A. No.
Q. Were the attorneys rude to each other?
A. No.
Q. In your years as a court reporter, have you ever seen a judge behave this way, the way Judge McBrien behaved towards Ms. Huddle?
A. Not to be glib, but not even on television.
Q. So that's a no?
A. That's a no. I certainly have seen judges lose their temper, if they're consuming time or if it's just -- for a reason. But I have not seen a judge, without some prior history of dealing with this attorney or -- or for some other reason, just seeming to have disdain for them.
To read Robbi Joy's complete testimony, click here.
In 2008, the 3rd District Court of Appeal described how Huddle's client, Ulf Carlsson, was ultimately treated at the conclusion of the 2006 trial. The description bears similarities to the recent treatment of Huddle client Andrew Karres by Judge Jaime R. Roman.
"Judge McBrien issued a written decision, ruling against Ulf on almost every issue. He rejected Ulf's contention that Mona was underemployed, ruled ruled that Ulf and Mona were sole owners of the rental property; ordered both the family residence and the rental property sold; failed to segregate Ulf's retirement account for purposes of awarding Mona her community share; and ordered Ulf to pay Mona $35,000 in attorney and expert witness fees. Despite the court's prior handwritten order that child support would not be determined until custody was resolved, the judgment ordered Ulf to pay $736 per month in child support." Click here.
NEXT: The Huddle-Keeley-McBrien backstory, continued: The revealing ex parte communication between Judge Peter J. McBrien and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley, and McBrien's secret transcript request.
Related articles: Sacramento Family Court News has continuing coverage of issues involving judge pro tem attorneys and financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants. For a list of all posts about temporary judges, click here. Our special, independent Judge Pro Tems Page is at this link. Specific issues with direct links include:
A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here.
Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 3 8 8 1 9
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
4 comments
Top comments
Cynthia Aguayo 9 months ago - Shared publicly
Add a comment
Posted by PelicanBriefed at 3:06 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, OPINION,
PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE
Location: Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse
Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here.
Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.
Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.
Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.
Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.
Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.
Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.
Judges cherry-pick state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here.
The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here.
Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.
Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here.
Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.
Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here.
Permitting Family Law Facilitator Office staff to dispense false information to unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
+6 Recommend this on Google
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
CONTEMPT (5)
CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN (13)
AUDITS (2) AB 1102 (1) AB 590
(1) ABA JOURNAL (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 (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (3)
CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)CJA (3)
ClientTickler (2)CNN (1)
CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)
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)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
17 April 2013
Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant Law for Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley
News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012.
Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case. Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.
The unprecedented ruling - which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley - rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation. In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders Without Court Hearing
Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family court litigant the right to a court hearing and oral testimony - fundamental components
of the right to due process of law.
Off-the-Rails at Conjunction Junction
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
8 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
The confusing legal rationale of Judge Roman's 20-page decision is constructed from a series of allegedly consistent conjunctions conjoining components of the Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and court rules. For example, Roman writes at page six:
"Sacramento Superior Court Rule 14.02(C), consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, in conjunction with Family Code section 210.." and
"Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), in conjunction with Family Code section 210..." at page eight, and
"California Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 in conjunction with Family Code section 210...California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a), in conjunction with California Rules of Court, rule 5.21...See Family Code section 217(c); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b), in conjunction with rule 5.21 and rule 5.119," at page 19.
Judge Roman's statute and court rule references, and calculated omission of contrary authority suggest an intent to cherry-pick law - including law not applicable to a vexatious litigant proceeding - to reach a predetermined result for the benefit of Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In our first report on the decision, veteran court watchdog Robert Saunders astutely observed that the judge used reverse engineering. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling," Saunders said in 2012.
Saunders' analysis appears to be substantially accurate, according to the family and civil law reference books used by judges, attorneys and Sacramento Family Court News. The logically inferred intent of Roman's risible, convoluted conjunctions is to enable himself to designate a family court party a vexatious litigant and issue a $2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral argument. But Judge Roman is off-the-rails at conjunction junction.
California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, the gold standard civil law reference work used by judges and attorneys, indicates that Judge Roman attempted to create the illusion that his order was grounded in legitimate law by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure § 2009, Family Code § 210, and § 217, and California Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21. The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from parts of each is preempted and effectively nullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law, according to the Guide.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowers charge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other court administrators failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline family court judges. They point out that Judge Roman, the supervising family law, probate and ADA judge has limited family court experience, and often confuses civil law with family law. At the end of her own two-year stint in family court, Judge Sharon Lueras confessed to the family law bar that, at the beginning of her family court assignment, she knew nothing about family law. The consequences of inadequate training and supervision can be tragic. Unrepresented litigant Jessica Hernandez blames Lueras for the death of her son at the hands of her ex-husband. Click here for our
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
coverage of the Hernandez case.
As we reported in our original coverage, Judge Roman unilaterally cancelled a family court hearing calendared for Nov. 14, 2012. The hearing was scheduled for the purpose of arguing and resolving 15 disputed issues in the case Katina Rapton vs Andrew Karres.
On the day of the hearing, the parties and attorneys arrived at the courtroom and were told by the judge that the hearing was vacated and would not take place. A dumbfounded Sharon Huddle, the attorney for Karres, had the judge repeat the statement a second time while being recorded by a court reporter. Click here to read the court reporter's transcript, obtained exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News.
At the end of the non-hearing, Judge Roman scrawled out a minute order that read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." The day before the hearing, Roman wrote, signed, filed, and mailed to the attorneys a 20-page statement of decision resolving all issues. Virtually all of the rulings were in favor of Rapton and against Karres. Rapton, the Mel Rapton Honda heiress is represented by veteran family law attorney and temporary judge Charlotte Keeley. The orders requested by Keeley and granted by Roman included designating Karres a vexatious litigant, and ordering the financially disadvantaged litigant to pay Keeley $2,500 in sanctions. The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts Karres' access to every court in California by requiring him to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before he can file anything, anywhere in the state.
Conjunction MalfunctionThe relationship between family law, civil law and the court rules applicable to each can be confusing. But the family law procedure manual used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law neatly sorts it all out in just two pages, which, apparently, is news to Judge Roman who clumsily cut, conjoined, and pasted conflicting laws and rules to justify his vexatious litigant order.
An assessment of the legality of Roman's order blacklisting Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigant begins with the law itself. California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391-391.8. Wikipedia explains how the law works at this link. The law was intended to limit frivolous litigation by unrepresented, pro per parties in civil courts. When a judge issues an order designating a self-represented litigant as a vexatious litigant, the Constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process of law, equal protection of law and the right to petition the government for redress are severely restricted. Due to the harsh consequences of the vexatious litigant label, California law requires full due process before the order can be issued, including notice and a court hearing where written or oral evidence is presented. The notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute are difficult to misconstrue:
"At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion," reads the law at section 391.2.
At § 391.3, the vexatious litigant law specifies, twice, that a decision is made "after hearing the evidence on the motion." The California Practice Guide for civil law recites the procedure for a vexatious litigant determination, including the required court hearing. Based on the 2002 appellate court case Bravo v. Ismaj, "[a] party may not be declared to be a 'vexatious litigant' without a noticed motion and hearing which includes the right to oral argument and the presentation of evidence," according to the Guide.
The Disappearing Hearing
Family law attorney and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte L. Keeley demanded and gotfrom Judge Jaime R. Roman a court order designating Andrew Karres a
vexatious litigant.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Posted by PelicanBriefed at 9:57 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CJP, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
OPINION, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Location: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, USA
Since the 2002 Bravo case, at least 20 other published and unpublished appellate court decisions have relied on and mirrored the controlling holding in Bravo, including these two cases from 2009 and 2012.
In a single paragraph and four footnotes at page 19 of his 20-page statement of decision, Judge Roman provides his rationale for issuing the vexatious litigant order without a hearing. The judge recites sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Code, and court rules that he claims, when conjoined, authorize him to "vacate the hearing in this matter..."
Notably absent from the justification is any reference to the Bravo line of cases, the notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute, and the instruction of the California Practice Guides, all of which contradict Roman's justification for denying Karres a hearing with oral argument and the presentation of evidence. Roman does cite to a single case law reference, Reifler v. Superior Court, a 1974 case which was effectively overruled by the Legislature as of January 1, 2011, and which in any event has no legitimate connection to the procedure for declaring a litigant vexatious. Judge Roman gives his reasons for blacklisting Karres statewide as a vexatious litigant at pages 15-18 of his 20-page statement of decision. Absent from the ruling is the boilerplate recital that "The Court has considered the moving and responding papers, the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, and the files herein," which appears on page one of this vexatious litigant order from a family court case in Santa Clara County. Judge Roman's unlawful order declaring Karres a vexatious litigant is now the subject of both a costly appeal and federal civil rights litigation against Judicial Branch officials. The appeal and federal case will cost the parties and taxpayers significant sums. The current cost to taxpayers for a single appeal is between $8,500 and $25,000, according to recent appellate court decisions. Ironically, vexatious litigants are routinely accused of, and punished for wasting scarce appellate court resources with frivolous litigation.
"Other appellate parties, many of whom wait years for a resolution of bona fide disputes, are prejudiced by the useless diversion of this court's attention. [Citation.] In the same vein, the appellate system and the taxpayers are damaged by what amounts to a waste of this court's time and resources," reads a line of cases from 1988 to 2012, beginning with Finnie v. Town of Tiburon.
The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by Judge Roman's order.
Related articles:
Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.
Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.
Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.
Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
Judge Jaime R. Roman conjoined statutory law, court rules and overruled decisional law to rewrite vexatious litigant procedure in California.
+8 Recommend this on Google
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 3 8 8 1 9
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
ATTORNEY
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (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)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
15 November 2012
Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Obtains Unprecedented Court Order - Roman Rewrites Family Code & Court Rules - Decrees Hearings Obsolete
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive
In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday. All the disputed issues inexplicably were decided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes. Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres' ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley.
Judge Jaime Roman Designates Party Vexatious Litigant, Sanctions $2,500 and Makes 13 Other Rulings - Without Court Hearing Required by Law
Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court
watchdogs. Photo: Sacramento Lawyer.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
11 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Judge Roman drafted the lengthy statement of decision in advance of a court hearing calendared for November 14, at which the disputed issues were scheduled to be argued and submitted. But at the start of the proceeding, the judge announced that he was cancelling the hearing because he had already ruled on all matters. Roman explained to the parties and attorneys that the day before he had mailed them his statement of decision resolving all issues. At the hearing, the judge issued a minute order which read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." Click here to view the minute order. In addition to depriving Karres of his basic due process right to be heard on the sanction and vexatious litigant issues, the vacated hearing also denied the losing litigant his Family Code § 217 and state court rule 5.119 right to present "live, competent and admissible testimony." Family court reform advocates assert that the unlawful, summarily decided proceeding is yet another example of the overt preferential treatment provided by full-time, family court judges to members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section who also serve as temporary judges in the
same court.
"It was both surreal and unprecedented," said veteran court watcher Robert Saunders. "I've been attending family court hearings for over five years and have never seen anything like it." Saunders said that in addition to the obvious constitutional-level due process of law breach, Roman's order was a flagrant violation of Family Code sec. 217 and California Rule of Court 5.119. The statute, which became law on January 1, 2011, and the court rule, which took effect on July 1, 2011, guarantee all family court litigants the right to present live testimony at motion and order to show cause hearings.
"It appears that Judge Roman used reverse engineering to do an end run around the new law," Saunders added. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling. Unfortunately, the new law and court rule presented an obstacle to the judge. From whole cloth he created a sham legal rationale he claims justifies ignoring the requirements of section 217 and rule 5.119. This is yet another example of how brazenly many family court judges will prejudge a case, ignore the law, and manufacture a ruling to fit a predetermined outcome," Saunders charged. "With this 20-page order, the other issue that exposes Roman's prejudgment is the vexatious litigant order. With its potential for serious, Constitutional-level collateral consequences, a vexatious litigant proceeding always requires notice and a hearing with oral testimony."
Saunders said court administrators share the blame for Roman's conduct. "This ruling again exposes a complete failure by court administrators to properly train, supervise and discipline family court judges," he said. In his own family court case in 2010, Saunders successfully obtained an order from a neutral, third-party judge formally disqualifying family court Judge Matthew Gary. The outside judge - from San Joaquin County Superior Court - ordered Gary removed for misconduct, including failing to follow proper contempt of court procedures after having Saunders arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs. "Court administrators did nothing, even after an independent, outside judge made it clear Gary was a rogue judge with anger-management issues," Saunders said.
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court temporary judge Charlotte Keeley.
"Surreal and Unprecedented"
Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
"Judge Roman's order is a similar situation, with the added inference that a full-time judge is doing a favor for a part-time judge, Charlotte Keeley," Saunders continued. "I don't know what else would explain such a brazen disregard of established law. The order is unlawful, void on its face, and inevitably will create more, but completely unnecessary litigation in this case in both the trial and appellate courts. Most Family Court judges are either rookies breaking in, or screw-ups spending time in purgatory," Saunders explained. "They're inherently thin-skinned and rarely admit to mistakes. The odds are slim that Judge Roman will admit to the errors in this 20-page debacle. This proceeding was, and will continue to be a complete waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the courts claim to be starved for funding. And, by the way, we pay Judge Ramon $170,000 per year for work like this."
To justify issuing the order without a hearing, at page six of the ruling Roman invoked a local court rule, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, and Family Code section 210. On page 19, Roman also cited California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a) "in conjunction with rule 5.21" as his legal rationale for denying the parties their day in court.
"Nice try," Saunders scoffed. "Roman is using antiquated law and a local court rule that all are clearly superseded by [Family Code] Section 217 and Rule 5.119. Both laws give family court litigants the right to present live testimony at a court hearing unless the judge - at the hearing - denies the request based on a finding of good cause. It is self-evident that the right can't be invoked if the judge vacates the hearing and mails out an order filed the day before the hearing."
The violation of Family Code section 217, state court Rule 5.119, and both the statutory and decisional law governing vexatious litigant determinations potentially exposes Judge Roman to an improper governmental activities investigation by the California State Auditor. Sacramento Family Court has been in hot water with the state auditor before. A 2011 audit disclosed problems with training and supervision of family court mediators, custody evaluators and minors counsel. As SFCN reported last year, violation of a state statute or state court rule is, by law, an improper governmental activity in the same category of offenses as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property and willful omission to perform duty, according to the California Whistleblower Protection Act.
However, Saunders pointed out that the chances of Roman being held accountable for the violations are slim-to-none. "Judges in California are untouchable. Like Roman did in this case, judges can simply flip-the-bird at the law. It is not hyperbole to say they are literally above-the-law. The State Auditor, Commission on Judicial Performance, Judicial Council and local court administrators will all turn a blind eye," Saunders predicted. "The reason we have an overabundance of incompetent judges is because meaningful oversight of judge misconduct is non-existent in California."
Promising later posts analyzing the 20-page statement of decision, Sacramento County Family Court News in-house legal analyst PelicanBriefed declined to opine on the decision. "There is so much wrong with this ruling that it will take me several posts to unravel and do justice. I will say that it appears Judge Roman assumed that if he put a lot of footnotes into the ruling, no one would notice his erroneous rationale for not holding a hearing, nor his blatant disregard of the legislative intent behind Family Code section 217 and Rule 5.119. And not allowing a hearing before declaring a party a vexatious litigant is unheard of. For now, let's just say that this ruling may be an example of why Judge Roman was passed over for elevation to the Court of Appeal."
Cal. Rule of Court rule 5.119 requires judges to permit live testimony.
Ruling May Constitute Improper Governmental Activities and Trigger State Auditor Scrutiny
Court Employees Are Now Protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
JUDGE PRO TEMS
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in September, 2014.
As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. For a detailed overview of the alleged collusion between judge pro tem attorneys and family court employees and judges, we recommend our special Color of Law series of investigative reports. The reports document some of the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our reports about family court temporary judges and controversies, click here.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations, Charge Whistleblowers
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion between judges and local attorneys deprives financially disadvantaged, unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
184 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
testimony. In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here. Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.
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.
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
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report...
...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details.
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 responsive declaration objecting to the illegal
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
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 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
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 3 8 9 3 1
136
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
ATTORNEY
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (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)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL
This ongoing investigative project was last updated in June, 2014.
Sacramento Family Court News is conducting an ongoing investigation of published and unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family courts. This page is regularly updated with our latest news, analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an unsettling link between how an appeal is decided and the political ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of appeal justices assigned to the appeal. Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw. Appeals are assigned to three of ten justices. The background of each appears to play a significant role in how an appeal is decided.
For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from Sacramento County Superior Court will often effectively cover for judicial errors in appeals from the same court. Third District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye previously were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court. Each have social and professional ties to family court judges and
Third District Court of Appeal
Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest
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
Filing an appeal in the 3rd District can be a gamble. Depending
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
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 bench.
"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do that for two reasons. One, I think it's a responsibility of a judge to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it. But I really like the people. I really like going to these events. I enjoy friendships and that sort of thing." Click here to view Scotland's statement.
To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.
Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating from Sacramento Family Law Court. Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial Performance prosecution of family court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal and CJP decision against McBrien, click here. The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions.
It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to avoid the appearance of partiality. Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California due to personal and professional relationships with local state court judges. The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.
In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure. The public court system was built to the specifications of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view the same, current day collusion, click here. The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:
"[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.
on the three justices assigned, the outcome may be influenced by ideology and unacknowledged conflicts of interest.
History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System
Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997-2005.
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
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
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper McBrien dishonestly implied that the system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid trip with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway.
"[M]cBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time, there were continual postponements of trials. 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.' The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials..." the Daily Journal reported. Click here to view.
Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys - which then essentially was rubber-stamped by the bench.
"[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented the whole of it to the full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view.
In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if any, consideration of the needs of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli said. According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."
"In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as 'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge. To view a list of similar CJP decisions, click here.
According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf], published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. To view this section of the Handbook, click here.
One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties to the family law bar.
"The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported.
Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court judges and appellate court
Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
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.
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 public-owned trees - valued at more than $20,000 - at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park, Carmichael, California. McBrien had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park. Click here for the 2001 Sacramento News and Review coverage of the case. Click here to view the original summons charging McBrien with felony vandalism. Click here to view the report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing the complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.
Less than 48 hours after the judge was charged with the felony, McBrien negotiated a plea bargain, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 384a, paying restitution of $20,000, and a fine of $500. The improved view increased the value of the judge's home by at least $100,000, according to a local real estate agent, and the sweetheart deal outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park personnel who originally discovered the butchered trees and conducted the initial investigation. McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.
Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section
Holiday Luncheon.
Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology & Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Issues
One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?
Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease. Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.
JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 3 7 8 8 7
140
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)
ADMINISTRATORS (4)
AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)
ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)
ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY
In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using
misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland
effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland delivered in a big way. Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.
Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. A critical self-policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1) requires judges who have reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.
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.
Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in McBrien CJP Prosecution
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.
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
CONTEMPT (5)
CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN (13)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT (18)
FAMILY COURT (9)
FAMILY LAW
ETHICS (2)
BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (3)
CIVICS (1) CIVIL LIABILITY (1)CJA (3)
ClientTickler (2)CNN (1)
CODE OF SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)
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)
"[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view.
Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster performance as a college student, law school presented a problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family connection.
"[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a serious student. So I went to University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained. "I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D. Schaber], but my dad did. And my dad had done some life insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my dad was an influence on my life because he knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School of Law is my dad's relationship with the dean." Click here to view.
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.
Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into a law school with liberal admission standards.
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.
(9)
FERRIS CASE (8)
FLEC (28)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49) JUDGES (10)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JULIE SETZER (7) LAURIE M. EARL (10)
LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)
LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
OPINION (12)
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) GINGER SYLVESTER (1)
GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.
STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)
JAMES BROSNAHAN (1)
JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)
JODY PATEL (1) 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) JUDICIAL COUNCIL (3)
JUDY HOLZER
HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)
LAW LIBRARY (1)
LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LINCOLN (1)
LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)
MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)
MCGEORGE SOL (2)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA
(1) MIKE NEWDOW (2) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)
NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)
OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL
In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character witness testimony for his old friend and law enforcement co-worker Peter McBrien, Arthur Scotland drew on his training and experience in deceit from his days as a narc. "[Y]ou have to be an actor, you have to play the game," Scotland explained in the 2011 interview. In front of the three CJP judges responsible for hearing evidence and deciding McBrien's fate, Scotland concocted a clever, deceptive plan - an artifice in legal terminology - and convincingly delivered an award worthy actor's performance.
While testifying for McBrien, Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge's behalf effectively was voluntary. Before subpoenaing Scotland to testify, McBrien's defense attorney confirmed that Scotland would not object to the subpoena. Click here. Judicial ethics Canon 2B restricts use of the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal interests of the judge or others. Canon 2B(2)(a) permits a judge to testify as a character witness only when subpoenaed. The transcript of Scotland's testimony also showed that - to prepare his CJP testimony - the presiding justice of the 3rd District affirmatively and voluntarily took the initiative (presumably on his own time) to research 3rd District family court appeals where McBrien was the trial court judge. His objective was to show the CJP that McBrien had a low reversal rate in the appellate court.
"I also, by the way -- when you called me to ask if I would object to being Subpoenaed as a witness, and I said no, I did research. I looked up -- I knew what this was all about, so I researched the number of appeals from cases from Judge McBrien's court. And so I -- and I looked -- I read all the opinions in which he was reversed in full or in part...
I've known Judge McBrien for 32 years. I got to know, then, Deputy Attorney General Pete McBrien. When I left the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and went to work for the California Attorney General's Office, he was already a Deputy Attorney General there. So I got to know him there, mainly professionally. Socially to a relatively minor extent. We had -- we had two co-ed softball teams. He played on one; I played on another. Of course, we would attend office functions together. His -- one of his very best friends was my supervisor in the Attorney General's Office. So, on occasion -- not frequently, but on occasion we would attend social events with others from the office....
[McBrien had] seven reversals in whole or in part, out of 110 appeals, which is about 6%, which actually is a remarkably good reversal rate. Because our average reversal rate in civil cases is 20 to 25 percent." Scotland testified at pages 549-553 of the reporter's transcript. Click here.
Scotland's claim that McBrien had a "remarkably good reversal rate" was, at best, a half-truth. Under the legal and ethical standards applicable to lawyers and judges, a half-truth is the same as a "false statement of fact" or what the general public refers to as a lie. Click here.
What Scotland withheld from the CJP is the fact that the vast majority of appeals from family court are never decided on the merits. Unlike appeals from civil cases, most family court appeals are taken by unrepresented parties who fail to navigate the complexities of appellate procedure and never make it past the preliminary stages of an appeal. In other words, Scotland rigged his statistics. While McBrien may have had seven reversals out of 110 appeals filed, only a small portion of the 110 appeals filed were actually decided on the merits.
Scotland then made a disingenuous, self-serving apples-to-oranges comparison between the reversal rate in civil case appeals - where both sides are usually represented by an attorney, or team of attorneys, and appeals are decided on the merits - with the reversal rate in family court cases, where neither qualifier is true. SFCN currently is conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.
Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his days as an undercover cop. Trained to lie and deceive in order to make undercover
drug buys, Scotland acknowledged his skill in the role. "You have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in 2011.
Blame the Victim
PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (7)
RAPTON-KARRES (9) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (5) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (13) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (12)
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 (5)
ULF CARLSSON (5)
ALIENATION (1)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)
PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1)
RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)
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 BURLINGHAM (1) 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 (2)
VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)
In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-worker Pete McBrien, and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson case resulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland had the balls to suggest that disciplining McBrien for his conduct in Carlsson would be a "miscarriage of justice," that would allow "incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges."
"And you haven't asked me this question, but if [McBrien] were, for some reason, to be found to have violated the canons of judicial ethics, or whatever, I frankly -- I know about these cases; I know about the Carlsson case. I think it would be a miscarriage of justice. I think it would send the wrong signal to judges and practitioners that you don't allow -- that you would be allowing incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges," Scotland testified at the CJP.
Like Scotland, 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing knew well the Carlsson case, which he said "developed a certain notoriety." Unlike Scotland, Rushing wasn't an old friend and coworker of McBrien who would disingenuously suggest the blame for McBrien's "reign of terror" lay with an incompetent attorney. Scotland's colleagues at the 3rd District, Butz, Blease and Sims reversed and remanded the Carlsson case for retrial based on extremely rare, reversible per se, egregious structural and constitutional error by Judge McBrien. After carefully scrutinizing the trial court record, the panel made no mention of attorney "incompetence" in their published opinion.
However, Scotland's incompetence assertion to the CJP did, coincidentally, perfectly dovetail with the carefully crafted defense McBrien's legal team presented during three days of CJP testimony to the three-judge CJP panel assigned to decide McBrien's fate. A key component of McBrien's defense relied on suspiciously consistent witness testimony portraying Ulf Carlsson's attorney Sharon Huddle as incompetent and effectively provoking McBrien's multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. CJP prosecutor Andrew Blum mocked the risible defense in a confidential court reporter transcript leaked to SFCN. Click here to view the transcript. Ironically, the time-tested, repugnant but effective blame the victim strategy, was coldly aided and abetted by Scotland, a justice who rose to power with the backing and endorsements of victims rights groups including Crime Victims United of California, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's defense team, Scotland dusted off the dog-eared playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to advance his personal agenda.
Scotland's irony-infused blame the victim testimony, misleading appeal reversal data, and the weight of character witness testimony from a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with similar character testimony from Sacramento County Superior Court Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currently Of Counsel at the family, family law firm Cecil & Cianci) , Michael Garcia and Robert Hight, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys and judge pro tems Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair and Russell Carlson all tipped the scale just enough to enable McBrien to keep his job. Click here to view the complete, 12-page CJP summary of the McBrien character witness testimony.
Despite the parade of former law enforcement co-workers, friends, and family court judge pro tem cronies McBrien marshaled on his behalf, two of the voting CJP members saw through the ruse and dissented from the decision to let the judge remain on the bench, stating they would have removed McBrien from office. Click here. When he referred to McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror," 6th District Justice Rushing also noted that "two of the nine participating members [voted] to remove him from the bench." Click here.
The Carlsson case is prominently featured in Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States." The production team for the film conducted a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion, and four Sacramento County cases are included in the movie. Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, Divorce Corp opened in theaters in major U.S. cities on January 9, 2014. Following the theatrical run, the documentary will be released on DVD, RedBox, Netflix, broadcast and cable TV. Click here for our continuing coverage of Divorce Corp. To view trailers for the movie on YouTube, click here.
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.
Rehabilitation FAIL
Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement
WATCHDOGS (19)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
YOUTUBE (7)
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)
WHITE HOUSE (1)
XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (4) YOLO COUNTY (1)
In addition, unpublished Third District Court of Appeal decisions indicate that justices who come from a law enforcement background appear to take to the bench with them the "Blue Code of Silence" culture often found in law enforcement agencies. 3rd District Associate Justice George Nicholson worked as a prosecuting attorney for more than 15 years before being appointed to the bench in Sacramento County. The first time Governor George Deukmejian submitted Nicolson's name to the bar for review as a judge in 1983, he was rated as "not qualified," according to the Sacramento Bee.
"George Nicholson, Republican candidate for attorney general in 1982, has been pursuing all manner of public legal positions: U.S. District Court judge,
California Superior Court judge, U.S. Attorney, public defender in Riverside County. The other day, when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him a Sacramento Municipal Court judge, he finally got one. It's an appointment that ought to cause serious concern both within the State Bar and in the community. When Deukmejian submitted Nicholson's name to the bar for review on a possible appointment to the Superior Court in 1983, he was rated 'not qualified.' The bar now ranks him 'qualified', the lowest acceptable rating of three the bar can give.
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.
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
Blue Code of Silence
Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson rode to the bench on a "law and order" agenda.
Role of Political Ideology
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.
'When it became obvious to him he attracted a number of us with a different political philosophy, we were not permitted to do our work,' said Shirley Ruge, a former principal of schools for delinquent children and one of those dismissed. 'We were considered troublemakers and he wanted to shut us up.'"
Nicholson and former 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland have been close friends and colleagues for more than 30 years. For the California Appellate Court Legacy Project Nicholson conducted an almost 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.
In addition, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento applies a unique and previously rarely used "judgment roll" standard of review that in virtually every case where applied results in affirmance of trial court rulings. Appeals brought by self-represented indigent and low-income litigants make up the vast majority of appeals where the 3rd District applies the judgment roll standard of review. Although the appellate court has authored dozens of decisions invoking the draconian standard against family court litigants, it has managed to keep the assembly line, boilerplate process under the radar. The court has not published a single judgment roll appeal originating from family court. Click here to see a list of unpublished 3rd District opinions archived by Google Scholar. The judgment roll summary affirmance process helps the court maintain its title as the most efficient Court of Appeal in the state. Equal protection of the law is implicated because other appellate court districts do not apply the standard nearly as often as the Third District. Equal application of the law is a foundational attribute of American Democracy.
Third District Court of Appeal justices who previously were Sacramento County Superior Court judges include Harry E. Hull Jr., Ronald B. Robie,
George Nicholson Louis Mauro, and Presiding Justice Vance Raye.
"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest Indigent and Low-Income Litigants
Home
Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice.Cole BleaseRonald RobieWilliam Murray Jr.George NicholsonKathleen ButzElena DuarteHarry Hull Jr. Louis MauroAndrea 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.
Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan of the Supreme Court are responsible for oversight and accountability of the 3rd
District Court of Appeal, and the other appellate courts in the state.
+1 Recommend this on Google
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
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye & Oversight of California Courts
Vance w raye misprision of felony third district court racketeering conflict of interest honest serv
Vance raye misprision of felony 3rd district court of appeal sacramento superior court temporary jud
Justice vance raye misprision of felony 3rd district court of appeal honest services fraud rico rack
Crimes Catalog: Obstruction of Justice-Vance Raye Misprision of Felony Third District Court of Appea
Crimes Catalog: Pro Per Civil Rights Violations - Vance Raye Misprision of Felony 3rd District Court