crimes catalog: obstruction of justice-vance raye misprision of felony third district court of appea
DESCRIPTION
Vance W. Raye failed or refused to report obstruction of justice, federal civil rights violations and other federal crimes including honest services fraud and RICO racketeering by Sacramento Superior Court judge pro tem attorneys, court employees and full-time judges. 3rd District Court of Appeal cover up: 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 accessoryTRANSCRIPT
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
07 July 2014
Woodruff O'Hair Posner & Salinger Inc Criminal Conduct by Partner Paula D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All Firm Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge
Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge. Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge
Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer
Allegations that judge pro tem lawyer Paula Salinger committed obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented pro per have gone viral throughout family court reform social media.
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
5 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.
The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is embedded below.
The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.
As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.
Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:
"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.
As page one of the document set reflects, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.
As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set shows, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.
Obstruction of Justice
State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim has been criticizedfor not enforcing state attorney ethics laws against lawyers
- like Paula Salinger - for misconduct against pro per litigants.
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
As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set below, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding. Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.
Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.
Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees. The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document set:
Paula Salinger - Witness Intimidation-Influence Witness by Fraud-Obstruction of Justice - Divorce Attorney... by Sacramento Family Court News
Witness Tampering Law
An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced
by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.
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)
Newer Post Older PostHome
3 comments
Top comments
PR Brown 5 months ago - Shared publicly
Criminal Conduct by Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner Paula D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All WOPLAW Partners Hold Office of Temporary JudgeObstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer ATTORNEY PAULA
·
1 Reply
sparkle Jones shared this via Google+ 4 months ago - Shared publicly
+2 ·
1 Reply
Karen Rose 4 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
If You Need A San Jose Criminal Defense Lawyer visit http://www.edwardajlouny.com
·
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 2:53 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS, PAULA SALINGER, SCBA, WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER
Location: William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - Sacramento
County Courthouse
October 28 , 2010
SHOW ME MORE LIKE PAULA SALINGER - WITNESS INTIMIDATION-INFLUENCE
Share Embed of 16
+5 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
26 March 2014
Hon. Matthew J. Gary Misconduct: Susan Ferris Case and Appeal Front Page News at Sacramento Bee
The Sacramento Bee today published a front page story about the pending appeal in the Sacramento Family Court Susan Ferris case. Sacramento Family Court News has been covering the case for more than a year and has published several articles, including an exclusive video interview with Susan Ferris. Ferris is represented on appeal by a team of lawyers led by prominent San Francisco attorney James Brosnahan of the international law firm Morrison & Foerster.
"This is at the point where a lot of us think it's a disgrace," Brosnahan said. "You can't take someone's child and that person doesn't have an attorney when you do it...It's an outrage," Brosnahan explained to Sacramento Bee reporter Brad Branan.
Click here to read the full article at the Bee. For a list of SFCN articles about the case, including our exclusive Susan Ferris interview, click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the graphic:
Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Disabled, Unrepresented Mom Results in Landmark Appeal to Establish Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Cases
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
4 comments
Top comments
PR Brown 8 months ago - Shared publicly
Hon. Matthew J. Gary Misconduct: Susan Ferris Case and Appeal Front Page News at Sacramento BeeJudge Matthew Gary Abuse of Unrepresented Mom Results in Landmark Appeal to Establish Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Cases The Sacramento Bee today published a front page story about the Sacramento Family Court Susan Ferris case . Click here to ...
·
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 10:14 AM
Labels: APPEALS, FERRIS CASE, JAMES BROSNAHAN, JAMES M. MIZE, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, NO
CONTACT ORDERS, ROBERT HIGHT, SACRAMENTO BEE, SCOTT BUCHANAN, TIMOTHY ZEFF
Location: Sacramento Family Law Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
+11 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
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
19 June 2013
Judge Matthew J. Gary Misconduct: Victim of Illegal Order Issued for Divorce Attorney Timothy Zeff Homeless But Surviving
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT NEWS SPECIAL REPORT
The disturbing aftermath of an unconscionable $920 child support order issued by Judge Matthew J. Gary shows one of the ramifications, and the inexorable human cost of what court watchdogs contend is unchecked family court corruption and cronyism. The April, 2012 order gutted the monthly disability income of unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigant Susan Ferris from $1,256 to $336. Gary previously issued an equally unlawful order prohibiting the 52-year-old single parent from having any contact with her daughter, Megan.
Judge Matthew Gary Order for Partner of Judge Pro Tem Attorney Scott Buchanan Results in Homelessness for Disabled Mom
Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff family law attorney Timothy Zeff requested and was granted an unlawful $920 child support order by Judge Matthew J. Gary. Zeff's partner, Scott Buchanan, is a family court judge pro tem. The order financially devastated 52-year-old disabled,
single parent Susan Ferris. Evicted from her Sacramento home and now homeless, she sleeps on the couch of a Bay Area friend.
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
20 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
The April support order financially devastated Ferris, leaving her with far less income than she needed for food, utilities, and rent. After several months under the order and behind on her rent, Ferris was evicted from her East Sacramento home and became homeless. The same court order records that her ex-husband, David Ferris, earns $8,089 per month. Click here to view Gary's minute order, obtained and posted online exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News. As a result of the order, Susan Ferris' credit has been thrashed, the repo man came for her car, and the eviction will now be part of her renter's report, making it virtually impossible for her to rent a home in the future.
To continue reading, click Read more>> below:
Like orders issued by the same judge in other cases, both minute orders contain no facts or law justifying the draconian rulings, making them patently illegal under state law. The comparison to orders in other cases reveals a consistent pattern that infers a calculated and deliberate intent to conceal from review the judge's misuse of Family Code statutes for the prohibited purpose of punishing unrepresented parties. Gary, a fervent right-wing ideologue, also detests what he reportedly calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court parties who obtain fee waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. The template-like repetition of the judge's bad faith tactics and overt socioeconomic bias also evinces an abdication of oversight responsibilities by Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers, superior court Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, and family court Supervising Judge James Mize.
Gary issued the $920 child support order against Susan Ferris at the request of veteran family law attorney Timothy Zeff of the Sacramento family law firm Larscheid, Buchanan & Zeff. Zeff's partner is attorney and family court judge pro tem J. Scott Buchanan. At a subsequent hearing three weeks later, Zeff requested and Gary issued an additional illegal order directing Susan Ferris to pay $2,500 to her ex-husband for Zeff's attorney fees. Click here to view the May attorney fees order, which also is barren of any facts or law justifying the ruling.
The order also is unlawful because it does not record consideration by the judge of the comparative wealth of the parties as required by Family Code §271, the statute Gary used for the order. Click here to view the law applicable to the comparative wealth assessment requirement. Gary has a documented history of issuing unlawful, appeal-proof orders in cases where one party is represented by a judge pro tem family law attorney and the other party is unrepresented and indigent or otherwise financially disadvantaged.
Family law attorney Timothy Zeff obtained a child support order for his client, David Ferris, who makes $8,089 per month. The order made his disabled ex-wife, Susan Ferris, homeless. In this exclusive SFCN photo, Susan sleeps with her Yellow Lab "Buddy" on the couch of a
Bay Area friend. Family law attorney J. Scott Buchanan, Zeff's partner, holds the Office of Temporary Judge in Sacramento Superior Court.
Serial Misuse of Family Code §271 Sanctions Against
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
Sacramento Family Court News audits of other family court case files show that Judge Matthew Gary routinely issues severe, disproportionate Family Code §271 attorney fee sanction orders against unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. The statute requires a judge to compare the income, assets and liabilities of both parties before making a sanction ruling. The law is impossible to misconstrue:
"In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities." reads Family Code §271.
Court reporter transcripts, minute orders and other records indicate that Gary - a former family law attorney - does not consider the income, assets and liabilities of both parties, and in cases where only one party has an attorney consistently omits the mandatory comparative wealth assessment required by the law. The draconian sanction orders are unlawful but nonetheless effective against pro per parties with little knowledge of family law, much less knowledge of the appellate law and procedure required to contest the order.
In one example cataloged by court watchdogs and memorialized by a court reporter's transcript, when directly asked if he had considered the comparative wealth of the parties before assessing more than $10,759 in attorney fee sanctions against an indigent, self-represented party, Gary conceded he had not, and appeared to express, or feign ignorance of the law. The transcript records the judge repeatedly using a verbal diversion to the payment terms of the sanction, a separate component of the sanction law unrelated to the comparative wealth consideration. To view the transcript excerpt, click here. To view the complete transcript, click here.
The separate and distinct comparative wealth assessment is required specifically to prevent the misuse of Family Code §271 sanctions to discourage an economically weaker party from asserting their rights, according to both state law and the family law legal reference used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group. To view view the Practice Guide reference, click here. To view comparative wealth decisional law references, click here.
Family Code §271(c) provides that:
"An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party's share of community property."
In addition to ignoring the comparative wealth legal requirement, Gary also ignores this mandatory component of the law. Knowing an indigent litigant without assets or income will be unable to make a monthly sanction payment, the judge orders the litigant to do so, ensuring default when the first payment comes due. When the payment is missed, after 10-days the entire balance is due, as shown in the order above. Click here to view the complete order.
Indigent, Unrepresented Litigants
Judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger requested and was granted this unprecedented sanctions order by Judge Matthew J. Gary against an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Gary recorded no facts, law or evidence in support of the order, making it virtually appeal-proof.
Sanction Payment Terms That Ensure Default
Knowing the litigant would default on the first payment, Judge Matthew Gary ordered an indigent party without assets or income of any kind to make sanction payments of $25 per month on a balance of $10,759. If the payments were made, it would take 35 years to pay off the debt. For the benefit of judge pro tem divorce attorney Paula Salinger, the judge sua sponte - on his own - also made the payment
terms subject to "adjustment at trial."
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)
And like the minute orders in the Ferris case, the facts and law justifying the unprecedented $10,759 attorney fee sanction are omitted from Gary's minute order. Published by the Judicial Council, the California Judges Benchguide Courtroom Control: Contempt and Sanctions instructs judges who issue Family Code §271 sanctions
"[t]o issue a written order and to avoid stating conclusions in the words of the statute. Give a factual recital, with reasonable specificity, of the circumstances leading to the order. If desired, incorporate by reference portions of a party's papers that adequately set forth the conduct, circumstances and legal arguments providing the bases for the court's conclusions." Click here to view this section of the Benchguide.
The Benchguide directions mirror California Rules of Court rule 2.30 - sanctions for rules violations in civil cases - and the elementary principle of law that "An order imposing sanctions must be in writing and must recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order." Click here. Without any factual recital, portions of the party's papers, or references to the conduct and circumstances justifying the ruling, Gary ordered the unrepresented, indigent litigant to pay a $10,759 sanction for the attorney fees of judge pro tem family law attorney Paula Salinger.
Salinger is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section and partner at the controversial family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger. To view the astonishing, complete hearing transcript - which SFCN will report on in an upcoming article - click here. Original, court case file records from this and other cases indicate that Gary routinely uses unlawful sanction orders for the explicitly prohibited purpose of discouraging economically weaker parties from asserting their rights, and to send the message that returning to court will result in still more financial punishment.
In addition, to prevent the one-sided, unfair outcomes previously common in family court cases with socioeconomic imbalances between the parties, the Legislature has explicitly mandated equalizing wealth disparities in a variety of family court proceedings. For example, in the context of providing financially disadvantaged parties with attorney representation, to ensure parity between the parties attorney fee awards must be "just and reasonable," and take into account the "relative circumstances" of each spouse. Click here to view more than 40 court of appeal decisions emphasizing this critical, long-established principle of family law.
Gary also has perfected the use of "appeal-proof" orders, which make appeals attempted by indigent, self-represented litigants futile, according to court reform advocates. Court watchdogs have collected minute orders authored by Gary in cases where one party is unrepresented and financially disadvantaged, and compared them with the orders of other judges. The orders issued by Gary consistently show that the judge does not memorialize the facts, law and evidence supporting the ruling(s) issued, which virtually always are against the pro per. Appellate courts have emphasized that a basic, fundamental duty of a trial court judge is to protect the appeal rights of all litigants by making and filing in the trial court record findings on all material issues.
"Under our system it is mandatory that the superior court make and file its finding of the ultimate fact on each material issue created by the pleadings," Herman v. Glasscock. Click here.
"It is elementary that a failure to find on all material issues raised by the pleadings is ground for reversal." Kaiser v. Mansfield. Click here.
By comparison, this order from a different judge in a Sacramento Family Court case also involving modification of a child support order contains seven pages of the facts, evidence and law which the judge relied on in making the order. Click here to view the order. And this order from another judge involving modification of custody/parenting time contains 16 pages of facts, evidence and law in support of the order. To view the order, click here. Gary uses the family law legal reference work California Practice Guide: Family Law to provide monthly "Bench Tips" for family law attorneys in the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section newsletter, The Family Law Counselor.
Gary's own preferred legal reference source makes clear that in child support modification proceedings the order issued by the judge must include a statement of information or reasons. Click here for the Practice Guide
Concealment of Errors and Misconduct Using Appeal-Proof Orders
To avoid being reversed on appeal, unethical judges will leave out of an order the facts, law and evidence on which an order is based, according to California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.
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 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)
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
reference. "Such findings not only will enable the parties to appreciate the basis for the child support order, they will facilitate judicial review in any future appeal..." according to In re Marriage of Hubner, one of the decisional law references cited by the Practice Guide. Click here to view the Hubner case.
Although Gary has an legal and ethical obligation to preserve the appeal rights of all litigants, including the poor, under the doctrine of implied findings any appeal taken from an order authored by the judge is all but futile. Where a trial court order is barren of facts supporting the order, the doctrine requires a reviewing court to infer that the trial court judge made all factual findings necessary to support the order. A related legal principle, the presumption of correctness, requires an appellate court to "indulge all presumptions supporting the judgment or order" when the order issued by a trial court judge omits the facts, law and evidence on which the ruling is based.
Unethical judges who issue rulings they know could be reversed on appeal will "cloak" the rulings in the presumption of correctness by leaving an incomplete record for review, according to the legal reference used by judges and attorneys for appellate court procedure, California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group. The orders issued by Gary also violate the Trial Court Performance Standards specified in the California Rules of Court Standards of Judicial Administration, including the following provisions of Standard 10.17:
(3)(A) Trial court procedures faithfully adhere to relevant laws, procedural rules, and established policies...
(3)(D) Decisions of the trial court unambiguously address the issues presented to it and make clear how compliance can be achieved...
(3)(F) Records of all relevant court decisions and actions are accurate and properly preserved.
Click here to view these portions of Standard 10.17.
An example of an attempted appeal of a ruling which Judge Matthew Gary cloaked in the presumption of correctness is this unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal decision. The reviewing court noted that the facts, law and evidence recited in the written trial court order issued by Gary consisted entirely of "insufficient facts/res judicata." The court of appeal mechanically invoked presumption of correctness and implied findings principles, writing "we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court's findings," and upheld Gary's ruling. Click here to view the court of appeal decision. Click here to view appellate court docket information verifying Matthew Gary as the trial court judge.
Witnesses who attended the April and May 2012 Susan Ferris hearings said that Judge Matthew Gary became embroiled and appeared to issue the child support and attorney fee sanction orders to vindictively punish Susan Ferris for asserting her rights in prior proceedings - including an unsuccessful attempt to disqualify the judge - and for associating with a group of court reform advocates, including Robert Saunders, who also act as court watchers for the indigent and disabled.
Gary reportedly has been livid at Saunders - also indigent, unrepresented and disabled - since Saunders successfully had the judge removed from his own case by a neutral, outside judge from San Joaquin County in 2010. Click here for our exclusive coverage of Gary's disqualification by Saunders.
Gary and his long time court clerk Christina Arcuri allegedly are right-wing ideologues who despise what they refer to as the "entitlement mentality" of indigent, family court litigants who obtain fee waiver orders, and disabled litigants on public assistance, according to a family court employee whistleblower who provided the information on the condition of
anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. To view a description of retaliation against a previous Sacramento County Superior Court employee whistleblower, click here.
Court records indicate that both Gary and Arcuri convey socioeconomic bias in performing their employment-related functions and duties. Bias based on socioeconomic status is explicitly prohibited by four separate sections of the California Code of Judicial Ethics [pdf]. Canon 3B(5) requires judges to perform all judicial duties without bias or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based on socioeconomic status. Judges must require staff and court
"Entitlement Mentality" of Disabled and Indigent
Judge Matthew Gary favors "judicial restraint"and admires U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
according to an interview in Sacramento Lawyer magazine.
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)
personnel to do the same under Canon 3C(2). A judge must also perform administrative duties - which includes the ministerial duty of accurately drafting and filing court orders - without bias or prejudice based on socioeconomic status, according to Canon 3C(5).
Judge Matthew J. Gary is paid $169,289 per year, and was appointed to the bench by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. Schwarzenegger was named in the 2010 Worst Governors Report by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Among other charges, Schwarzenegger was faulted for providing "state jobs to friends with dubious qualifications." Click here. In a 2007 interview with Sacramento Lawyer magazine, Gary characterized his legal philosophy as "favoring judicial restraint," and said he admired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Judge Gary was found guilty in 2010 by San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua of not following proper contempt procedures when he had a disabled litigant arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom. As SFCN reported in 2011, Gary's wife, Donna Gary provides law firm administrative services and sells a client management software program to family law attorneys. Click here for our exclusive report. In 2011 a controversial ruling issued by Gary was reversed in full by the 3rd District
Court of Appeal. In 2012 Gary was involuntarily demoted from his position as the supervising family court judge. Gary is a graduate of El Camino High School in Sacramento and previously worked at his father’s law firm, Gary, Till & Burlingham. His father, Richard Gary, is a family law attorney. Links on the firm's resources page include the Christian Legal Society and the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowers point out that the flagrant lawlessness of Judge Matthew Gary's series of orders in the Ferris case, and conduct in other cases is additional evidence that accountability and oversight by court administrators, including Court Executive Officer Christina Volkers, Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, and family court Supervising Judge James Mize is nonexistent in Sacramento County Superior Court. Sacramento Family Court News has reported on multiple instances of misconduct by family court judges and clerks and employees, egregious violations of conflict of interest laws and the preferential treatment of attorneys who also act as temporary judges in family court.
Court administrators and oversight officials have repeatedly declined to provide information about what corrective measures, if any, have been initiated to address the problems. As state court judges, Mize and Earl are required by state law to take appropriate corrective action when another judge violates state law, court rules, and the state Code of Judicial Ethics. The obligation is a critical self-policing component of judicial ethics standards and ensures that the rule of law is maintained. To view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required, click here. In addition, Judge Gary's unlawful conduct has been witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government employees, each has a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct.
2014 UPDATE: Judge Matthew Gary's outrageous treatment of Susan Ferris resulted in a team of attorneys - led by prominent San Francisco trial attorney James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster - taking over her case after she filed an appeal in the 3rd District Appellate Court. The Sacramento Bee published a front page story about the appeal on March 26, 2014:
"This is at the point where a lot of us think it's a disgrace," Brosnahan said. "You can't take someone's child and that person doesn't have an attorney when you do...It's an outrage," Brosnahan explained to Sacramento Bee reporter Brad Branan.
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:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Nonexistent Oversight and Accountability by Court Administrators
Supervising Family Court Judge James M. Mize.
(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
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
29 April 2013
Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct: Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver Hearing
Monday Document Dump
Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from the bench, Judge Matthew Gary denies a fee waiver request by an indigent, unrepresented litigant in this startling court reporter transcript. The fee waiver request was for trial court appellate costs for an appeal of several orders issued by the judge. The pro per had an existing fee waiver which by law automatically applied to the trial court appeal costs, making the hearing ordered by the judge patently unlawful. To view the order Gary issued after the hearing, click here. The opposing party is represented by divorce attorney Paula Salinger, partner at the prominent Sacramento family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., sworn Sacramento County Superior Court temporary judge, and current officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC. Days after the hearing, Gary issued a second order reversing himself and granting the fee waiver request, but at the same time embedding in the order a sham finding designed to help Salinger and her client at a pending trial in the case.
To continue reading, and to view the court reporter transcript click Read more >> below... The second order mischaracterized the facts and testimony recorded in the hearing transcript, and included false statements intended to create a misleading record to enable Salinger to use the order at a pending trial to avoid a potential spousal support obligation of her client.
"[T]he court does not find [respondent's] assertion of poverty credible and that, even if he were, the state of 'poverty' is self induced & is a deliberate effort on his part to manipulate this ongoing dissolution case," the judge wrote in his revised order. Click here to view the order.
Under judicial ethics rules, Gary's written statement indicates that he was not acting as an impartial judge, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges. Gary also is caught on the transcript probing the pro per about the pending trial and spousal support issue, subjects with no logical connection to the fee waiver hearing. Click here to view this portion of the transcript. As the transcript records, the judge manipulated the hearing through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact to achieve his desired result - fabricating false findings to help the judge pro tem attorney at trial - also a judicial ethics violation, according to the CJP. In essence, Gary used the illegal fee waiver hearing for an unrelated and improper purpose: to influence and reduce or eliminate the potential spousal support liability of Salinger's client at a subsequent trial before a different judge. The formal finding is calculated to enable the attorney to argue that her client should not have to pay support because - according to a finding by the judge assigned to pre-trial proceedings in the case - the unrepresented spouse's lack of income is "self-induced."
As the transcript records, Gary abandoned the role of judge and assumed the role of advocate for the opposing
Judge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help Judge Pro Tem 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
5 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
5 comments
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 9:28 AM
Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CHRISTINA ARCURI, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS,
J. STRONG, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, PAULA SALINGER, SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS
Location: Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - Sacramento Family
Court
attorney. Acting as an advocate for a party or attorney is expressly prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics and multiple judge disciplinary decisions by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Click here to view CJP decisions. Revealing additional bias and prejudgment, the judge speculatively accused the unrepresented litigant of "voluntarily" becoming unemployed a year before his wife filed for divorce so that he would be eligible for spousal support. Click here and here to view these excerpts from the court reporter transcript. A fervent right-wing ideologue, Gary reportedly detests what he calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court pro pers who obtain fee waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. A trial court judge who obstructs an appeal, or retaliates against an attorney or litigant for taking an appeal is subject to discipline by the CJP for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here to view a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions. Judges also have been disciplined for manipulating a hearing to achieve a desired result, click here, and for creating a misleading record, click here. Despite documented, serial violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Gary has never been publicly disciplined by the CJP. The judge's unlawful conduct in connection with the fee waiver hearing was witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government employees, each had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. Neither, apparently, did.
For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.
Share Embed of 18
+5 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 & INFORMATION
Top comments
PR Brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly
Judge Matthew Gary Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver HearingJudge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help Judge Pro Tem Monday Document Dump Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from the
+1 ·
1 Reply
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 11 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
Divorce lawyer Paula Salinger collusion with Judge Matthew Gary is evident in this leaked
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 JUDICIAL BRANCH
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
26 April 2013
Sacramento Family Court Administrators Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and Clerk Christina Arcuri Violate State Law, Court Rules In Fee Waiver Errors
A Sacramento Family Court News audit of family court cases reveals that court clerks are issuing incomplete, defective fee waiver orders which contain substantive errors rendering the orders useless. Under California law, indigent and low income litigants are entitled to a waiver of court filing fees. Certain family court filings - including
Defective Fee Waiver Orders Show Family Court Clerks Violate State Laws, Block Court Access of Indigent Litigants
Supervision, Oversight & Accountability Absent
This fee waiver order filed by Department 121 courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri and stamped with the signature of Judge Matthew J. Gary is useless. Incomplete, defective orders like this are refused by courthouse public counter filing clerks and the Sacramento County
Sheriff's Department Civil Division. Click here to view the full-size order. Click here to view the specific defects in the order. Click here to view a complete, valid fee waiver order issued to the same person by a clerk at the Carol Miller Justice Center courthouse in Sacramento.
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
4 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
domestic violence and contempt actions - require proof of personal service and the fee waiver also entitles poor litigants to have papers served by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. The fee waiver procedure is specified by California Rules of Court rules 3.50 - 3.58 and the process is standardized throughout the state. But a comparison of orders issued in other courts with those issued by Sacramento Family Court clerks shows the family court orders consistently are not in compliance with state law. Family court clerks issue incomplete orders that often result in a Catch-22 situation: When a litigant later attempts to use the defective fee waiver order to file documents the order is refused by public counter filing clerks for being incomplete. The orders also are rejected as defective when a litigant attempts to have documents served by the Sheriff's Civil Division. In addition, in all of the cases reviewed by SFCN, the orders also omitted mandatory Judicial Council form FW-010 - an entire page of the order required by state court rule 3.52(4).
To continue reading, click Read More >> below...
Page 1 of 5Page 1 of 5
This fee waiver order issued to the same person by Deputy Clerk D. Turner at the Carol Miller Justice Center in Sacramento complies with state law governing fee waiver procedure. Click here to view the order in a new browser window. The family court fee waiver order issued by Christina Arcuri - courtroom clerk for Judge Matthew J. Gary - is not only incomplete and missing the mandatory Judicial Council FW-010 form, it also is filled out by Arcuri using the wrong Judicial Council form. As the accurate, Carol Miller Justice Center fee waiver order reflects, the correct form is FW-003. Arcuri used the form for issuance of a fee waiver after a court hearing, FW-008. The litigant listed in the defective order - who is disabled and on public assistance - was entitled to an automatic, non-discretionary waiver and did not have a fee waiver hearing. Other fee waiver orders audited by Sacramento Family Court News contained similar errors making the orders unusable. None of the orders resembled the state law compliant fee waiver order issued at the Carol Miller Courthouse.
Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct." As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by
Carol Miller Courthouse Issues Accurate, Valid Fee Waiver Orders
Oversight and Accountability
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
Posted by PR Brown at 12:34 PM
Labels: CHRISTINA ARCURI, CHRISTINA VOLKERS, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS, FERRIS CASE, JULIE SETZER, LAURIE M. EARL, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WATCHDOGS
Location: William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, USA
the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.
Court watchdogs also point out that the fee waiver order problem is another example of systemic family court mismanagement by Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, and reflects a failure of oversight by Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl and Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers. Sacramento Superior Court internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the Superior Court policy introduction.
The fee waiver order problem also exposes taxpayers to potential liability for civil rights violations against indigent litigants, and violates several state laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, which classifies court rule violations by court employees as an improper governmental activity. In upcoming posts, SFCN will report on additional problems with fee waiver orders and procedure in family court, including an attempt by Judge Matthew J. Gary to block appellate review of his own orders by unlawfully using the fee waiver review process against an indigent family court litigant.
Related articles:
Sacramento Family Court chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh responsible for serial court rule violations. Click here.
Family court appeals unit illegally rejecting appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here.
Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts gives false info to indigent pro per litigants. Click here.
Family court clerks let judge pro tem attorneys file sham entry of judgment paperwork. Click here.
Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers silent on fixing appeals unit problems. Click here.
Other court employee misconduct articles: Click here.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
Court Administration Mismanagement
+4 Recommend this on Google
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
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
27 February 2013
Sacramento Superior Court Misconduct: Hon. Matthew J. Gary Order for Divorce Attorney Timothy Zeff - Notice of Appeal Illegally Unfiled - Complete Original Document
Wednesday Document Dump
In our initial report documenting that Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerks were unlawfully rejecting appeals by unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged litigants, we redacted the name of the party whose case was used as an example of the illegal practice. The litigant asked that we redact her name because she feared she would be subject to retaliation for the disclosure by Judge Matthew Gary or court employees. For the benefit of other indigent, pro per litigants, she has since requested that we tell her full story, and publish her name. The document below is the complete notice of appeal filed by Susan Ferris, a disabled, unrepresented 52-year-old single parent. Ferris also was subjected to an unlawful "no contact" child custody order issued by Judge Gary for divorce attorney Timothy Zeff, the partner of Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyer and family court judge pro tem Scott Buchanan.
To continue reading, and to view the notice of appeal document, click Read more >> below:
The notice of appeal Ferris subsequently filed was illegally "unfiled" by family court appeals unit Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman. For more than six months, the error has not been corrected, and Hinman has not been held accountable for her violation of the law and unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. The lack of any corrective action indicates that the illegal act is condoned by family court supervisors. According to a criminal law attorney, the elements of a violation of Penal Code § 182 - conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws - specify that an agreement or conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of those accused of the crime. Other criminal statutes that may apply include Penal Code § 470(c), altering, corrupting or falsifying a legal document, and Penal Code § 470(d), altering a document with the intent to cause damage to a legal, financial or property right. Hinman's action clearly deprived Ferris of her legal right to appellate review. Click here to read the complete SFCN report on the unfiled appeal. Click here for our continuing coverage of the Susan Ferris case. Click on the labels below the document for additional reporting on the people and issues in this post.
Court Clerk Blocks Appeal of Judge Matthew Gary Order Issued for Judge Pro Tem Scott Buchanan Partner Timothy Zeff
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
0 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
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
27 April 2012
Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Authority: Indigent, Disabled, Unrepresented Litigant Illegally Arrested and Jailed for Contempt of Court
Friday Document Dump
As this document reflects, Sacramento County Family Court Judge Matthew Gary ordered his courtroom bailiff to arrest and jail unrepresented, disabled litigant Robert Saunders for contempt of court on March 9, 2009. The incident was witnessed by Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Each lawyer also serves as a temporary judge in the same court.
Two independent judges subsequently determined that both the arrest and contempt charge were unlawful, and the criminal case was dismissed. Both Sokol and Van Beveren had a legal and ethical duty to report Gary's misconduct. Courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri also had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. None of the witnesses reported the misconduct or otherwise took any corrective action. At the same hearing, the judge issued an illegal "no-contact" order prohibiting Saunders from having any contact with his twin daughters. Saunders has not seen his children since. Gary has never been held accountable for his misconduct and violation of Saunders' constitutional, civil, and parental rights. Click here to read the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News report of the March 9, 2009 incident.
Judge Matthew Gary Escapes Accountability for Illegal Arrest and Incarceration of Disabled Pro Per
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
0 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
2 comments
Top comments
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly
Divorce attorney Richard Sokol witnesses unlawful conduct by Judge Matthew Gary and
Add a comment
Posted by PelicanBriefed at 2:46 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, CHILD CUSTODY, CHRISTINA ARCURI, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, DOCUMENTS, FLEC,
JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PARENT RIGHTS, PRO PERS, RICHARD SOKOL,
SCBA
Location: Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse
Share Embed of 1
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
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
24 April 2012
Hon. Matthew J. Gary Abuse of Authority: Code of Judicial Ethics and State Law Violations - Ordered Removed From Family Court Case by Fellow Judge for Misconduct, Bias & Abuse of Unrepresented LitigantFamily Court Judge Matthew J. Gary Disqualified From Case for Bias and Unlawful Arrest of Pro Per
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive:
[Updated below]
Internal court records obtained by Sacramento Family Court news reveal that a San Joaquin County judge in 2010 issued a court order removing Judge Matthew Gary from a Sacramento Family Court case for misconduct and bias against a disabled, unrepresented litigant. Although Gary contested the removal action and denied the bias and misconduct charges, after reviewing the evidence San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua rejected Gary's version of events and ordered the controversial judge disqualified from any further proceedings in the case.
The motion to recuse, or remove, Gary from the case was filed by pro per Robert Saunders. In accordance with state law, the motion was heard and decided by a neutral, outside-the-county judge. At the time the motion was filed, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George assigned Villapudua to decide
the case. In her ruling rejecting Gary's denial and removing the judge from the case, Villapudua made it clear which of the conflicting stories was believable.
"Based on the evidence submitted the court does find that a reasonable person might entertain a doubt that Judge Matthew J. Gary would be able to be impartial. Three separate witnesses stated Judge Gary was impatient and rude to [Saunders]. Three separate witnesses declared the judge appeared biased during the hearing, making snide or rude comments to [Saunders]. From the sworn declarations submitted it appears Judge Gary became embroiled during the hearing on March 9, 2009. Judge Gary appeared to lose his patience with [Saunders]. He did not adhere to the proper procedure for contempt and had [Saunders] arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs," Villapudua wrote in the
Judge Matthew J. Gary, Sacramento County Superior Court. A fellow judge ordered Gary removed from the Robert Saunders case for abuse of the
unrepresented litigant and misuse of contempt law.
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
court order ending Gary's jurisdiction over the case. Click here to view the order.
Villapudua's assessment of Gary's credibility and the unlawful arrest and incarceration of Saunders for contempt of court was reaffirmed by a second judge who, at a subsequent court hearing in Sacramento County Superior Court, dismissed a resisting arrest charge against Saunders from the same incident. Evidence in the criminal case included a video recording of the debacle, according to the arrest report of a courtroom bailiff. In addition, the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren, both of whom failed to intervene as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Gary currently is the Supervising Family Law, Probate and ADA Judge.
To continue reading, click Read more>> below...
In his motion to disqualify Gary from the case, Saunders asserted that the judge was rude, impatient, and abused his authority by having him arrested and dragged from the courtroom. As Villapudua's order reflects, Saunders' claims were supported by the sworn testimony of three separate eyewitnesses who confirmed Saunders' account of the incident. The witnesses also testified that Gary m ade snide or rude comments directed at Saunders, and appeared biased during the hearing. In his defense, Gary submitted to the San Joaquin County judge a one-sentence answer denying the charges made by Saunders. "I deny the allegations stated in Respondent's Challenge," Gary stated under penalty of perjury. Click here to view Gary's denial. To view the minute order issued by Gary after the hearing in which he charged Saunders with contempt of court, click here.
Judge Villapudua issued her order banning Gary from the Saunders case on January 7, 2010. Five months later, a second judge with no connection to family court dismissed the resisting arrest charge filed against Saunders by Gary's courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Deputy J. Strong. The dismissal of the criminal case by former prosecutor and veteran Sacramento County criminal court Judge Richard Gilmour infers that the video recording of the incident also supported Saunders' contention that both the contempt and resisting arrest charges were baseless and motivated by Gary's temper, embroilment and abuse of authority.
UPDATE: A government whistleblower has leaked the courtroom security video of the illegal arrest and assault of Robert Saunders. Click here.
"Gary Became Embroiled...Did Not Adhere To Proper Procedure For Contempt"
Assigned to the case by the California Supreme Court Chief Justice, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri Villapudua ordered Judge Matthew Gary disqualified to hear further proceedings in the Robert Saunders case.
Second Independent Judge Vindicates Saunders
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
The unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Both attorneys are Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judges. Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they witness another judge violate the law or any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Canon 3D(1), an important self-policing component of the Code, mandates the intervention to maintain public confidence in the courts and ensure that judge misconduct is kept in check. As confirmed by two independent judges, Gary's actions were clear violations of several sections of the ethics code, but court records and other eyewitness accounts indicate that neither Sokol, nor Van Beveren complied with the misconduct reporting requirement. Click here to view an internal Judicial Council of California memo about the legal duty. In addition, courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct by the judge, but took no action. In a different case last year Judge Matthew Gary suffered a full reversal by the Third District Court of Appeal. As in the Saunders case, in Seaton v. Seaton Gary also did not follow established law. After conducting his own investigation and forensic analysis on a 20-year-old marriage certificate signature, Gary concluded that the signature was not made by an extremely intoxicated person, as Patricia Seaton had claimed. The judge then nullified a 17-year marriage so that Patricia would be deprived of all property, support and other rights associated with a lawful marriage. The appellate court reversed Gary's decision, noting that the issues Gary had with Patricia's credibility were irrelevant to determining whether the marriage was valid.
Both Gary and Villapudua were appointed to the bench in June, 2007 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Judge Gary is paid $169,289 per year.
For his deference to attorneys, and mismanagement of Sacramento County Family Court, Gary received a "Poster Child of the Month Award" from the Family Court Accountability Coalition, a statewide family court watchdog group. Gary received the honor for "serial due process, equal protection and access to the courts violations," according to the FCAC Blog.
"Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current presiding judge, Matthew J. Gary is a right-wing, anti-government ideologue who believes government is dysfunctional and is determined to prove it...while collecting a $170,000 annual salary from the state."
FCAC also cited a 2007, Sacramento Lawyer magazine interview with Gary:
"Gary characterizes his legal philosophy as favoring judicial restraint. Among the U.S. Supreme Court justices who he admires are Antonin Scalia..."
UPDATE: Family Law Courts.com asks whether Family Court bailiffs are enforcing the law or acting as judicial puppets.
Related Content:
The resisting arrest charge filed by Judge Matthew Gary's courtroom bailiff J. Strong against Robert Saunders was dismissed by Judge Richard Gilmour on May 10, 2010.
Judge Pro Tem Eyewitnesses Fail To Intervene
San Joaquin County Superior CourtJudge Xapuri B. Villapudua
Gary Receives "Poster Child of the Month" Award from Family
Court Advocacy Group
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
4 comments
Top comments
Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly
Underdog wins one. Disabled, unrepresented and financially disadvantaged family court litigant Robert Saunders wins disqualification order against Sacramento Family Court Judge Matthew J. Gary. San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua orders Gary removed from Saunders' case for having him arrested and dragged from the courtroom by multiple bailiffs. An extremely rare victory for a pro per, who, as a group,
+2 ·
1 Reply
Hon. Matthew J. Gary - Sacramento County Superior Court via Google+11 months ago - Shared publicly
Judge Matthew Gary order removed from case by outside, independent judge for abuse of authority, including illegal arrest of disabled, unrepresented litigant. Witnesses judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren fail to intervene as required by Code of Judicial Ethics. A second, independent judge dismissed a resisting arrest charge also filed against the indigent pro per.
·
1 Reply
jeremy fortik 1 year ago - Shared publicly
I have Judge Matthew Gary. It has been a horrendous experience. He seems to be ambivalent to the best interest of children. I can't believe he's a judge actually just based on his lack of any common sense. Please contact me at [email protected] if you would like to together come up with a solution to get him permanently removed from this very important position. Thanks, April
+1 ·
1 Reply
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 9:16 PM
Labels: CHILD CUSTODY, CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, CONTEMPT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS, NO CONTACT ORDERS, PRO PERS, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA
Location: Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Court Sacramento - William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse,
3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
* Controversial Judge Matthew Gary Removed from Supervisory Position
* Matt Gary Disqualification Records & Update
* Supervising Judge Matt Gary Warns Family Court Problems Will Get Worse
* Judge Matthew Gary Reversed by 3rd District Court of Appeal for Improper Investigation, Forensic Analysis
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
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
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)
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)
ADMINISTRATORS (4)
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
Crimes Catalog: Pro Per Civil Rights Violations - Vance Raye Misprision of Felony 3rd District Court
Misprision of felony vance raye 3rd district court of appeal federal honest services fraud & rico ra