judge peter mcbrien prosecution: opening brief to the commission on judicial performance by cjp...

Andrew Blum, Esq., State Bar No. 116644Valerie Marchant, Esq., State Bar No. 124765 FILEDCommission on Judicial PerformanceOffice of Trial Counsel JUL 0 8 2009455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14424

San Francisco, CA 94102 Commission onTelephone: (415) 557-1200 Judicial Performance

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

INQUIRY CONCERNINGJUDGE PETER J. MCBRIEN,

(Rule 130(a))NO. 185.

EXAMINER'S OPENING BRIEFTO THE COMMISSION

Pursuant to Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance, rule 130(a),the examiner submits the following opening brief.

I. PROCEDURAL STATUSOn June 23,2009, the special masters filed their findings of fact andconclusions oflaw with the commission. (Rule 129.)

II. SUMMARY OF MASTERS' CONCLUSIONSThe masters concluded that Judge McBrien engaged in two instances ofprejudicial misconduct (counts 1A(1) and 1A(3)), and two instances of improper

action (counts 1A(2) and 1A(4)).

2009-07-08-Examiner-Opening Brief

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

III. OBJECTIONS TO MASTERS' REPORTA. Findings ofFactWith the exception of certain factors listed in mitigation (Nos. 4, 7), theexaminer does not object to the masters' findings of fact. (Findings ofFact andConclusions ofLaw ofthe Special Masters [hereafter "masters' rpt."], p. 142.)There were very few disputed facts in this matter and the masters resolved thosedisputes based on their evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Since themasters "had the advantage ofobserving the demeanor ofthe witnesses," theirfactual determinations should be given "special weight." (Broadman v.Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079,1090.)

We object to the masters listing as a mitigating factor (concerningallegation 1A(3)) that "Judge McBrien had a good faith belief in his duty to reporta criminal violation." (Masters' rpt., p. 142, No. 4.) This finding was part of thedetermination that the conduct constituted prejudicial rather than willfulmisconduct; it is not a separate mitigating factor.

We object to the masters listing as a mitigating factor Judge McBrien'sstatement in a letter to the commission that "I admit I acted badly and for whichactions I deserve to be rebuked[]" as a mitigating factor. (Masters' rpt., p. 142,No. 7.) As set forth in the masters' report, Judge McBrien later explained that hemeant only that he had left an incomplete record in the case, which led to a poorpublic perception ofhis actions, not that he had done anything substantively

wrong. (R.T. 184; masters' rpt., p. 105; exh. 5, p. 62.) Judge McBrien continuesto deny any significant wrongdoing.

B. Conclusions ofLawThe special weight that is given to the masters' findings of fact is notextended to their conclusions of law. The Supreme Court has recognized thecommission's "expertise in evaluating judicial misconduct" over that of themasters. (Broadman v. Commission, supra, 18 Cal.4thatp. 1090.)

-2-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1. Allegation 1A(1)Examiner had argued that thejudge acted in bad faith either out of hostilitytoward attorney Sharon Huddle and her client UlfCarlsson or out of indifferenceto Carlsson's rights, and therefore the conduct constituted willful misconduct.Though it is not clearly stated in the masters' report, the masters evidentlydetermined that Judge McBrien did not act in bad faith. The masters concludedthat the judge's rulings and decisions did not reflect any bias or prejudice againsteither Huddle or Carlsson, and that the judge was instead "preoccupied withefficiency at the expense of ensuring a party's constitutional right to be heard."(Masters' rpt., pp. 123-124.) Given that factual finding, we do not object to themasters' conclusion that Judge McBrien's conduct in abandoning the Carlssontrial constitutes prejudicial rather than willful misconduct.

2. Allegation 1A(2)The examiner objects to the masters' conclusion of law that the misconductin count 1 A(2) constitutes only improper action. At a minimum, the conductconstitutes prejudicial misconduct, which is defined as unjudicial conduct whichwould appear to an objective observer to lower public esteem for the judiciary.(Broadman v. Commission, supra, 18 CaUth at p. 1104, citing Doan v.

Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 11 CaUth 294,312.) Conduct thatviolates the canons ofjudicial ethics is unjudicial conduct. (Dodds v. Commissionon Judicial Performance (1995) 12 Cal.4th 163,172; see also Oberholzer v.

Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371,395.)It was alleged in count 1 A(2) that Judge McBrien improperly threatenedHuddle with contempt if Carlsson failed to produce his Statements ofEconomicInterests, in violation of canons 2 and 3B(4). After Judge McBrien made a suasponte request that Carlsson produce these documents, Huddle told the judge thatshe was advising Carlsson to assert his Fifth Amendment rights. Judge McBrienthen engaged in an exchange with Huddle as to whether her client could properly

-3-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

invoke the Fifth Amendment at that point, during which he stated, "I'm indicatingthat you need to send somebody to his employment to pick up those documents"and "Ms. Huddle, do you wish to ask your client to send somebody to get therecords?" (Exh. 37, pp. 368:1-369:16.)

The judge then referred to the possibility that Huddle would be held incontempt if the Statements of Economic Interests were not produced, as alleged:

MS. HUDDLE: I suppose - this is all on the record. Idon't know what to do in a situation like this whenyou're actually asking him to produce evidence whichmight incriminate him and it's not even the opposingside presenting it.

THE COURT: Ms. Huddle, am I to take that as a'no' placing you in the possibility of contempt?(Exh. 37, p. 369:17-23, bold added.)

Huddle responded, "No," and said that she would tell Carlsson to go andget the records if the judge was ordering him to produce them. The judgereiterated that somebody else could retrieve the records for Carlsson. (Exh. 37,pp. 369:24-370:5.)

The masters found that Judge McBrien made a sua sponte request for theproduction of Carlsson's Statements of Economic Interests even though those

documents were not relevant to the Carlsson case. They concluded that thejudgeviolated canons 2 and 3B(4) during his lengthy exchange with Huddle concerningthe failure to produce those documents and that "an attorney would perceive thelanguage and tone used by Judge McBrien as threatening contempt." JudgeMcBrien admitted that there was no valid order on which to base a finding ofcontempt. Moreover, the masters concluded that thejudge wanted thesedocuments as a part ofan improper investigation into whether Carlsson hadviolated the Fair Political Practices Act. (Masters' rpt, pp. 125-130.)

-4-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

The masters did not apply the objective observer standard. Instead, despitetheir factual findings, they simply "conclude" without analysis that the conductconstituted improper action. (Masters' rpt., p. 127.) However, under the objectiveobserver standard, the masters' factual findings, at a minimum, clearly support afinding ofprejudicial misconduct - thejudge threatened contempt when there wasno valid order to support a contempt finding, for the purpose ofobtainingdocuments irrelevant to the proceedings before him, in order to conduct animproper criminal investigation, and the conduct violated the canons. Suchconduct lowers public esteem for the judiciary. (See Kloepfer v. Commission onJudicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 846-858 [prejudicial misconduct

found where judge threatened witness with contempt for continuing to answer aquestion after an objection raised, and threatened a defendant with contempt forwhispering to his lawyer].)

3. Allegations 1 A(3) and 1A(4)We have no objections to the masters' legal conclusions.

IV. DISCIPLINEThe purpose ofa commission disciplinary proceeding "is not punishment,but rather the protection of the public, the enforcement ofrigorous standards ofjudicial conduct, and the maintenance ofpublic confidence in the integrity and

independence ofthe judicial system." (Broadmanv. Commission, supra, 18Cal.4th at pp. 1111-1112, quoting Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance(1995) 10 Cal.4th 866,912.) In determining the appropriate discipline, each casemust be considered on its own facts:

Proportionality review based on discipline imposed inother cases ... is neither required nor determinative.The factual variations from case to case are simply toogreat to permit a meaningful comparison in many

-5-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

instances. 'Choosing the proper sanction is an art, nota science, and turns on the facts of the case at bar.'

(Broadman v. Commission, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 1112, quoting Furey v.Commission on Judicial Performance (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1297,1318.)

Based on Supreme Court decisions, the commission has identified severalfactors that are relevant to determining the appropriate discipline, including (1) thenumber ofacts ofmisconduct, (2) the existence ofprior discipline, (3) whether thejudge appreciates the inappropriateness ofthe misconduct, (4) the judge's integrity,

(5) the likelihood of future misconduct, and (6) the impact ofthe misconduct on thejudicial system. (Decision and Order Removing Judge Jose Velasquez from Office,

Inq. 180 (2007) p. 43; Decision and Order Removing Judge Kelly A. MacEachernfrom Office, Inq. 184 (2008) at pp. 18-24.) [I]n "many respects, these factorsoverlap one another." (Decision and Order Removing Judge Kevin Ross fromOffice, Inq. 174 (2005) p. 64.) Removal may be appropriate even when these factorsdo not each weigh against the judge. (Decision and Order Imposing Censure and BarofJudge Patrick B. Murphy, No. 157 (2001) at p. 181.)

A. Number ofActs ofMisconductThe special masters found that Judge McBrien committed prejudicialmisconduct in counts 1 A(l) and 1 A(3) and improper action in counts 1A(2) and

1 A(4). Count 1 A(3) involved several acts ofmisconduct including improperlyinvestigating a potential criminal violation, sending evidence ofthat violation toCarlsson's employer, and continuing to preside over the case without disclosinghis actions. These acts took place from March 2006 through September 2006.

1 When it was later determined that Judge Murphy had resigned fromjudicial office the day before the order of removal was issued, the commission

resolved that the decision "shall be considered a public censure ... and a bar fromreceiving assignments [etc.]." (CJP Minutes ofMeeting, July 19-20, 2001.)

-6-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

Count 1A(4) consisted ofnumerous discourteous remarks made to Huddle overthe three days of trial.

B. Prior DisciplineIn April 2002, the commission ordered Judge McBrien publiclyadmonished after his misdemeanor conviction for violating Penal Code section384a. That section prohibits the willful or negligent cutting or mutilation ofanytree growing upon public land or the land ofanother without permission. JudgeMcBrien's conviction arose out ofthe 1999 cutting of trees and removal oflimbsfrom trees that were growing in a nature center located in a public park. As setforth in the admonishment, the trees included mature oaks, and were cut for thepurpose ofimproving the view ofa nearby river from the McBrien residence. Hisconduct violated canons 1 (a judge shall observe high standards ofconduct so thatthe integrity and independence ofthe judiciary will be preserved), and 2 (a judgeshall respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner whichpromotes public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary).His conduct was prejudicial to the administration ofjustice which brings thejudicial office into disrepute. (Exh. 4, citing Cal. Const., art. VI, 18, subd. (d).)

C. Appreciation ofMisconduct

"Ajudge's failure to appreciate or admit to the impropriety ofhis or heracts indicates a lack ofcapacity to reform." (Decision and Order Removing JudgeMichael E. Platt from Office, Inq. 162 (2003), p. 15 [Plait v. Commission onJudicial Performance (review den. Feb. 19,2003, SI 11125)]; see also Broadman

v. Commission, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1111 [commission properly baseddisciplinary recommendation on judge's "unwillingness to accept responsibilityfor clearly established misconduct"].) In 2005, the commission removed Judge

-7-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

Ross partly due to his "unceasing attempts to distance himself from his actions,including by casting blame and aspersions on others." (Ross, supra, p. 65.)

In his response to the commission's investigation letter, his answer, at hisdeposition and at the hearing, Judge McBrien has demonstrated no understandingofthe impropriety ofhis conduct.

Though he walked out in the middle of a trial and never returned, JudgeMcBrien denies that he violated Carlsson's due process rights or his right to a fairtrial (count 1A(l)). Nor does he think it was wrong for him to have threatenedHuddle with contempt where there was no valid court order to support such afinding, and where the threat was made in an effort to obtain evidence irrelevant tothe case before him so that he could conduct an improper investigation into apossible crime (count 1 A(2)). The masters found that Judge McBrien becameembroiled in the Carlsson case, engaged in an inappropriate investigation andfailed to disclose his conduct to the parties, but he denies any wrongdoing (count

1A(3)). The masters found that Judge McBrien was discourteous and spoke toHuddle in a derogatory manner; the judge denies it (count 1A(4)). (R.T. 32:9-19,

184:8-13,143:15-144:2,179:3-181:12; exh. 5, p. 35:2-5.)The only thing Judge McBrien believes that he did poorly was to leave an"incomplete" record which gave the public the misperception that he had donesomething wrong. When asked at the hearing about his admission in his letter tothe commission that he "acted badly" for which he "deserved to be rebuked" (exh.3), Judge McBrien explained that he failed to keep in mind "the need to appear tothe public that I had completed everything." He was then asked:

Q. So are you saying that the only thing you feel thatyou did wrong in this whole case is to leave a recordthat is misleading?

A. Incomplete.

Q. Incomplete. You did nothing else wrong?

-8-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

A. I don't believe that I did.(R.T. 184:8-13.)

D. Judge McBrien's Integrity"Honesty is a minimum qualification for every judge. {Kloepfer v.Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 865 {Kloepfer).) Ifthe essential quality of veracity is lacking, other positive qualities of the personcannot redeem or compensate for the missing fundamental. (Ibid.)" (Decision andOrder Removing Judge Diana Hall from Office, Inq. 175 (2006), at p. 26). JudgeMcBrien's shifting and often contradictory explanations for his actions and hismisleading testimony demonstrate a lack of integrity.

In his response to the commission, in his answer, and again at hisdeposition, Judge McBrien claimed that the Emergency Protective Order (EPO)must have been lengthy and complex or he would have returned to the courtroom.This was disproven by the phone records which show that the call lasted for lessthan two minutes. (Exh. 2, p. 2; answer, p. 3; exh. 5, p. 62:5-17; exh. 15.) Thetruth is that he handled the brief call and left the courthouse.

Under oath at his deposition, Judge McBrien testified that he offered theattorneys additional time beyond the two-day estimate, but at the hearing heconceded that he had never offered more time. (Exh. 5, p. 17; R.T. p. 32.)

In his answer (p. 4), Judge McBrien claimed that Carlsson's expert witnesshad completely testified and was only providing surrebuttal testimony on mattersto which he had already testified. The transcript shows that the expert wastestifying about a large mathematical error he had made in his appraisal - a newlyraised issue.

Judge McBrien testified at his deposition that he did not return to thecourtroom after the EPO call because "there was nobody there." The mastersinstead found that, after the EPO call, the judge "left the courthouse while all theinterested parties were still waiting for him to return to the courtroom" without

-9-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

determining whether the parties were still present. (Exh. 5, p. 22; masters' rpt., p.122.)

Thejudge claimed in his response that he wanted the Statements ofEconomic Interests in part because they would set forth an opinion from Carlssonregarding the value ofthe fourplex and the amount of rental income from it. But,during the hearing, "Judge McBrien conceded he was familiar with Statements ofEconomic Interests ... and that the documents he requested Mr. Carlsson toproduce would not have contained any valuation or income information." (Exh. 1,p. 3; masters' rpt, p. 130.)

Judge McBrien testified under oath at his deposition and at the hearing thathe wanted the Statements of Economic Interests because he thought the FairPolitical Practices Commission (FPPC) might be able to place a lien on theproperty if Carlsson had not disclosed the fourplex. The masters rejected thistestimony, pointing out that thejudge later admitted that he had never heard thatthe FPPC had the power to place a lien on or confiscate property. Moreover,Judge McBrien ruled in the Carlsson case without the documents which, as themasters found, "refutes his assertion that he needed the documents, or that hebelieved that nondisclosure might have interfered with the disposition of the

fourplex, which he ordered sold." (Masters' rpt., pp. 130-131.)In his letter to the commission (exh. 3), Judge McBrien admitted that hewanted the Statements ofEconomic Interests because Carlsson's testimonyindicated "possible criminal activity." At the hearing, however, Judge McBrienclaimed that this statement in his letter was wrong "because at the time he wrotethe letter he did not have the benefit of the trial transcript to refresh hisrecollection as to his reasons." (Masters' rpt., p. 57.) However, the letter itselfcontains citations to the trial transcript, so he clearly had access to it when hewrote the letter. (Exh. 3.)

In addition, Judge McBrien gave untrue and misleading testimony at thehearing about the facts underlying his prior discipline. He repeatedly claimed that

-10-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

the incident involved only "one limb" from one tree and that the "real" reason itwas cut was for fire safety, not view enhancement. He explained that he justwanted to let the public and the media know what actually happened. (R.T.580:2-582:22,606:20-613:1.) But his testimony was proven false by his priorsworn testimony and court documents from the tree cutting case. (Exhs. 45,46.)In respondent's exhibit P, Judge McBrien tried to explain this away by claimingthat he meant that he only "saw" one limb fall to the ground. But that is not whathe had testified to at the hearing.

Attempts to mislead the commission are especially egregious. "There arefew judicial actions in our view that provide greater justification for removal fromoffice than the action of ajudge in deliberately providing false information to theCommission in the course of its investigation into charges of wilful misconduct onthe part ofthe judge." (Adams v. Commission, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 914.)'"[Deception is antithetical to the role ofa Judge who is sworn to uphold the lawand seek the truth." (In the Matter ofCollazo (1998) 91 N.Y.2d 251 [668N.Y.S.2d 997,691 N.E.2d 1021,1023] [removingjudge for deceitful conductduring investigation of initial wrongdoing].)

E. Likelihood ofFuture ViolationsIn 2002, Judge McBrien was publicly admonished for serious misconduct,but has now attempted to disavow much ofthe conduct on which that disciplinewas based. In the current case, after walking out on the trial, he had ample time toreconsider and correct his actions, but he did not. Moreover, he acknowledges nowrongdoing, but instead attempts to blame the attorneys. (R.T. 97:22-98:17,

111:6-113:8,125:6-126:4,128:4-15.) These factors make it likely that he wouldcommit further misconduct if allowed to remain on the bench.

-11-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

F- Impact ofMisconduct on the Judicial SystemJudge McBrien's misconduct has had a significant adverse impact on thejudiciary. His conduct in walking out ofa trial before completion with a witness

testifying generated negative publicity and resulted in a reversal on appeal costingthe parties substantial expense and delays. Such misconduct is particularly seriousin family law cases since "[m]atters ofdomestic relations are ofthe utmostimportance to the parties involved and also to the people of the State ofCalifornia." (In re Marriage ofCarlsson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 281,291, citingElkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 CaUth 1337,1357-1358.) His improperthreatening ofcontempt, embroilment in the Carlsson case, sending evidence ofacrime to Carlsson's employer, and continuing to preside over the case withoutgiving notice ofhis actions to the parties, also significantly lower public esteemfor the judiciary.

V. CONCLUSIONGiven Judge McBrien's prior public admonishment and the seriousness ofhis current misconduct, he should, at a minimum, be publicly censured. His falseand misleading testimony while under oath, his lack ofunderstanding oftheimpropriety of his conduct, and the likelihood of future violations may warrant hisremoval from judicial office.

Dated: July 7,2009. Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Blum, Examiner forCommission on Judicial Performance

-12-


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United Sates, over the age of 18 years, and not aparty to or interested in the within action. My business address is 455 Golden Gate Avenue,

Suite 14400, San Francisco, California 94102.

On July 7,2009,1 served the attached:

Examiner's Opening Brief to the Commission

on all interested parties in said cause, by delivering the original or a true copy thereof as follows:

El (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I sent the original or a true copy thereof enclosed in asealed envelope to be delivered to Federal Express for overnight service to the office(s) oftheaddressee(s).

James A. Murphy, Esq.Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney

88 Kearny Street, 10th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108

BY HAND DELIVERY fJuly 8, 2009)Janice Brickley, Esq.Legal Advisor to CommissionersCommission on Judicial Performance455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400

San Francisco, CA 94102

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct. Executed on July 7,2009, at San Francisco, California.

Kathleen A. Vota


Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

18 July 2013

Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding 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.

In essence, McBrien and Raye agreed to effectively privatize public court operations to the specifications of private-sector attorneys in exchange for not having to run the court's settlement conference program. The SCBA Family Law Section agreed to run the settlement program provided they were given effective control over most court policies and procedures, including local court rules.

As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, 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 an example of 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.

But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family

Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991

Vance Raye and Peter J. McBrien were thearchitects of the current family court system.

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

3 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

3 comments

Top comments

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publiclyVance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers. Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991:In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 11:20 AM

Labels: 3rd DISTRICT COA, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CJP, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,

NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PETER J. McBRIEN, SCBA, VANCE W. RAYE

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

- William R. Ridgeway

court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new 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 tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported:

"Around 1990, McBrien 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 probably 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, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling.

'Now, if you're ready and unable to settle, chances are 99.9 percent that you are going out [to trial] the first time,' McBrien said. 'A lot of that is attributable to the willingness of the Sacramento bar to work as settlement counselors.'" Click here to view the Daily Journal report.

To continue reading the rest of this article, visit our special, updated 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. For more on the alleged collusion between judges and attorneys who also serve as Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges and work as settlement counselors, visit our special judge pro tems page. For additional posts about the people and issues in this report, click on the corresponding labels below.

Sacramento Family Court judges and local, Sacramento Bar Association attorneys openly acknowledge their close relationship.

+3 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

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3 - - - -

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

- -oOo

4 INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE PETER J. McBRIEN

5 CJP NO. 185 ORIGINAL 6 -- ---- ------ -- - -- - -- ---- --1

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 1, 2009

VOLUME 1, PAGES 1 - 250

REPORTED BY: SANDRA LEHANE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTE:R

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER NO. 7372 155 Orr Road

Alameda, California 94502 (510) 864-9645

----------- IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09 ------- ----1 1

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It's actually 920 - no. 720 9th Street.

Q. That's the main Sacramento County courthouse?

A. It is.

Q. And how long were the family law departments

in that particular courthouse?

A. Until 1999, when we moved out to the Ridgeway

building.

Q. Going back to when you were first appointed

to the family law department or assigned to the family

law department, what were the problems with this

master calendar system?

A. The trials never got to trial. So the Bar

the 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 i as of how

to restructure the system.

Q. Now, is there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association?

A. There is.

Q. And was there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association back in 1991?

A. There was.

b-------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09----------------------~ 188

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Is there an organization called the Family

Law Executive Committee?

A. There is.

Q. What is the Family Law Executive Committee?

A. It is a group of leaders that the family law

bar e ects to take care of the administrative needs

for the section.

Q. And did you work with the Family Law

Executive Committee in developing the current system

in the fami y law practice in Sacramento County?

A. We did.

Q. Could you describe what that wor ng

relationship was?

A. Okay. We - we I, first of all, it's a very

good relationship. We meet -- we still meet monthly.

We keep making adjustments to the system when there are problems. But basically, we moved to a system

where we have law and motion in the family aw

departments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and we hear

the trials on Thursday and Friday if, in fact, those

trials are two days or less. And if they are more

than two days, they go down through the master

calendar.

Q. Backing up, the Family Law Executive

Committee is appointed in what fashion?

~------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - /09----------------------~ 189

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. They are elected by the membership of the

family law bar.

Q. The family law bar section of the Sacramento

County Bar Association?

A. Correct.

Q. And you and other judges worked together with

this Family Law Executive Committee in developing the

current system?

A. Correct.

Q. Who are the other judges?

A. Well, at the time, there was Justice Raye

now Justice Raye.

Q. Justice Vance Raye of the Third District

Court of Appeal?

A. Yes.

And another individual whose name always

escapes me, but he left the bench after about two

years.

Q. Dave Sterling?

A. Dave Sterling.

Q. Now, after you went to Orange County, you met

with the Family Law Executive Committee and

developed - or started to develop a plan. Was that

presented to the Superior Court for its approval?

A. It was. And what happened is the Bar culled

4/1/09 --________--1L------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 190

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

Q. And was that plan approved?

A. It was.

Q. When?

IA. In 19 I want to say late 91 .

Q. And since 1991, is that the current plan that

is employed in the family law departments?

A. It is.

Q. You testified that on Mondays, Tuesdays and

Wednesdays f ly law courts hear law and motion

matters and trials of two days or less on Thursday and

Friday; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Who hears the settlement conferences?

A. The family law bar indicated that they would

be willing to volunteer, and they serve as the

settlement pro terns. There are two for each day of

the week except for Monday. So they have four days a

week where they have two volunteers. And they try to

make it gender neutral, have one male and one female,

and they hear the settlement conferences.

Q. And are settlement conferences assigned

~----------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09----~------------------191

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1.1

12

13

1 4

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

dependent upon the length of the trial?

A. They are.

Q. How does that work?

A. If, in fact, it's going to be a one-day or

less trial, the settlement conference would be one

week before the trial date. And if it's going to be

two days or less, it would be two weeks before.

Q. And in connection with the estimation of the

length of the trial, is that something that you as a

judge would do?

A. No.

Q. Who makes the estimation?

A. The attorneys.

Q. Are the attorneys encouraged to work together

in developing the estimated time?

A. They are.

Q. And is there any significance to the

estimated length of the case, at least from the

judicial perspective of the Sacramento County Superior

Court judge?

A. I believe that -- you know, having seen many,

many of them, that they generally are accurate. They

aren't always accurate, but I think they are trying to

be accurate, stay within the guidance that we have.

Because quite frankly, if, in fact, they don't

L-------------------------IN RE Cc7F NO. 185 - 411109----------------------~ 192

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

complete it, they can be mistried.

Q. And when you say "mistried," meaning that the

parties will then be given a new trial date?

A. They would.

Q. You were involved, obviously, with the

Carlsson vs. Carlsson case?

A. Correct.

Q. I would like you to take a look at Exhibit C

in the respondent's

A. I think mine is over there.

MR. MURPHY: May I approach the witness?

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Yes. You don't need

to seek permission.

THE WITNESS: you said C?

MR. MURPHY: Exhibit C, yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I have it before me.

BY MR. MURPHY:

Q. For the record, could you describe what

Exhibit Cis?

A. This is an Order to Show Cause filed by

Ms. Huddle on behalf of Mr. Carlsson asking to

continue the trial, fi ed on March 1st of 2006.

Q. What was the basis of the request for a

continuance?

A. That she was just served with a joinder '-------------IN RE CJ.F NO. 185 411109------------~

193

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m


Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

RoadDog SATIRE ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in April, 2015.

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 Color of Law series reports catalog 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,

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.


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)


SCBA (22)


WATCHDOGS (20)



CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER



Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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 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

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report...

...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details.

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.

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)

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.

Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were clients and potential clients of the attorney. The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court 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

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 6 4 2 7 9

167

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge


AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

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)

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

For information about the role of temporary judges in family court, click here. For official Sacramento County Superior Court information about the Temporary Judge Program click here. Using public records law, Sacramento Family Court News obtained the list of private practice attorneys who also act as judge pro tems in Sacramento Family Law Court. Each lawyer on the list below is currently a temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. SFCN cross-checked each name on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list with California State Bar Data. The first name in each listing is the name that appears on the Sacramento County judge pro tem list, the second name, the State Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived from the official State Bar data for each attorney. The State Bar data was obtained using the search function at the State Bar website.

For-profit, private sector lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge:

Sandy Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California Street, Auburn, CA 95603.

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

Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator, 206 5th Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.

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

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

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

Alexandre C. Barbera, C. Alexandre Barbera, SBN 70071,915 Highland Point Drive, Ste. 250 Roseville, CA 95678.

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

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

MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

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 (11)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1) CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER (1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

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

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m


Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

RoadDog SATIRE ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

This ongoing investigative project was updated in April, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)


SCBA (22)


WATCHDOGS (20)



CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER



Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

dismissed on legal technicalities, which are often caused by the deliberate acts of government employees.

Court whistleblowers assert and have documented that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal effectively operate as a RICO racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, and includes predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. Click here to read our full report on the allegations.

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

Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of ten judges. The background of each appears to be a critical factor 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 personal, social, or professional ties to family court judges and attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on the bench.

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

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

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

3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal outcomes are inconsistent, and in large part determined by

the work history, and social or professional connections of the three judges assigned to decide an appeal.

Friends in Low Places

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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.

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

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.

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)

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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 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.

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

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

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 6 4 2 7 9

167

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge


AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

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

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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 co

judge peter mcbrien prosecution: opening brief to the commission on judicial performance by cjp...

Documents

masters reporta

masters findings of

commission ontelephone

judge mcbrien continuesto

findings offactwith

separate mitigating

state bar

willful misconduct