Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Justice Vance Raye failed or refused to report federal civil rights violations and related federal crimes including honest services fraud and RICO racketeering by superior court temporary judges and court staff and judges. Presiding Justice Vance Raye Third District Court of Appeal: 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 accessory after the fact.
Citation preview
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
14 January 2014
Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct: Court Order Authorizes Unlawful Child Abduction for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Richard Sokol
Tuesday Document Dump
A leaked court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that Judge Thadd Blizzard last November retroactively endorsed an unlawful out-of-state "move away" and child abduction at the request of local judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol. The unprecedented ruling went against San Francisco attorney Archibald Cunningham, who the transcript reflects was dumbfounded by the decision.
The bizarre chain-of-events began after Cunningham's client, Robert Saunders, filed paperwork seeking child visitation under an existing temporary custody order. After the visitation paperwork was lodged, Sokol's client, April Berger, abruptly moved to Hawaii with the parents' twin daughters without the permission of the court.
To continue reading, and to view the complete court reporter transcript, click Read more >> below...
Under state law, a parent may not take children and relocate out-of-state without court approval before the move, especially under a temporary custody order. A parent seeking to relocate must by law first seek court approval for the move, and "the noncustodial parent still has standing to oppose the relocation" in court, according to California Practice Guide: Family Law, the gold standard family law legal reference used by judges and attorneys. Without prior court approval, an out-of-state move away is considered criminal child abduction if it maliciously "deprives a person of a right to visitation," according to Penal Code § 278.5(a). The criminal statute also specifies that the retroactive, after-the-fact order issued by Blizzard for Sokol "does not constitute a defense" to the crime.
Judge Thadd Blizzard Approves Illegal Out-of-State Child Relocation for Temporary Judge Lawyer Richard Sokol - Opposing Attorney Stunned
San Francisco attorney and social justice advocate Archibald Cunningham was shocked when Judge Thadd Blizzard authorized an illegal child abduction for
Sacramento Superior Court judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
7 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Cunningham's reaction to the outcome was similar to that of Stephen R. Gianelli, another San Francisco attorney who previously was "hometowned" in Sacramento Family Court. Hometowning refers to local judges giving preferential treatment to select, local attorneys. Click here for Gianelli's account of his experience as an "outsider" attorney. Hometowning is considered unethical and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to retired judge David Rothman, author of the California Judicial Conduct Handbook. Sacramento Family Court reform advocates have documented that judge pro tem attorneys often receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders, and other forms of favorable treatment when representing clients in court in exchange for operating the court's settlement conference program. Click here for SFCN coverage of temporary judge controversies.
The transcript, case records, and a second transcript from a related, previous hearing also indicate that Blizzard manipulated the proceedings through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact in order to achieve the outcome demanded by Sokol, conduct prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Family court watchdogs assert that the collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, a racketeering crime under 18 USC 1346.
The Robert Saunders-April Berger case is one of four Sacramento County Family Court cases included in the documentary film Divorce Corp, now playing in major U.S cities. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States," and portrays the Sacramento court system as the most corrupt in the country. For our continuing coverage of the film, 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:
State law, including California criminal jury instructions, indicate that Judge Thadd Blizzard and judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol may have been accessories after the fact to a criminal child abduction.
Sacramento Family Court "Hometowning" History
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
5 comments
Top comments
PR Brown 11 months ago - Shared publicly
Judge Misconduct: Hon. Thadd A. Blizzard Authorizes Unlawful Child Abduction for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Richard SokolJudge Thadd Blizzard Approves Illegal Out-of-State Child Relocation for Temporary Judge Attorney Richard Sokol - Opposing Attorney Stunned Monday Document Dump A leaked court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that Judge Th...
·
1 Reply
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 8 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
Sacramento attorney Richard Sokol obtains after-the-fact order authorizing illegal, out-of-state child move away from Judge Thadd Blizzard. San Francisco opposing attorney stunned. Details at the link below: #RichardSokol
·
1 Reply
Ditto. My ex was living working in Monterey, had vacated her residence in Massachusetts, and was under an expensive Maryland Custody Decree with shared legal and physical custody. The Courts effectively gave her retroactive immunity, a
Read more
Stephen Meehan 8 months ago
Thanks for the comment: Systemic rule of law breakdown? We've got another post in thePR Brown 8 months ago
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 9:31 AM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CHILD CUSTODY, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, THADD BLIZZARD
Location: Sacramento Superior Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family Relations
Courthouse
Share Embed of 13
+7 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
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
15 September 2013
Attorney Richard Sokol Fraud on the Court: Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren Engage in Historical Revisionism - Part 1
The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren - Part 1A Special News and Analysis Series by Pelican Briefed
One form of historical revisionism is the “illigitmate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light,” according to Wikipedia. The distortion of history to deny historical crimes is sometimes called negationism. Historical revisionism is often associated with after-the-fact justifications for, or denial of war crimes, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Some countries have laws making it a crime to disseminate revisionist material, such as Holocaust denial propaganda. Revisionist tactics include deception, denial and trivialization.
A court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News shows that the same tactics have recently been used in Sacramento Family Court by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Van Beveren currently also is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. The transcript records Sokol and Van Beveren disseminating subtle and overt falsehoods, deceptions, denials and trivializations about the unlawful 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled litigant and family court watchdog Robert Saunders, in the courtroom of Judge Matthew Gary. Both Sokol and Van Beveren were eyewitnesses to the incident. In April, 2012 SFCN published an in-depth, investigative report on the debacle and subsequent events, including the vindication of Saunders by two outside, independent judges. Click here to read our report.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below...
The vindication, however, implicated both Van Beveren and Sokol for failing to report or otherwise take corrective
Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Richard Sokol Caught on Transcript Making Demonstrably False Claim About Illegal Arrest of Indigent, Disabled Litigant
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
action for Gary's misconduct. As sworn temporary judges, the two attorneys are bound by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical rules for judges - which requires them to "take or initiate appropriate corrective action" when they know of misconduct by another judge. The rule is a critical, self-policing component of the Code, intended to keep judge misconduct in check. Both Van Beveren and Sokol witnessed Gary's misconduct, and both got away with doing nothing, a violation of Canon 3D(1).
Now, four years later, recent proceedings in the case suggest that the judge pro tem attorneys are attempting to cover up their own prior misconduct and discredit the victim of Gary's actions by rewriting the history of the case. Their strategy involves influencing the current judge assigned to the case through the use of false statements and omissions of material facts about the original incident, and other unethical tactics. The case was, and continues to be a definitive example of rampant family court corruption and the cronyism between private sector attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge and are contracted to run the court's settlement conference program, and full-time Sacramento County Superior Court judges, according to family court reform advocates.
In the first installment of this series, SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Richard Sokol is caught on transcript making the demonstrably false claim that Gary “didn’t have [Saunders] arrested; he had him taken from court.” Sokol’s claim is contradicted by court records, including the arrest report of Gary’s courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Deputy J. Strong.
“J. Strong #423 was ordered by Judge Matthew J. Gary…to take Robert Saunders into custody for contempt of court. Deputy Strong advised [Saunders] that he was under arrest,” reads the police report.
The court reporter transcript with Sokol’s falsehood, along with the report of Deputy Strong are posted below. Under state attorney ethics law, including Business & Professions Code section 6106, Sokol’s affirmative misrepresentation is an act of moral turpitude and “constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension” from the practice of law. Virtually any form of attorney dishonesty or deception, including a half-truth, or the omission of material facts, is the equivalent of an outright lie, according to the State Bar. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a court or any party is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128.
Richard Sokol of the family law firm Sokol & Bristow LLP was recorded on transcript making a number of demonstrably false statements, including this one, about the 2009 assault and arrest of Robert Saunders by Judge Matthew Gary and courtroom bailiff J. Strong. Judge
Thadd Blizzard has yet to report Sokol's misconduct as required by Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
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 PelicanBriefed at 5:47 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS,
REVISIONISM SERIES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, THADD BLIZZARD
For other State Bar references defining and prescribing the punishment for Sokol's misleading statement, visit the SFCN Attorney Misconduct page. Click here. Sokol made several additional demonstrably false statements at the same court hearing. Click here to view other articles in this series.
For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.
J. Richard Sokol Moral Turpitude False Statement in Court - Sokol by Sacramento Family Court News
SHOW ME MORE LIKE DIVORCE ATTORNEY J. RICHARD SOKOL MORAL
Share Embed of 4
California state law designates deceit by an attorney intended to deceive a court as a misdemeanor crime. Court watchdogs assert that the law goes unenforced in family court proceedings.
+1 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
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
25 October 2013
Divorce Lawyer J. Richard Sokol Misconduct: Caught in Cover Up of Judge Matthew Gary Abuse of Authority-Illegal Arrest Order, Engages in Historical Revisionism - Part 2
The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren - Part 2A Special News and Analysis Series by Pelican Briefed
A court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News records divorce attorney Richard Sokol making demonstrably false statements at a court hearing before Judge Thadd Blizzard. Sokol's apparent motive was to demonize and discredit the opposing party in a family court child custody dispute. Sokol is a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section member.
Sokol is caught on court reporter transcript giving a false account of a prior court hearing before controversial Judge Matthew Gary in the same case. At the previous hearing, Gary had Robert Saunders, the unrepresented, pro per opposing party, arrested and jailed for contempt of court. Saunders also was charged with resisting arrest by Gary's courtroom bailiff, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Deputy J. Strong. As Sacramento Family Court News reported in 2012, two outside, independent judges who later reviewed the incident found that Gary was at fault, and cleared Saunders of all charges. Gary was involuntarily disqualified, and banned from hearing further proceedings in the case by San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Xapuri Villapudua.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
More than three years later in open court, judge pro tem lawyer Richard Sokol gave a fabricated dramatization of
Judge Pro Tem Lawyer Richard Sokol Gives False Testimony, Blames Victim for Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct and Abuse of Disabled, Unrepresented Pro Per Litigant
This is Part 2 of our series "The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary JudgesRichard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren." To view Part 1, click here.
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
the incident to Judge Thadd Blizzard:
"I was within one foot of the -- of Mr. Saunders. He was acting out of control. The judge asked him no fewer than five times to leave. It was over; he refused to leave. If anybody wants to talk to the bailiff, who was finally standing next to him saying, come on, it's time to go. He started wrestling with that bailiff. Another bailiff had to come from another court, leaped across the table to pin him down. This was a fight in court, caused not by Judge Gary, and Judge Gary correctly had him removed," Sokol claimed to Blizzard.
In reference to the subsequent review and disqualification by Judge Villapudua, Sokol also falsely claimed that Gary did not file a response to the request for disqualification filed by Saunders, and that that was why Gary was disqualified by Villapudua. "The problem is that he, Judge Gary, did not file a responsive thing to his filing down the road," Sokol lied. To view Gary's "responsive thing," filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, click here.
Sokol likely had a second motive for giving a false account of the incident: The subsequent vindication of Saunders implicated Sokol for failing to report or otherwise take corrective action for Gary's misconduct. As a sworn temporary judge, Sokol is bound by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical rules for judges - which requires all judge pro tems "take or initiate appropriate corrective action" when they know of misconduct by another judge. The rule is a critical, self-policing component of the Code, intended to keep judge misconduct in check. Sokol was an eyewitness to Gary's misconduct and did not report the incident, a violation of Canon 3D(1).
Now, four years later, recent proceedings in the case suggest that one of Sokol's objectives is to cover up his own prior misconduct and discredit the victim of Gary's actions by rewriting the history of the case. The strategy involves influencing the current judge assigned to the case through the use of false statements and omissions of material facts about the original incident, and other unethical tactics. The case was, and continues to be a definitive example of rampant family court corruption and the cronyism between private sector attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge and are contracted to run the court's settlement conference program, and full-time Sacramento County Superior Court judges, according to family court reform advocates.
The court reporter transcript memorializing Sokol’s falsehoods, along with the accurate account of what occurred are posted below. Under state attorney ethics law, including Business & Professions Code section 6106, Sokol’s affirmative misrepresentations are acts of moral turpitude and “constitute a cause for disbarment or suspension” from the practice of law. Virtually any form of attorney dishonesty or deception, including a half-truth, or the omission of material facts, is the equivalent of an outright lie, according to the State Bar. Sokol also omitted from his testimony the material facts that two outside judges found Saunders innocent of the charges against him. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a court or any party is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128.
Judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol falsely claimed that Judge Matthew Gary did not submit a response to a disqualification challenge filed by disabled
family court litigant Robert 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
For other State Bar references defining and prescribing the punishment for Sokol's misleading statements, visit the SFCN Attorney Misconduct page. Click here. Sokol made several additional demonstrably false statements at the same court hearing, but has never been held accountable for the misconduct. Click here to view other articles in this series.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.
Richard Sokol divorce attorney Sacramento caught on transcript making false statements and other acts of mo... by M.P. Roberts
; TVYF^AL^ DLV^S L B DKOABL^HAK
SHOW ME MORE LIKE RICHARD SOKOL DIVORCE ATTORNEY SACRAMENTO
Share Embed of 6
An attorney who intentionally deceives a court or any party is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under California law. Family court reform advocates charge the law is routinely violated by attorneys, and goes unenforced by judges, prosecutors, and California
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
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
No comments yet
Add a comment
Posted by PelicanBriefed at 10:23 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS,
REVISIONISM SERIES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, THADD BLIZZARD
Location: Sacramento Family Law Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family
Courthouse
> AH KHC BL^ SEF DLVHSQ LB TKD^K@FHSL
4 - - - l l l - - -
3 Ah r f t e f @ k t t f r l b =
Recommend this on Google
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
CONTRIBUTORS
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
21 August 2014
Judge Pro Tem Misconduct: Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren Fail To Report, Help Cover Up Judge Matthew Gary Misconduct
A startling courthouse security video leaked by a government whistleblower records the illegal 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled pro per litigant and family court reform activist Robert Saunders. During a March 9, 2009 court hearing, Judge Matthew Gary ordered the self-represented Saunders arrested and jailed for contempt of court. Two outside, independent judges who later reviewed the incident determined that both the contempt charge and arrest were illegal.
One of the two reviewing judges also issued an order removing Gary from the case for bias and violating state contempt law. The new video leak appears to reinforce the review findings, showing Saunders sitting passively at the courtroom counsel table until a painful "control hold" is applied to his arm by a deputy sheriff. When Saunders reacts to the pain, a wrestling match ensues until additional deputies arrive to subdue and apply handcuffs to the illegally arrested victim. The pro per is then shuffled off to the county jail through a rear exit in the courtroom. Saunders is 5' 8" tall, weighs 162 pounds, relies on a cane to walk, and, at the time of the arrest, was 57-years-old, according to the police report from the incident.
To continue reading, click Read more >> below:
Whistleblower Leaks Disturbing Video of Illegal Assault and Arrest of Family Court Litigant Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Gary
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
8 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Judge Matthew J. Gary has a long, documented history of bias and abuse of authority against financially disadvantaged litigants who cannot afford an attorney and are forced to represent themselves in court. A right-wing ideologue, Gary also reportedly despises what he refers to as the "entitlement mentality" of indigent court users who obtain fee waiver orders, which allow them to file court documents without paying filing fees. Most pro per litigants rely on fee waivers to ensure their access to the court.
In one case, Gary illegally misused fee waiver law against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a judge pro tem attorney client - and spousal abuse perpetrator - avoid a spousal support obligation. The judge-attorney tag-team strategy left the abuse victim penniless, and homeless. In another case, Gary ordered an indigent, disabled pro per to pay $920 of her $1,256 monthly disability income to her ex-husband, who earned $8,089 per month, according to court records. As a result of the order, the disabled single parent couldn't pay her rent, was evicted from her home, and became homeless. In March, a still-pending appeal in the case was the subject of a front page story in the Sacramento Bee. A federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of these and several other Gary victims is rumored to be in the works.
The 2009 Robert Saunders contempt arrest debacle was witnessed by controversial judge pro tem divorce attorneys Richard Sokol, shown in the left foreground of the video, and Elaine Van Beveren, who is off-camera. As sworn temporary judges who witnessed the incident, both were required by state law - Canon 3D(1) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics - to report Gary's misconduct, or otherwise take some form of corrective action. Neither attorney did, and in subsequent proceedings last year in the same case before a different judge, lied about the incident, portraying Saunders as being at fault. The ruse apparently fooled Judge Thadd Blizzard, who late last year approved an out-of-state criminal child abduction for Sokol's client - the mother of Saunders' children.
In 2012, Sacramento Family Court News reported on the illegal arrest of Saunders and the later review of the incident by Judges Xapuri B. Villapudua and Richard Gilmour. Our original article is reprinted below:
Family Court Judge Matthew J. Gary Disqualified From Case for Bias and Unlawful Arrest of Pro Per
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive:
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
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.
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
[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 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.
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.
"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
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.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
California Courts Homepage
California Courts YouTube Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Performance
Sacramento County Family Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar Association
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)
Posted by PR Brown at 12:52 PM
Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, JUDGE PRO TEM,
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:
* 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:
Judge Pro Tem Eyewitnesses Fail To Intervene
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua
Gary Receives "Poster Child of the Month" Award from Family
Court Advocacy Group
+8 Recommend this on Google
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 3 8 8 2 4
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
03 February 2014
Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct, Divorce Corp, Judge Pro Tem Corruption Top Monthly Reads On Sacramento Family Court News Top 10 List
After just two weeks online, our exclusive investigative report about Judge Thadd Blizzard's rule of law breakdown authorizing an illegal, out-of-state child abduction quickly became the third most read article for January. The January 10 nationwide release of the documentary film Divorce Corp renewed interest in our early, exclusive coverage of the project from May 2013, giving the classic post the number two spot in the monthly rankings. A new post about the film, and the Divorce Corp search label page also made last month's Top 10 list. And the perennially popular Judge Pro Tems page held the top spot with nearly 500 views for the month.
The Top 10 most viewed posts or pages at Sacramento Family Court News compiled by Google Analytics for January 2014 (click to view):
1. Judge Pro Tems page: Sacramento Family Law Court Temporary Judge Program - Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations, Charge Whistleblowers: 499 pageviews.
2. Divorce Attorneys and Family Law Industry Called Corrupt and Collusive in Groundbreaking Documentary Film To Include Sacramento Family Court Case post: 289 pageviews.
3. Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct: Court Order Authorizes Unlawful Child Abduction for Judge Pro Tem Attorney Richard Sokol post: 223 pageviews.
4. Judge Matthew Gary search label page: 174 pageviews.5. Sacramento Judge & Attorney Misconduct: New York Times Reviews Divorce Corp Documentary
Featuring Four Sacramento Court Cases post: 172 pageviews. 6. Sacramento Superior Court Corruption: 2014 the Year of the Disgruntled Litigant - Holiday Edition
RoadDog Satire post: 171 pageviews. 7. Divorce Corp search label page: 145 pageviews. 8. Judge Peter McBrien Commission on Judicial Performance Leaked Transcript of Judicial Misconduct
Prosecution post: 138 pageviews. 9. Attorney Misconduct page - California Divorce Lawyer and Family Law Attorney Misconduct and Ethics:
137 pageviews.10. Family Law and Judge Misconduct: Hon. Matthew J. Gary Ordered Removed From Family Court Case by
Fellow Judge for Misconduct, Bias & Abuse of Unrepresented Litigant post: 137 pageviews.
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:
Temporary Judge Controversy, Divorce Corp & Judge Thadd Blizzard Child Abduction Approval Most Read Posts for January
Judge Thadd Blizzard
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
SCBA (22)
ARTS & CULTURE (21)
CHILD CUSTODY (21)
PETER J. McBRIEN (20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)
WATCHDOGS (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (13)
JAMES M. MIZE (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
SATIRE (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
7 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
Newer Post Older PostHome
2 comments
Top comments
PR Brown 6 months ago - Shared publicly
Sacramento Family Court News Top 10 List: Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct, Divorce Corp, Judge Pro Tem Corruption Top Monthly ReadsTemporary Judge Controversy, Divorce Corp & Judge Thadd Blizzard Child Abduction Approval Most Read Posts for January Judge Thadd Blizzard After just two weeks online, our exclusive investigative report about Judge Thadd Blizzard's bizarre authorization o...
+2 ·
1 Reply
Intuitive Sparkle via Google+ 6 months ago - Shared publicly
PR Brown originally shared thisSacramento Family Court News Top 10 List: Judge Thadd Blizzard Misconduct, Divorce Corp, Judge Pro Tem Corruption Top Monthly ReadsTemporary Judge Controversy, Divorce Corp & Judge Thadd Blizzard Child Abduction Approval Most Read Posts for January Judge Thadd Blizzard After just two weeks online, our exclusive investigative report about Judge Thadd
+1 ·
1 Reply
Add a comment
Posted by PR Brown at 3:47 PM
Labels: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, DIVORCE CORP, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, LISTS, MATTHEW J. GARY, PETER
J. McBRIEN, SFCN READERSHIP DATA, THADD BLIZZARD
+7 Recommend this on Google LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)
CARLSSON CASE (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)
MIKE NEWDOW (2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
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
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)
