12

Sacramento Court Clerk & Judge Misconduct: Refusal To Accept Pro Per Filing - Judge Matthew J. Gary Court Clerk Christina Arcuri Sacramento County Superior Court - Judge James M. Mize

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Unrepresented pro per litigant court filing refused by judge and court clerk. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Matthew Gary court clerk Christina Arcuri. Sacramento Superior Court watchdogs allege that since 1991 the family law division of the court has operated as a racketeering enterprise, similar to the racketeering enterprise uncovered in the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County, PA. In 1991 Judge Peter McBrien and Judge Vance Raye, now an appellate court judge, entered into a secretive agreement with divorce lawyers from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. The judges and attorneys restructured the family court system into a public-private sector organized criminal enterprise, according to court whistleblowers.The judges delegated to the lawyers the task of running the family court settlement conference program, requiring the attorneys to be designated as part-time judges, or ”judge pro tems.” The primary objective of the attorney run settlement program is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private-sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the program.At the settlement conferences, the judge pro tem lawyers coerce divorcing couples to settle cases so they won’t use the trial court services, including court hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce. Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff the attorneys are provided various kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court, including “rubber-stamped” court orders and rulings, according to court reform advocates. Court watchdogs have documented that the lawyers obtain a statistically impossible level of favorable outcomes at court hearings, especially in cases where the opposing party is an unrepresented “pro per” without a lawyer. Many pro per litigants – who make up over 70 percent of family court parties - are indigent, financially disadvantaged, or disabled. The quid pro quo arrangement also insulates judge and attorney members of the organization from oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible oversight and discipline of judges, and the State Bar, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline. Judge pro tem lawyers who regularly violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules are rarely, if ever assessed penalties, fines or “sanctions” by full-time judges as required by law. The blind-eye, preferential treatment from full-time judges provides the attorneys with virtual immunity from State Bar scrutiny. Pro per litigants, however, are routinely punished with fines and draconian financial sanctions to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing attorney and part-time judge-attorneys who run the settlement conference program.To conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, when full-time judges face investigation by the CJP, members of the enterprise provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge to reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP. For the complete investigative report by Sacramento Family Court News, visit this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/temporary-judges.html

Citation preview

  • JohnsonWeb-Small

    JohnsonFCN-Footer-Header

  • '-'

    '-.-'

    '--

    1 issue for me. The issue is not whether you don't have any

    2

    3

    income. The issue is that you have decided to work full time

    on your case as opposed to pursuing your vocation or pursue

    4 another vocation; and you have, in essence, self-induced

    5 pauperism, and that is clearly not the intent of the statute

    6 for a fee waiver. And for that reason, even though it's

    7 I'll acknowledge that it's out of the bounds of the four

    8 corners of what the constraint is in an order, I clearly

    9 believe that this is not what the legislature intended,

    10 otherwise it would be encouraging and condoning people from

    11 simply abandoning their -- the -- their ability or their free

    12 will to pursue their vocation or occupation.

    13 So for purposes of today, I am going to deny the

    14

    15

    request for the fee waiver for the reasons stated on the

    record . Mr. 11111, thank you, very much. We'll get you a

    16 copy of the minute order in j ust a moment.

    17 MR. IIIII= Your Honor, I had some -- my response

    18 here that I attempted to file twice earlier, and I was unable

    19 to file it.

    20 THE COURT: I'm not sure what your response is,

    21 sir. We have a response on file already.

    22 MR. IIIII: No, my response to your order. Your

    23 order for the fee waiver request stated that requesting

    24 party's -- on page 2, C said: Requesting party's current

    25 income and expense.

    26

    27

    28

    THE COURT: Yes.

    MR. IIIII: And what

    THE COURT: I'm sorry, did you bring in an Income

    L---------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS -------13

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

  • 1 and Expense Declaration?

    2 MR. IIIII: No, but what I've brought is the proof 3 of the fact that I'm on public assistance in my response

    4 there. I have a response with

    5 THE COURT: Yes, sir, I actually requested an

    6 Income and Expense Declaration is what I was referring to.

    7 MR. IIIII: Well, I thought that might be a 8 clerical error because the statute calls for under 68634,

    9 subsection (e) (4) is: The Court has good reason to doubt the

    10 veracity of the factual statements in the application.

    11 Is that what your order was issued based on that

    12 subsection?

    13 THE COURT: I had -- in part, yes. Because

    14 concurrently or at about the same time you filed your request

    15

    16

    for fee waiver, Ms. 111111 filed hers. In yours you declare under penalty of perjury she's your roommate. In hers she

    17 declares she has no roommate.

    18 MR. IIIII: There would be no advantage to my 19 declaring her as a roommate.

    20 THE COURT: So there were certain things. And as I

    21 pointed out before, as I pointed out before, there were also

    22 other red flags that were raised to me that I stated some of

    23 them on the record today. But for purposes of this hearing,

    24 I'm satisfied that I am not comfortable going down this road

    25 in your specific case because in this situation your

    26 circumstances are voluntarily induced.

    27

    28

    MR. IIIII: Well, with --THE COURT: And I am convinced of that, and that is

    L---------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS -------14

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

  • 1 my finding for today. Regardless of whether you agree with

    2 the finding or not, that is my finding today, and that is my

    3 order.

    4 MR. -: It's not a matter of whether I agree, 5 Your Honor. It's a matter of law. I'm on public assistance.

    6 THE COURT: I don't

    7 MR. -= As a matter of law I'm entitled to a 8 fee waiver.

    9 THE COURT: Mr. IIIII, I do not have a fee waiver 10 request in front of me filed that says you're on public

    11 assistance. I've already explained that to you.

    12 MR. -= That's \vhat I have right here that I've 13 been trying to file for the last 45 minutes.

    14 THE COURT: Sir, I don't have that in front of me

    15 filed.

    16

    17

    18

    19

    MR. -=

    THE COURT:

    MR. -=

    THE COURT:

    Well, would you

    Mr. IIIII I have it right

    No, Mr. -

    like to see it?

    here.

    I'm not here to bicker

    20 with you. What I put on for hearing today was your request

    21 for a fee waiver submitted to the Court on August lOth, and I

    22 issued an order on August 15th for you to come in on that

    23 August lOth fee waiver request. I don't have a new fee

    24 waiver in front of me.

    25

    26

    MR. -: Your Honor --THE COURT: So Mr. IIIII, that's all I have for you

    27 today. Thank you very much. If you'll have a seat, I'll get

    28 you a copy of the minute order.

    -------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS -------15

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

    PatLine

  • Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

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

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

    Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

    JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING

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

    As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Superior 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.

    The lawyers receive an assortment of illegal kickbacks because they are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, work as part-time judges, 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. Most of the illegal orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many of the pro pers also are disabled.

    The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include lopsided divisions of community property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and spousal support terms. Court reform advocates assert the racketeering enterprise also has resulted in pro per homelessness, and caused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.

    The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due

    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 (69)

    JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

    ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

    MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

    FLEC (28)

    PETER J. McBRIEN (24)

    ARTS & CULTURE (23)

    CHILD CUSTODY (22)

    SCBA (22)

    ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

    CJP (20)

    WATCHDOGS (20)

    EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

    CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

    PRO PERS (18)

    DOCUMENTS (17)

    JAMES M. MIZE (17)

    DIVORCE CORP (15)

    CARLSSON CASE (11)

    COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

    RAPTON-KARRES (11)

    SATIRE (11)

    WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

    SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

    235 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

  • process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children.

    Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice and child abduction.

    With the help of court employee whistleblowers, Sacramento Family Court News has partially reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in size and scope, rivals the Kids for Cash court scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently exposed by the FBI.

    The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and 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 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.

    In 2012, troubled Judge James Mize further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called "One Day Divorce Program."

    One objective of the illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.

    At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce. In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.

    Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil, laws.

    Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.

    In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.

    The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws, including the California Unfair Business Practices Act.

    Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

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

    Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

    WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

    JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

    LAURIE M. EARL (10)

    NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

    SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

    CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

    FERRIS CASE (8)

    JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

    JULIE SETZER (7)

    YOUTUBE (7)

    3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

    CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

    CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

    CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

    CONTEMPT (5)

    THADD BLIZZARD (5)

    FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

    LUAN CASE (4)

    MIKE NEWDOW (4)

    Electronic Frontier Foundation

    First Amendment Coalition

    Californians Aware

    WE SUPPORT

    Family Law Professor Blog

    Law Librarian Blog

    Law Professor Blogs

    Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

    Kafkaesq

    Above the Law

    The Divorce Artist

    LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

    LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

  • The quid pro quo arrangement also involves what whistleblowers assert is a reciprocal protection racket that conceals the organization from discovery by law enforcement agencies and state oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, responsible for judge misconduct, and the State Bar Association, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline.

    Case audits conducted by SFCN show that judge pro tem attorneys routinely violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules, but are never reported to the State Bar, or assessed fines, penalties or "sanctions" by full-time judges as required by state law.

    Pro pers who attempt to report judge pro tem attorney misconduct to the State Bar are told they need a court order from a judge before a disciplinary investigation against an opposing attorney can take place. There are no known instances where a judge issued such an order.

    On the other hand, at the request of cartel attorneys, pro per litigants are routinely punished by judges with illegal fines, draconian financial sanctions, and other types of punishment to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing judge pro tem lawyers.

    Attorneys provide judges reciprocal protection by not reporting the judicial misconduct, Code of Judicial Ethics violations, and criminal conduct committed by full-time judge cartel members. And the lawyers do more.

    To help conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, on the rare occasion when full-time judges do face investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance, members of the cartel provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge. The testimony and support is designed to, and does reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP, ensuring judge members remain on the bench.

    The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, and pattern and practice misconduct by court clerks, supervisors, and the Family Law Facilitator office. Court clerks routinely refuse to file legally sufficient paperwork for pro per parties, while at the same time filing legally insufficient, and even counterfeit paperwork - which they are required by law to reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.

    In some cases, judges and court clerks work in tandem to prevent pro per parties from filing documents at court hearings for the benefit of judge pro tems, ensuring an incomplete and inaccurate trial court record in the event of appellate court review. Court records show that clerks also deliberately withhold and delay the filing of time sensitive pro per documents until after filing deadlines have expired.

    Family Law Facilitator staff provide pro per litigants with false information designed to conceal state law violations by court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys with legal advice and "bench tips." When pro pers ask facilitator staff for similar information, they are told that facilitator employees are prohibited from giving legal advice.

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

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

    Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento

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

    Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence

    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)

  • 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

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

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

    Fathers 4 Justice

    HuffPost Divorce

    Leon Koziol.Com

    Moving Past Divorce

    News and Views Riverside Superior Court

    Weightier Matter

    Cathy Cohen

    ST Thomas

    PR Brown

    PelicanBriefed

    FCAC News

    RoadDog

    CONTRIBUTORS

    Total Pageviews

    1 6 8 9 4 6

    172

    PR Brown

    Follow

    Google+ Badge

    Labels

    2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN

  • sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

    AGGREGATED NEWS (14)

    ANALYSIS (36) APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23) ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)

    CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (11)

    CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

    CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (20)

    CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

    CONTEMPT (5)

    AUDITS (2) AB 1102 (1) AB 590

    (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)ADMINISTRATORS (4)

    AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

    ASSOCIATION (1)

    ANDY FURILLO (2)AOC (1)

    ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

    ATTORNEY (4)ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4)

    ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

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

    CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

    CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

    CHILD SUPPORT (4)

    CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

    CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN

    (1) CODE OF

    SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

    COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

    EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1)COURT POLICIES (1) COURT

    RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)

  • 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 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

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

    have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

    CRIMINAL CONDUCT (12)

    DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (17)

    ELAINE VAN

    BEVEREN (13)

    EMPLOYEE

    MISCONDUCT (19)

    FAMILY COURT (9)

    FAMILY LAW (9)

    FERRIS CASE (8)

    FLEC (28)

    JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

    JAMES M. MIZE (17) JEFFREY POSNER (6)

    JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

    JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

    CRIMINAL LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION

    (1) DENISE RICHARDS (1)DIANE WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION (2)

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

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

    EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

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

    (4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2) FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

    GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN (1) 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)

  • 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

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

    from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

    JUDGES (10)

    JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)

    JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (69)

    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)

    PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (24)

    PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

    RAPTON-KARRES (11) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (11) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

    SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (13) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (12)

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

    JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT

    HANDBOOK (1)

    JUDY HOLZER

    HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

    LAW LIBRARY (1)

    LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

    CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LINCOLN (1)

    LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

    MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)

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

    (1) MIKE NEWDOW (4) NANCY GRACE (1) NANCY PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)

    NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

    OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL

    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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 (6)

    WATCHDOGS (20)

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

    YOUTUBE (7)

    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)

    WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

    WHITE HOUSE (1)

    XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (4) YOLO COUNTY (1)

    P-13-AttemptedToFileResponse

    Z4Unc/QWNyb2JhdFdlYkNhcFRJRDEA: form0: q: