May-16-2008 10:25am To-1916443311' From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISCAARD & 'H LLP T-046 P.006/008 F-748

l Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH tLP

3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104

4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

s Facsimile: ( 415) 434-0882

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

7

8

9

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff; ) DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN ) SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY

13 v. ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

14 BACKSCRA TCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

18 I, Gordon Fine, declare as follows:

) ) ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: ). Trial date:

�

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

19 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of

20 California and am a partner with the law fum of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of

21 record for Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna (hereinafter

22 "defendants") in this matter.

23 2. I believe that the Honorable Shellyanne W.L. Chang the judge, the judge to whom

24 Plaintiff Nick Kalanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, scheduled to be heard on

25 July 29, 2008, has been assigned, is prejudiced against the interests of defendants or the interests

26 of its anomeys, or both, so that defendants cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before

27 Judge Chang.

28

4827-0l08-68SO. I -1-DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FJNE IN SUPPORT OF PEit£MPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May·16·2009 10:26am To-19164433111 From•LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & . 'H LLP T·046 P.007/008 F·749

.. ... ..

E as � � ""�5� �ii!�� � -fi?lil

t;5-0 � ; � ti -i;j" IXI w8::z: II) ::;.,o � 0;:; if "'�w - � .. � D: "' ti ma., Ill

� Ill _,

1 I declare under penalty of perjUtY pursuant t6 the laws of the State of California that this

2 declaration is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this fifteenth day of May,

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008 in San Francisco, California.

4827-0308-6850. I ·2· DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:26am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & ... 'TH LLP T-046 P.008/008 F-748

l

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite I 400, San

5 Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, I served the following document described as

7 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed

9 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

**Attorney for Plaintif/NICK KALANGES

[X] (BY MESSENGER SER.VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[XJ (STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

a, .. � on Ingram

4827-0308.0UO.J -3-l>ECLARATJON OF GORl>ON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Uay·16•2009 10:25am Ta-19164433111

1 Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 ZDUBl'M Y 16 PM 2: 08

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 5

.:i'\;, '·,:,11.:. i;C COURTS DEPT 1153 #54

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALJFORNJA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

13 v.

14 BACKSCRATCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

) } ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: � Trial date:

) )

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

18 Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna respectfully request

19 reassignment of Plaintiff Nick K.alanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication ofissues, scheduled

20 to be heard on July 29, 2008, pursuant to Code of C ivil Procedure section 170.6. This challenge is

21 based upon the Declaration of Gordon J. Fine in Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judge.

22

23

24

25 Dated: May L£" 2008

26

27

28

4826-023S-80!8.l

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By�; c=LK:: ordonJ. Fme

Attorneys for Backscratchers, Inc., Jack Megna and Michael Megna

-1-

BY FAX NO'fICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:25am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & • •H LLP T-046 P.005/008 F-748

1

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07 AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San

S Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, 1 served the following docwnent described as

7 NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ) the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller **Attorney for Plaintiff NICK KALANGES Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

[XJ

[X]

(BY MESSENGER SER VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

(STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

4826.0235-$018.1 -2-NOTICE OF A.N'D PEREMPTOQY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE

MINUTE ORDER

Date: 05/16/2008 Time: 03:05:44 PM Judicial Officer Presiding: Judge Shelleyanne W L Chang Clerk: E. Higginbotham

Bailiff/Court Attendant: None ERM: None

Dept: 54

Case lnit. Date: 04/13/2007

Case No: 07AS00238 Case Title: NICK KALANGES VS BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS. INC ET AL

Case Category: Civil - Unlimited

Date Filed: 01/15/2008

Appearances:

Nature of Proceeding: Disqualification of Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang Pursuant to CCP Section 170.6

Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang having been disqualified pursuant to CCP Section 170.6, the matter is ordered transferred to Department 53 for the hearing of all future law and motion matters. A Motion for Summary Adjudication is currently scheduled on July 29, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 53.

Declaration of Mailing

I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California. Dated: May 19, 2008

E. Higginbotham, Deputy Clerk _______________ _

Gordon Fine Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP One Sansome Street, Ste. 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104

Donald H. Heller L.O. Donald H. Heller 655 University Ave., Ste. 215 Sacramento, CA 95825

Date: 05/16/2008

Dept: 54 MINUTE ORDER Page: 1

Calendar No.:

May-16-2008 10:25am To-1916443311' From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISCAARD & 'H LLP T-046 P.006/008 F-748

l Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH tLP

3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104

4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

s Facsimile: ( 415) 434-0882

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

7

8

9

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff; ) DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN ) SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY

13 v. ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

14 BACKSCRA TCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

18 I, Gordon Fine, declare as follows:

) ) ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: ). Trial date:

�

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

19 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of

20 California and am a partner with the law fum of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of

21 record for Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna (hereinafter

22 "defendants") in this matter.

23 2. I believe that the Honorable Shellyanne W.L. Chang the judge, the judge to whom

24 Plaintiff Nick Kalanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, scheduled to be heard on

25 July 29, 2008, has been assigned, is prejudiced against the interests of defendants or the interests

26 of its anomeys, or both, so that defendants cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before

27 Judge Chang.

28

4827-0l08-68SO. I -1-DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FJNE IN SUPPORT OF PEit£MPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May·16·2009 10:26am To-19164433111 From•LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & . 'H LLP T·046 P.007/008 F·749

.. ... ..

E as � � ""�5� �ii!�� � -fi?lil

t;5-0 � ; � ti -i;j" IXI w8::z: II) ::;.,o � 0;:; if "'�w - � .. � D: "' ti ma., Ill

� Ill _,

1 I declare under penalty of perjUtY pursuant t6 the laws of the State of California that this

2 declaration is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this fifteenth day of May,

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008 in San Francisco, California.

4827-0308-6850. I ·2· DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:26am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & ... 'TH LLP T-046 P.008/008 F-748

l

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite I 400, San

5 Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, I served the following document described as

7 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed

9 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

**Attorney for Plaintif/NICK KALANGES

[X] (BY MESSENGER SER.VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[XJ (STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

a, .. � on Ingram

4827-0308.0UO.J -3-l>ECLARATJON OF GORl>ON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Uay·16•2009 10:25am Ta-19164433111

1 Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 ZDUBl'M Y 16 PM 2: 08

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 5

.:i'\;, '·,:,11.:. i;C COURTS DEPT 1153 #54

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALJFORNJA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

13 v.

14 BACKSCRATCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

) } ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: � Trial date:

) )

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

18 Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna respectfully request

19 reassignment of Plaintiff Nick K.alanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication ofissues, scheduled

20 to be heard on July 29, 2008, pursuant to Code of C ivil Procedure section 170.6. This challenge is

21 based upon the Declaration of Gordon J. Fine in Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judge.

22

23

24

25 Dated: May L£" 2008

26

27

28

4826-023S-80!8.l

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By�; c=LK:: ordonJ. Fme

Attorneys for Backscratchers, Inc., Jack Megna and Michael Megna

-1-

BY FAX NO'fICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:25am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & • •H LLP T-046 P.005/008 F-748

1

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07 AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San

S Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, 1 served the following docwnent described as

7 NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ) the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller **Attorney for Plaintiff NICK KALANGES Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

[XJ

[X]

(BY MESSENGER SER VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

(STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

4826.0235-$018.1 -2-NOTICE OF A.N'D PEREMPTOQY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

07 July 2014

Woodruff O'Hair Posner & Salinger Inc Criminal Conduct by Partner Paula D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All Firm Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge. Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge

Obstruction of Justice Crimes Alleged Against Judge Pro Tem Attorney Paula Salinger, Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Officer

Allegations that judge pro tem lawyer Paula Salinger committed obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented pro per have gone viral throughout family court reform social media.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (66)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (14)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

5 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is embedded below.

The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary.

As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Gary’s prejudgment of the contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge conduct.

The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for “acting in a way that manifested prejudgment…A trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented to him.” In one CJP judicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click here for a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.

Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:

"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

As page one of the document set reflects, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set shows, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

Obstruction of Justice

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim has been criticizedfor not enforcing state attorney ethics laws against lawyers

- like Paula Salinger - for misconduct against pro per litigants.

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

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)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (4)

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

As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set below, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding. Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code § 6128. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees. The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document set:

Paula Salinger - Witness Intimidation-Influence Witness by Fraud-Obstruction of Justice - Divorce Attorney... by Sacramento Family Court News

Witness Tampering Law

An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced

by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

WOODRUff, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC.

D. Thomas Woodruff. C.F.L.S.", AAML"*

Robert J. O'Hair. C.F.L.S.", AAML *" Jeffrey J. Posner, C.F.L.S. •

Paula D. Salinger

PO Box 60662 Sacramento, CA 95860

Dear-

A LAW CORPORATION

2251 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento. California 95825

Telephone : (916) 920-0211

Facsimile: (916) 920 0241

Email: paula@woplaw.com

October 28, 2010

VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO

Re: Marriage of-

As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt.

Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October 20, 201 O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271 for the necessity of defending the motions.

Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay.

pds:sbo cc:

Paula D. Salinger

• Certified Family Law S.oecralisl. The Slate Bar of Califomia Boarr, >f Legal Speoalzat1on ··Fellow. Amencan Academy of Matnmonia/, 1wyers

Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 18-B

California Practice Guide: Family Law

Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black (Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman

Chapter 18. Enforcement Of Orders And Judgments

B. Enforcement Remedies And Procedures

1. Contempt a. [18:105] Nature of contempt—in general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties (see CCP §§ 1218 & 1219, ¶ 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864–865]…

…(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally, respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. § 213, discussed at ¶ 5:372 ff.] However, Fam.C. § 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citee’s responsive declaration may only be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above). [Fam.C. § 213(a)—“In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration)” (emphasis and parentheses added)]

§ 13:107. Witness intimidation, L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

Expert Series California Criminal Law

Database updated December 2011 Laurie L. Levenson, Alex Ricciardulli

Chapter 13. Crimes Against the Administration of Government

§ 13:107. Witness intimidation

Whoever attempts to prevent or dissuade a victim or crime witness from reporting the incident to law enforcement officials, prosecutors or the judge, is guilty of witness intimidation.1 A person may be guilty of aiding and abetting witness intimidation, but the evidence must show that the defendant had the specific intent for witness intimidation to be committed. If the aider and abettor has such intent, he or she is guilty not only of the intended or target offense, but also of any other crime the direct perpetrator of the crime commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.2 However, witness intimidation is not the natural and probable consequence of vehicle burglary or illegal possession of a weapon.3

Footnotes 1 Penal Code § 136.1(b).

2 People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial

of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

3 People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.

Government Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 608

California Jurisprudence 3d

Database updated May 2012Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order

Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.

II. Crimes Against Public JusticeD. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses

3. Particular Offenses Involving Interference With or Influencing of Witnesses

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21

A.L.R. Library

Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence awitness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156

A person who gives or offers or promises to give to a witness or person about to be called as a witness a bribe upon anunderstanding or agreement that such person will not attend any trial or other judicial proceeding is guilty of a felony. The

attempt to commit the crime is also a felony. 1 A bilateral agreement is not a necessary element of the crime. There need beno meeting of the minds between the briber and the witness. It is sufficient if the defendant offers the bribe with the intent of

persuading the witness to agree not to testify. 2

A misdemeanor is committed by anyone who practices any fraud or deceit or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement,representation, token, or writing to a witness or person about to be called as a witness in any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or

investigation with intent to affect the testimony of the witness. 3

Footnotes1 Pen. Code, § 138, subd. (a).

As to bribery, generally, see §§ 526 to 553.

2 People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685, 646 P.2d 847 (1982).

As to agreement or understanding in a prosecution for bribery, generally, see § 534.

3 Pen. Code, § 133.

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

§ 604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

California Jurisprudence 3d

Database updated May 2012Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order

Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.

II. Crimes Against Public JusticeD. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses

2. Preventing or Dissuading Attendance, Testimony, or Reporting of Crimes by Witness or Victim

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 604. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21

A.L.R. Library

Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence awitness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156

It is a public offense to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony

at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law or to attempt to do so. 1 Advising a witness to conceal himself or herself

for the purpose of avoiding service of a subpoena is a violation of this provision. 2 Evidence that the defendant was a family

member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim creates a presumption that the act was without malice. 3

It is a crime to attempt to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crimefrom doing any of the following:

• making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or

parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge 4

• causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation, or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting

in the prosecution thereof 5

• arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization 6

Footnotes1 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a).

2 In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790 (2d Dist. 1983).

3 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(3).

4 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1).

5 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2).

6 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(3).

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2622. Intimidating a Witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b))

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with intimidating awitness [in violation of Penal Code section 136.1].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People mustprove that:

<Alternative 1A—attending or giving testimony>

[1. The defendant maliciously (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from (attending/ [or] giving testimony at)

<insert type of judicial proceeding or inquiryauthorized by law>;]

<Alternative 1B—report of victimization>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from making a report that (he/she/someoneelse) was a victim of a crime to <insert type ofoffıcial specified in Pen. Code, § 136.1(b)(1)>;]

<Alternative 1C—causing prosecution>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from cooperating or providing information sothat a (complaint/indictment/information/probationviolation/parole violation) could be sought and prosecuted,and from helping to prosecute that action;]

<Alternative 1D—causing arrest>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from (arresting[,]/ [or] (causing/ [or] seeking)the arrest of [,]) someone in connection with a crime;]

2. <insert name/description of person defendant

542 (Pub. 1284)

0030 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

allegedly sought to influence> was a (witness/ [or] crimevictim);

AND

3. The defendant knew (he/she) was (trying to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(preventing/ [or] discouraging))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from <insert appropriatedescription from element 1> and intended to do so.

[A person acts maliciously when he or she unlawfully intends toannoy, harm, or injure someone else in any way, or intends tointerfere in any way with the orderly administration of justice.]

[As used here, witness means someone [or a person the defendantreasonably believed to be someone]:

<Give the appropriate bracketed paragraph[s].>

• [Who knows about the existence or nonexistence of factsrelating to a crime(;/.)]

[OR]

• [Whose declaration under oath has been or may bereceived as evidence(;/.)]

[OR]

• [Who has reported a crime to a (peace officer[,]/ [or]prosecutor[,]/ [or] probation or parole officer[,]/ [or]correctional officer[,]/ [or] judicial officer)(;/.)]

[OR

• [Who has been served with a subpoena issued under theauthority of any state or federal court.]]

[A person is a victim if there is reason to believe that a federal orstate crime is being or has been committed or attempted againsthim or her.]

[It is not a defense that the defendant was not successful inpreventing or discouraging the (victim/ [or] witness).]

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2622

543 (Pub. 1284)

0031 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

[It is not a defense that no one was actually physically injured orotherwise intimidated.]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elementsof the crime.

In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section136.1(a), which prohibits “knowingly and maliciously” preventing orattempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b).Subdivision (b) does not use the words “knowingly and maliciously.”However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation ofeither subdivision (a) or (b) is done “knowingly and maliciously,” and one ofthe other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made thatthe knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Codesection 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factorsunder subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, thecommittee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intentrequirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990[193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malicerequirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court shouldgive the bracketed word “maliciously” in element 1, in alternatives 1Bthrough 1D, and the definition of this word.

If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Codesection 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness:Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factorbased on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless thecourt has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendanthas stipulated to the conviction.

Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, “For purposes of thissection, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded inan effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that theact was without malice.” It is unclear whether the court must instruct on thispresumption.

CALCRIM No. 2622 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

544 (Pub. 1284)

0032 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

AUTHORITY

• Elements. Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b).

• Malice Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(1).

• Witness Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(2).

• Victim Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(3).

• Specific Intent Required. People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985,990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Secondary Sources

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes AgainstGovernmental Authority, §§ 5, 6.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82,Witnesses, § 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, § 84.11 (Matthew Bender).

5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,Sentencing, §§ 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142,Crimes Against the Person, § 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order,§ 144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSESA violation of Penal Code section 136.1(a) or (b) is a felony-misdemeanor,punishable by a maximum of three years in state prison. If the defendant isalso charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section136.1(c), then the offense is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years.In the defendant is charged under Penal Code section 131.6(c), then theoffenses under subdivisions (a) and (b) are lesser included offenses. Thecourt must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury willindicate if the prosecution has proved the sentencing factor alleged. If thejury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should beset at the level of the lesser offense.

The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a lawenforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesserincluded offense of Penal Code section 137(b) because the latter offenselacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement tobe made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d52].)

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2622

545 (Pub. 1284)

0033 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

RELATED ISSUESPenal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138

Because one cannot “influence” the testimony of a witness if the witnessdoes not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistentwith a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires thata defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)

CALCRIM No. 2622 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

546 (Pub. 1284)

0034 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

2621. Influencing a Witness by Fraud (Pen. Code, § 137(b))

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with using fraud toinfluence a person to (give false (testimony/ [or] information)/ [or]withhold true (testimony/ [or] information)) [in violation of PenalCode section 137(b)].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People mustprove that:

1. The defendant used fraud against <insertname/description of person defendant allegedly sought toinfluence>;

AND

<Alternative 2A—to give or withhold testimony>

[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause<insert name/description of person defendant

allegedly sought to influence> to (give false testimony/ [or]withhold true testimony).]

<Alternative 2B—to give or withhold information>

[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause<insert name/description of person defendant

allegedly sought to influence> to (give false materialinformation about a crime to/ [or] withhold true materialinformation about a crime from) a law enforcementofficial.]

A person uses fraud when he or she makes a false statement,misrepresents information, hides the truth, or otherwise doessomething with the intent to deceive.

[Information is material if it is significant or important.]

[(A/The) (district attorney[,]/ [or] deputy district attorney[,]/ [or]city attorney[,]/ [or] deputy city attorney[,]/ [or] AttorneyGeneral[,]/ [or] deputy attorney general[,]/ [or]<insert title of peace offıcer included in Pen. Code, § 830 et seq.>) isa law enforcement official.]

[The People do not need to prove that <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence>

539 (Pub. 1284)

0027 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

actually (gave false (testimony/information)/ [or] withheld true(testimony/information)).]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTESInstructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elementsof the crime.

Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The People do not need toprove that” if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of thealleged target was not affected.

AUTHORITY• Elements. Pen. Code, § 137(b).

• Fraud Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127Cal.Rptr.2d 770].

• Law Enforcement Official Defined. Pen. Code, § 137(e).

• Specific Intent Required. People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Secondary Sources

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes AgainstGovernmental Authority, § 12.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSESThe misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a lawenforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesserincluded offense of section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks theelement that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made.(People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

RELATED ISSUESDeceiving a Witness

Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133:

Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes orexhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to anywitness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial,proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with

CALCRIM No. 2621 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

540 (Pub. 1284)

0028 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

intent to affect the testimony of such witness, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2621

541 (Pub. 1284)

0029 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

WOODRUff, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC.

D. Thomas Woodruff. C.F.L.S.", AAML"*

Robert J. O'Hair. C.F.L.S.", AAML *" Jeffrey J. Posner, C.F.L.S. •

Paula D. Salinger

PO Box 60662 Sacramento, CA 95860

Dear-

A LAW CORPORATION

2251 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento. California 95825

Telephone : (916) 920-0211

Facsimile: (916) 920 0241

Email: paula@woplaw.com

October 28, 2010

VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO

Re: Marriage of-

As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt.

Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October 20, 201 O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271 for the necessity of defending the motions.

Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC §271.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC. Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay.

pds:sbo cc:

Paula D. Salinger

• Certified Family Law S.oecralisl. The Slate Bar of Califomia Boarr, >f Legal Speoalzat1on ··Fellow. Amencan Academy of Matnmonia/, 1wyers

Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 18-B

California Practice Guide: Family Law

Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black (Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman

Chapter 18. Enforcement Of Orders And Judgments

B. Enforcement Remedies And Procedures

1. Contempt a. [18:105] Nature of contempt—in general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties (see CCP §§ 1218 & 1219, ¶ 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864–865]…

…(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally, respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. § 213, discussed at ¶ 5:372 ff.] However, Fam.C. § 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citee’s responsive declaration may only be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above). [Fam.C. § 213(a)—“In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration)” (emphasis and parentheses added)]

§ 13:107. Witness intimidation, L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

L & R, California Criminal Law § 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)

Expert Series California Criminal Law

Database updated December 2011 Laurie L. Levenson, Alex Ricciardulli

Chapter 13. Crimes Against the Administration of Government

§ 13:107. Witness intimidation

Whoever attempts to prevent or dissuade a victim or crime witness from reporting the incident to law enforcement officials, prosecutors or the judge, is guilty of witness intimidation.1 A person may be guilty of aiding and abetting witness intimidation, but the evidence must show that the defendant had the specific intent for witness intimidation to be committed. If the aider and abettor has such intent, he or she is guilty not only of the intended or target offense, but also of any other crime the direct perpetrator of the crime commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.2 However, witness intimidation is not the natural and probable consequence of vehicle burglary or illegal possession of a weapon.3

Footnotes 1 Penal Code § 136.1(b).

2 People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial

of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

3 People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 14, 2008).

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.

Government Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 608

California Jurisprudence 3d

Database updated May 2012Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order

Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.

II. Crimes Against Public JusticeD. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses

3. Particular Offenses Involving Interference With or Influencing of Witnesses

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 608. Bribe or deceit of witness

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21

A.L.R. Library

Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence awitness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156

A person who gives or offers or promises to give to a witness or person about to be called as a witness a bribe upon anunderstanding or agreement that such person will not attend any trial or other judicial proceeding is guilty of a felony. The

attempt to commit the crime is also a felony. 1 A bilateral agreement is not a necessary element of the crime. There need beno meeting of the minds between the briber and the witness. It is sufficient if the defendant offers the bribe with the intent of

persuading the witness to agree not to testify. 2

A misdemeanor is committed by anyone who practices any fraud or deceit or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement,representation, token, or writing to a witness or person about to be called as a witness in any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or

investigation with intent to affect the testimony of the witness. 3

Footnotes1 Pen. Code, § 138, subd. (a).

As to bribery, generally, see §§ 526 to 553.

2 People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685, 646 P.2d 847 (1982).

As to agreement or understanding in a prosecution for bribery, generally, see § 534.

3 Pen. Code, § 133.

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

§ 604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice § 604

California Jurisprudence 3d

Database updated May 2012Criminal Law: Crimes Against Administration of Justice and Public Order

Robert F. Koets, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Sarah Newcomb, J.D., and Susan L. Thomas, J.D.

II. Crimes Against Public JusticeD. Interference with Evidence and Witnesses

2. Preventing or Dissuading Attendance, Testimony, or Reporting of Crimes by Witness or Victim

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 604. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Bribery 1(1), 3, 6(4)West's Key Number Digest, Obstructing Justice 4, 21

A.L.R. Library

Admissibility in criminal case, on issue of defendant's guilt, of evidence that third person has attempted to influence awitness not to testify or to testify falsely, 79 A.L.R.3d 1156

It is a public offense to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony

at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law or to attempt to do so. 1 Advising a witness to conceal himself or herself

for the purpose of avoiding service of a subpoena is a violation of this provision. 2 Evidence that the defendant was a family

member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim creates a presumption that the act was without malice. 3

It is a crime to attempt to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is a witness to a crimefrom doing any of the following:

• making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or

parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge 4

• causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation, or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting

in the prosecution thereof 5

• arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization 6

Footnotes1 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a).

2 In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790 (2d Dist. 1983).

3 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(3).

4 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1).

5 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2).

6 Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(3).

End of Document © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2622. Intimidating a Witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b))

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with intimidating awitness [in violation of Penal Code section 136.1].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People mustprove that:

<Alternative 1A—attending or giving testimony>

[1. The defendant maliciously (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from (attending/ [or] giving testimony at)

<insert type of judicial proceeding or inquiryauthorized by law>;]

<Alternative 1B—report of victimization>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from making a report that (he/she/someoneelse) was a victim of a crime to <insert type ofoffıcial specified in Pen. Code, § 136.1(b)(1)>;]

<Alternative 1C—causing prosecution>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from cooperating or providing information sothat a (complaint/indictment/information/probationviolation/parole violation) could be sought and prosecuted,and from helping to prosecute that action;]

<Alternative 1D—causing arrest>

[1. The defendant [maliciously] (tried to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(prevented/ [or] discouraged))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from (arresting[,]/ [or] (causing/ [or] seeking)the arrest of [,]) someone in connection with a crime;]

2. <insert name/description of person defendant

542 (Pub. 1284)

0030 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

allegedly sought to influence> was a (witness/ [or] crimevictim);

AND

3. The defendant knew (he/she) was (trying to (prevent/ [or]discourage)/(preventing/ [or] discouraging))<insert name/description of person defendant allegedly soughtto influence> from <insert appropriatedescription from element 1> and intended to do so.

[A person acts maliciously when he or she unlawfully intends toannoy, harm, or injure someone else in any way, or intends tointerfere in any way with the orderly administration of justice.]

[As used here, witness means someone [or a person the defendantreasonably believed to be someone]:

<Give the appropriate bracketed paragraph[s].>

• [Who knows about the existence or nonexistence of factsrelating to a crime(;/.)]

[OR]

• [Whose declaration under oath has been or may bereceived as evidence(;/.)]

[OR]

• [Who has reported a crime to a (peace officer[,]/ [or]prosecutor[,]/ [or] probation or parole officer[,]/ [or]correctional officer[,]/ [or] judicial officer)(;/.)]

[OR

• [Who has been served with a subpoena issued under theauthority of any state or federal court.]]

[A person is a victim if there is reason to believe that a federal orstate crime is being or has been committed or attempted againsthim or her.]

[It is not a defense that the defendant was not successful inpreventing or discouraging the (victim/ [or] witness).]

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2622

543 (Pub. 1284)

0031 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

[It is not a defense that no one was actually physically injured orotherwise intimidated.]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elementsof the crime.

In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section136.1(a), which prohibits “knowingly and maliciously” preventing orattempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b).Subdivision (b) does not use the words “knowingly and maliciously.”However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation ofeither subdivision (a) or (b) is done “knowingly and maliciously,” and one ofthe other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made thatthe knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Codesection 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factorsunder subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, thecommittee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intentrequirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990[193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malicerequirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court shouldgive the bracketed word “maliciously” in element 1, in alternatives 1Bthrough 1D, and the definition of this word.

If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Codesection 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness:Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factorbased on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless thecourt has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendanthas stipulated to the conviction.

Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, “For purposes of thissection, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded inan effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that theact was without malice.” It is unclear whether the court must instruct on thispresumption.

CALCRIM No. 2622 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

544 (Pub. 1284)

0032 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

AUTHORITY

• Elements. Pen. Code, § 136.1(a) & (b).

• Malice Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(1).

• Witness Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(2).

• Victim Defined. Pen. Code, § 136(3).

• Specific Intent Required. People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985,990 [193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40Cal.App.4th 926, 929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Secondary Sources

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes AgainstGovernmental Authority, §§ 5, 6.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82,Witnesses, § 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, § 84.11 (Matthew Bender).

5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,Sentencing, §§ 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142,Crimes Against the Person, § 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order,§ 144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSESA violation of Penal Code section 136.1(a) or (b) is a felony-misdemeanor,punishable by a maximum of three years in state prison. If the defendant isalso charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code section136.1(c), then the offense is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years.In the defendant is charged under Penal Code section 131.6(c), then theoffenses under subdivisions (a) and (b) are lesser included offenses. Thecourt must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury willindicate if the prosecution has proved the sentencing factor alleged. If thejury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should beset at the level of the lesser offense.

The misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a lawenforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesserincluded offense of Penal Code section 137(b) because the latter offenselacks the element that the defendant must actually cause a false statement tobe made. (People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d52].)

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2622

545 (Pub. 1284)

0033 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

RELATED ISSUESPenal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138

Because one cannot “influence” the testimony of a witness if the witnessdoes not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistentwith a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires thata defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)

CALCRIM No. 2622 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

546 (Pub. 1284)

0034 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

2621. Influencing a Witness by Fraud (Pen. Code, § 137(b))

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with using fraud toinfluence a person to (give false (testimony/ [or] information)/ [or]withhold true (testimony/ [or] information)) [in violation of PenalCode section 137(b)].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People mustprove that:

1. The defendant used fraud against <insertname/description of person defendant allegedly sought toinfluence>;

AND

<Alternative 2A—to give or withhold testimony>

[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause<insert name/description of person defendant

allegedly sought to influence> to (give false testimony/ [or]withhold true testimony).]

<Alternative 2B—to give or withhold information>

[2. When the defendant used fraud, (he/she) intended to cause<insert name/description of person defendant

allegedly sought to influence> to (give false materialinformation about a crime to/ [or] withhold true materialinformation about a crime from) a law enforcementofficial.]

A person uses fraud when he or she makes a false statement,misrepresents information, hides the truth, or otherwise doessomething with the intent to deceive.

[Information is material if it is significant or important.]

[(A/The) (district attorney[,]/ [or] deputy district attorney[,]/ [or]city attorney[,]/ [or] deputy city attorney[,]/ [or] AttorneyGeneral[,]/ [or] deputy attorney general[,]/ [or]<insert title of peace offıcer included in Pen. Code, § 830 et seq.>) isa law enforcement official.]

[The People do not need to prove that <insert name/description of person defendant allegedly sought to influence>

539 (Pub. 1284)

0027 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

actually (gave false (testimony/information)/ [or] withheld true(testimony/information)).]

New January 2006

BENCH NOTESInstructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elementsof the crime.

Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The People do not need toprove that” if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of thealleged target was not affected.

AUTHORITY• Elements. Pen. Code, § 137(b).

• Fraud Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127Cal.Rptr.2d 770].

• Law Enforcement Official Defined. Pen. Code, § 137(e).

• Specific Intent Required. People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,929–930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].

Secondary Sources

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes AgainstGovernmental Authority, § 12.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSESThe misdemeanor offense of knowingly inducing a false statement to a lawenforcement official in violation of Penal Code section 137(c) is not a lesserincluded offense of section 137(b) because the latter offense lacks theelement that the defendant must actually cause a false statement to be made.(People v. Miles (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 575, 580 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 52].)

RELATED ISSUESDeceiving a Witness

Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133:

Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes orexhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to anywitness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial,proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with

CALCRIM No. 2621 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT

540 (Pub. 1284)

0028 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

intent to affect the testimony of such witness, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2621

541 (Pub. 1284)

0029 [ST: 513] [ED: 100000] [REL: 7] Composed: Tue Mar 6 13:27:12 EST 2012XPP 8.3C.1 SP #1 SC_01283 nllp 1284 [PW=514pt PD=720pt TW=352pt TD=528pt]

VER: [SC_01283-Master:06 Jan 12 02:11][MX-SECNDARY: 10 Dec 11 09:12][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01284-ch2600] 0

This version provided by LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, Official Publisher, 800-533-1637, www.lexisnexis.com/bookstore, for public and internal court use.

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 Attorney 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 (58)

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (31)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28)

FLEC (26)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

SCBA (20)

CHILD CUSTODY (19)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (17)

DOCUMENTS (16)

CJP (15)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

SATIRE (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

6 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

5 comments

Posted by PR Brown at 9:31 AM

Labels: ANALYSIS, ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, 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

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 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:

11-25-13SAUNDERS (2).txt

Share Embed of 13

+6 Recommend this on Google

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

FERRIS CASE (7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CIVIL RIGHTS (4)

CONTEMPT (4)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

THADD BLIZZARD (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

The Divorce Artist

Above the Law

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

California Lawyer Magazine

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

15 November 2012

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley Obtains Unprecedented Court Order - Roman Rewrites Family Code & Court Rules - Decrees Hearings Obsolete

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive

In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday.

All the disputed issues inexplicably were decided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes. Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres' ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley.

Judge Jaime Roman Designates Party Vexatious Litigant, Sanctions $2,500 and Makes 13 Other Rulings - Without Court Hearing Required by Law

Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court

watchdogs. Photo: Sacramento Lawyer.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

10 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

Judge Roman drafted the lengthy statement of decision in advance of a court hearing calendared for November 14, at which the disputed issues were scheduled to be argued and submitted. But at the start of the proceeding, the judge announced that he was cancelling the hearing because he had already ruled on all matters.

Roman explained to the parties and attorneys that the day before he had mailed them his statement of decision resolving all issues. At the hearing, the judge issued a minute order which read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." Click here to view the minute order.

In addition to depriving Karres of his basic due process right to be heard on the sanction and vexatious litigant issues, the vacated hearing also denied the losing litigant his Family Code § 217 and state court rule 5.119 right to present "live, competent and admissible testimony." Family court reform advocates assert that the unlawful, summarily decided proceeding is yet another example of the overt preferential treatment provided by

full-time, family court judges to members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section who also serve as temporary judges in the same court.

"It was both surreal and unprecedented," said veteran court watcher Robert Saunders. "I've been attending family court hearings for over five years and have never seen anything like it." Saunders said that in addition to the obvious constitutional-level due process of law breach, Roman's order was a flagrant violation of Family Code sec. 217 and California Rule of Court 5.119. The statute, which became law on January 1, 2011, and the court rule, which took effect on July 1, 2011, guarantee all family court litigants the right to present live testimony at motion and order to show cause hearings.

"It appears that Judge Roman used reverse engineering to do an end run around the new law," Saunders added. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling. Unfortunately, the new law and court rule presented an obstacle to the judge. From whole cloth he created a sham legal rationale he claims justifies ignoring the requirements of section 217 and rule 5.119. This is yet another example of how brazenly many family court judges will prejudge a case, ignore the law, and manufacture a ruling to fit a predetermined outcome," Saunders charged.

"With this 20-page order, the other issue that exposes Roman's prejudgment is the vexatious litigant order. With its potential for serious, Constitutional-level collateral consequences, a vexatious litigant proceeding always requires notice and a hearing with oral testimony."

Saunders said court administrators share the blame for Roman's conduct. "This ruling again exposes a complete failure by court administrators to properly train, supervise and discipline family court judges," he said. In his own family court case in 2010, Saunders successfully obtained an order from a neutral, third-party judge formally disqualifying family court Judge Matthew Gary. The outside judge - from San Joaquin County Superior Court - ordered Gary removed for misconduct, including failing to follow proper contempt of court procedures after having Saunders arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs. "Court administrators did nothing, even after an independent, outside judge made it clear Gary was a rogue judge with anger-management

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorney and family court temporary judge Charlotte Keeley.

"Surreal and Unprecedented"

Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

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

issues," Saunders said.

"Judge Roman's order is a similar situation, with the added inference that a full-time judge is doing a favor for a part-time judge, Charlotte Keeley," Saunders continued. "I don't know what else would explain such a brazen disregard of established law. The order is unlawful, void on its face, and inevitably will create more, but completely unnecessary litigation in this case in both the trial and appellate courts. Most Family Court judges are either rookies breaking in, or screw-ups spending time in purgatory," Saunders explained.

"They're inherently thin-skinned and rarely admit to mistakes. The odds are slim that Judge Roman will admit to the errors in this 20-page debacle. This proceeding was, and will continue to be a complete waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the courts claim to be starved for funding. And, by the way, we pay Judge Ramon $170,000 per year for work like this."

To justify issuing the order without a hearing, at page six of the ruling Roman invoked a local court rule, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, and Family Code section 210. On page 19, Roman also cited California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a) "in conjunction with rule 5.21" as his legal rationale for denying the parties their day in court.

"Nice try," Saunders scoffed. "Roman is using antiquated law and a local court rule that all are clearly superseded by [Family Code] Section 217 and Rule 5.119. Both laws give family court litigants the right to present live testimony at a court hearing unless the judge - at the hearing - denies the request based on a finding of good cause. It is self-evident that the right can't be invoked if the judge vacates the hearing and mails out an order filed the day before the hearing."

The violation of Family Code section 217, state court Rule 5.119, and both the statutory and decisional law governing vexatious litigant determinations potentially exposes Judge Roman to an improper governmental activities investigation by the California State Auditor. Sacramento Family Court has been in hot water with the state auditor before. A 2011 audit disclosed problems with training and supervision of family court mediators, custody evaluators and minors counsel.

As SFCN reported last year, violation of a state statute or state court rule is, by law, an improper governmental activity in the same category of offenses as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property and willful omission to perform duty, according to the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

However, Saunders pointed out that the chances of Roman being held accountable for the violations are slim-to-none.

"Judges in California are untouchable. Like Roman did in this case, judges can simply flip-the-bird at the law. It is not hyperbole to say they are literally above-the-law. The State Auditor, Commission on Judicial Performance, Judicial Council and local court administrators will all turn a blind eye," Saunders predicted. "The reason we have an overabundance of incompetent judges is because meaningful oversight of judge misconduct is non-existent in California."

Promising later posts analyzing the 20-page statement of decision, Sacramento County Family Court News in-house legal analyst PelicanBriefed declined to opine on the decision.

"There is so much wrong with this ruling that it will take me several posts to unravel and do justice. I will say that it appears Judge Roman assumed that if he put a lot of footnotes into the ruling, no one would notice his erroneous

Cal. Rule of Court rule 5.119 requires judges to permit live testimony.

Ruling May Constitute Improper Governmental Activities and Trigger State Auditor Scrutiny

Court Employees Are Now Protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

5 comments

Top comments

PR Brown via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Where the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started:

In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay $2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional

·

1 Reply

Susan Ferris via Google+ 2 years ago - Shared publicly

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/11/family-court-sacramento-superior-court-family-law-children-family-relations-courthouse-judge-jaime-roman-family-code-court-rules-attorney-charlotte-keeley-judge-pro-tem-attorney-sharon-huddle-bar-association-state-auditors-judicial-council.html

+1

1

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago (edited) - Shared publicly

SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT JUDGE REWRITES FAMILY CODE AND COURT RULES - DECREES HEARINGS OBSOLETE

Sacramento Family Court Supervising Family Law/Probate/ADA Judge Jaime R. Roman issues 15 rulings on on day, in one case, including a $2,500 sanction order and an order

+2 ·

1 Reply

sparkle Jones via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

PR Brown originally shared thisWhere the Andrew Karres federal class action claim started:

In a rambling, 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman designated family court party

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 10:45 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, COURT RULES, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, RAPTON-KARRES, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Location: Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court

rationale for not holding a hearing, nor his blatant disregard of the legislative intent behind Family Code section 217 and Rule 5.119. And not allowing a hearing before declaring a party a vexatious litigant is unheard of. For now, let's just say that this ruling may be an example of why Judge Roman was passed over for elevation to the Court of Appeal."

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

+10 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 4 9 9 6 2

158

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

ATTORNEY

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

17 April 2013

Hon. Jaime R. Roman Misconduct: Rewrites California Vexatious Litigant Law for Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Charlotte Keeley

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

The Sacramento Family Court News analysis team has been working overtime scrutinizing and trying to make sense of a controversial 20-page statement of decision issued on Nov. 14 of last year by Supervising Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman. Click here for our initial report from 2012.

Roman's decision is now being challenged in both the Third District Court of Appeal, and in a federal class action lawsuit filed March 22 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It is certain that taxpayers will get a substantial bill for each case. Court watchdogs contend Roman's order exemplifies the overt lawlessness that occurs weekly in family court, and the preferential treatment that full-time judges provide for-profit attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.

The unprecedented ruling - which was made-to-order for Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley - rewrites California vexatious litigant law and procedure. Watchdogs hold Judge Roman responsible for putting taxpayers on the financial hook for the costs of yet another unnecessary appeal from family court, and the federal litigation.

In another pointless appeal caused by judicial misconduct, Judge Matthew J. Gary unsuccessfully attempted a similar rewrite of putative spouse law and in 2011 was reversed in full by the Third District Court of Appeal. Our analysis indicates that Judge Roman's order likely is headed for the same fate.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:

Judge Jaime Roman Misstates Law, Uses Overruled Case to Justify Vexatious Litigant and Other Orders Without Court Hearing

Judge Jaime R. Roman denied a family court litigant the right to a court hearing and oral testimony - fundamental components

of the right to due process of law.

Off-the-Rails at Conjunction Junction

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

6 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

The confusing legal rationale of Judge Roman's 20-page decision is constructed from a series of allegedly consistent conjunctions conjoining components of the Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and court rules. For example, Roman writes at page six:

"Sacramento Superior Court Rule 14.02(C), consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, in conjunction with Family Code section 210.." and

"Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), in conjunction with Family Code section 210..." at page eight, and

"California Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 in conjunction with Family Code section 210...California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a), in conjunction with California Rules of Court, rule 5.21...See Family Code section 217(c); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b), in conjunction with rule 5.21 and rule 5.119," at page 19.

Judge Roman's statute and court rule references, and calculated omission of contrary authority suggest an intent to cherry-pick law - including law not applicable to a vexatious litigant proceeding - to reach a predetermined result for the benefit of Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In our first report on the decision, veteran court watchdog Robert Saunders astutely observed that the judge used reverse engineering. "In other words, he knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling," Saunders said in 2012.

Saunders' analysis appears to be substantially accurate, according to the family and civil law reference books used by judges, attorneys and Sacramento Family Court News. The logically inferred intent of Roman's risible, convoluted conjunctions is to enable himself to designate a family court party a vexatious litigant and issue a $2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral argument. But Judge Roman is off-the-rails at conjunction junction.

California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, the gold standard civil law reference work used by judges and attorneys, indicates that Judge Roman attempted to create the illusion that his order was grounded in legitimate law by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure § 2009, Family Code § 210, and § 217, and California Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21. The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from parts of each is preempted and effectively nullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law, according to the Guide.

Court watchdogs and whistleblowers charge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other court administrators failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline family court judges. They point out that Judge Roman, the supervising family law, probate and ADA judge has limited family court experience, and often confuses civil law with family law. At the end of her own two-year stint in family court, Judge Sharon Lueras confessed to the family law bar that, at the beginning of her family court assignment, she knew nothing about family law. The consequences of inadequate training and supervision can be tragic. Unrepresented litigant

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

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

Jessica Hernandez blames Lueras for the death of her son at the hands of her ex-husband. Click here for our coverage of the Hernandez case.

As we reported in our original coverage, Judge Roman unilaterally cancelled a family court hearing calendared for Nov. 14, 2012. The hearing was scheduled for the purpose of arguing and resolving 15 disputed issues in the case Katina Rapton vs Andrew Karres.

On the day of the hearing, the parties and attorneys arrived at the courtroom and were told by the judge that the hearing was vacated and would not take place. A dumbfounded Sharon Huddle, the attorney for Karres, had the judge repeat the statement a second time while being recorded by a court reporter. Click here to read the court reporter's transcript, obtained exclusively by Sacramento Family Court News.

At the end of the non-hearing, Judge Roman scrawled out a minute order that read only "VACATED: COURT STATEMENT OF DECISION." The day before the hearing, Roman wrote, signed, filed, and mailed to the attorneys a 20-page statement of decision resolving all issues.

Virtually all of the rulings were in favor of Rapton and against Karres. Rapton, the Mel Rapton Honda heiress is represented by veteran family law attorney and temporary judge Charlotte Keeley. The orders requested by Keeley and granted by Roman included designating Karres a vexatious litigant, and ordering the financially disadvantaged litigant to pay Keeley $2,500 in sanctions. The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts Karres' access to every court in California by requiring him to get pre-approval from a presiding judge before he can file anything, anywhere in the state.

Conjunction MalfunctionThe relationship between family law, civil law and the court rules applicable to each can be confusing. But the family law procedure manual used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law neatly sorts it all out in just two pages, which, apparently, is news to Judge Roman who clumsily cut, conjoined, and pasted conflicting laws and rules to justify his vexatious litigant order.

An assessment of the legality of Roman's order blacklisting Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigant begins with the law itself. California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure §§ 391-391.8. Wikipedia explains how the law works at this link. The law was intended to limit frivolous litigation by unrepresented, pro per parties in civil courts. When a judge issues an order designating a self-represented litigant as a vexatious litigant, the Constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process of law, equal protection of law and the right to petition the government for redress are severely restricted. Due to the harsh consequences of the vexatious litigant label, California law requires full due process before the order can be issued, including notice and a court hearing where written or oral evidence is presented. The notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute are difficult to misconstrue:

"At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion," reads the law at section 391.2.

At § 391.3, the vexatious litigant law specifies, twice, that a decision is made "after hearing the evidence on the motion." The California Practice Guide for civil law recites the procedure for a vexatious litigant determination, including the required court hearing. Based on the 2002 appellate court case Bravo v. Ismaj, "[a] party may not be declared to be a 'vexatious litigant' without a noticed motion and hearing which includes the right to oral argument

The Disappearing Hearing

Family law attorney and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte L. Keeley demanded and gotfrom Judge Jaime R. Roman a court order designating Andrew Karres a

vexatious litigant.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 9:57 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, CJP, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, OPINION, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Location: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA

and the presentation of evidence," according to the Guide. Since the 2002 Bravo case, at least 20 other published and unpublished appellate court decisions have relied on and mirrored the controlling holding in Bravo, including these two cases from 2009 and 2012.

In a single paragraph and four footnotes at page 19 of his 20-page statement of decision, Judge Roman provides his rationale for issuing the vexatious litigant order without a hearing. The judge recites sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Code, and court rules that he claims, when conjoined, authorize him to "vacate the hearing in this matter..."

Notably absent from the justification is any reference to the Bravo line of cases, the notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant statute, and the instruction of the California Practice Guides, all of which contradict Roman's justification for denying Karres a hearing with oral argument and the presentation of evidence. Roman does cite to a single case law reference, Reifler v. Superior Court, a 1974 case which was effectively overruled by the Legislature as of January 1, 2011, and which in any event has no legitimate connection to the procedure for declaring a litigant vexatious. Judge Roman gives his reasons for blacklisting Karres statewide as a vexatious litigant at pages 15-18 of his 20-page statement of decision. Absent from the ruling is the boilerplate recital that "The Court has considered the moving and responding papers, the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, and the files herein," which appears on page one of this vexatious litigant order from a family court case in Santa Clara County. Judge Roman's unlawful order declaring Karres a vexatious litigant is now the subject of both a costly appeal and federal civil rights litigation against Judicial Branch officials. The appeal and federal case will cost the parties and taxpayers significant sums. The current cost to taxpayers for a single appeal is between $8,500 and $25,000, according to recent appellate court decisions. Ironically, vexatious litigants are routinely accused of, and punished for wasting scarce appellate court resources with frivolous litigation.

"Other appellate parties, many of whom wait years for a resolution of bona fide disputes, are prejudiced by the useless diversion of this court's attention. [Citation.] In the same vein, the appellate system and the taxpayers are damaged by what amounts to a waste of this court's time and resources," reads a line of cases from 1988 to 2012, beginning with Finnie v. Town of Tiburon.

The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by Judge Roman's order.

Related articles:

Click here for our complete coverage of the Rapton-Karres case.

Click here for our reporting on Judge Jaime R. Roman.

Click here for coverage of judicial misconduct.

Click here for our special Judge Pro Tem Page.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Judge Jaime R. Roman conjoined statutory law, court rules and overruled decisional law to rewrite vexatious litigant procedure in California.

+6 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 4 9 9 6 1

158

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

ATTORNEY

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

22 April 2013

Sacramento Divorce Attorney Charlotte Keeley, Judges Peter J. McBrien and Jaime R. Roman et al., vs. Sharon Huddle

News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed

For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding issuance of a controversial order designating her client Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant may be déjà vu all over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client, Mel Rapton Honda heiress Katina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in the patently unlawful order as victims. For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here.

Judge Jaime R. Roman Vexatious Litigant Order for Attorney Charlotte Keeley Shows Judge Pro Tem Monopoly - Unfair Competition at Work

Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle continues to be subjected to retaliation by Sacramento County Family Court judges, apparently for her assertive client advocacy in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings

against troubled Sacramento Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

4 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006. McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy in sworn testimony before the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judge received his second round of discipline by the CJP. The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment and kickbacks given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges.

The transcript and other records from the McBrien CJP proceedings also provide a troubling point of reference indicating that the unlawful, interdependent relationship between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys dates back at least seven years and is now all but institutionalized.

To read the sworn testimony of Robbi Joy and an incriminating admission by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, click Read more >> below.

Court watchdogs and whistleblowers have cataloged an array of other examples of judge pro tem favoritism, including undisclosed conflicts of interest and counterfeit court filings that impede the appeal rights of unrepresented litigants. They assert that financially disadvantaged, self-represented family court litigants with little or no knowledge of family law and court procedure are treated even harsher than outside-the-cartel lawyers like Huddle. Watchdogs point to informal audits of several family court cases and anecdotal evidence indicating that cartel attorneys obtain favorable rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate.

The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, according to court reform advocates.Whether a party is self-represented or represented by an "outsider" attorney, a judge pro tem attorney on the opposing side is the common denominator in lopsided, unfair and unlawful court rulings. They contend that taxpayers inevitably will be held liable for class action or institutional reform litigation [pdf], or government enforcement under B&P Code § 17200 on behalf of outside attorneys and pro per litigants against the court and the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille was one of three judges assigned to hear and decide the fate of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien in his 2009 disciplinary proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. [Click here to read the court of appeal decision that sent McBrien to the CJP woodshed a second time]. In her assessment of the testimony and evidence considered by the 3-judge panel, she candidly acknowledged that McBrien's favorable treatment of judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and harsh treatment of attorney Sharon Huddle was partly attributable to the fact that Huddle "wasn't an insider. She wasn't a pro tem."

When San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli read an article in the ABA Journal on the court of appeal decision in the Carlsson case, he wrote about his own nightmarish experience as an outsider attorney in

California Unfair Competition Law

"She Wasn't An Insider. She Wasn't a Pro Tem."

Judge Denise deBellefeuille made this unsettling observation in her assessment of the evidence presented at the Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings against Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien.

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

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

Sacramento Family Court. Like Huddle, Gianelli also faced off against judge pro tem Charlotte Keeley:

"[I] was attacked personally in court filing after court filing. I was required to drive from San Francisco to Sacramento (a three hour round trip drive) over six times on 24 hours notice, in my opinion to harass me and make me quit," the attorney said. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel."

Click here to read Gianelli's complete statement. In future posts, SFCN will have more, never before published information on the McBrien CJP proceedings, including transcripts of sworn statements by character witnesses who testified on McBrien's behalf, including full-time and temporary Sacramento County Superior Court judges. Judge pro tem lawyers who testified for McBrien include Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair, and current chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Russell Carlson.

The relevance of court reporter Robbi Joy's testimony about the contrast between how Judge McBrien treated outsider attorney Sharon Huddle and temporary judge attorney Charlotte Keeley during the Carlsson trial was described by CJP attorney Andrew Blum.

"Robbi Joy is a neutral third party. She's not friends with any of these people. She's been a court reporter for a long time, and she has seen a lot of what takes place in courtrooms. She testified that the judge was demeaning to Ms. Huddle, treated her with disdain and displayed irritation towards her throughout the trial, and she never saw Ms. Huddle do anything to justify that conduct. Even Judge McBrien admitted that some of his comments could make it appear that he was badgering Ms. Huddle in an inappropriate manner. Now, in addition to what these actual observers said, the record shows that he repeatedly threatened a mistrial from early on in the trial, curtailed her presentation of evidence, threatened her with contempt, and he would barely let her take breaks to go to the bathroom." To view Blum's statement, click here.

Robbi Joy's testimony included the following exchange:

Q. During the Carlsson trial, how would you describe Judge McBrien's behavior towards Attorney Huddle?

A [Robbi Joy]. Demeaning. This is hard. He is a judge. I have no ill will toward him. But it was remarkable to me that he seemed to have an amicable relationship with Ms. Keeley, but he seemed so irritated with Ms. Huddle. In fact, I asked the deputy -

MR. MURPHY: Objection –

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Sustained.

MR. MURPHY: hearsay.

BY MR. BLUM:

Q. What did the judge do that makes you say that he was demeaning towards Ms. Huddle?

A. A couple of times she asked for just a brief break. She finally said, frankly, "I want to use the restroom, and you've given me a couple of tasks, phone calls to make," and he said, "one minute." And he repeatedly threatened a mistrial. I've seen this happen. If you say it's to wrap up Friday and it's already Friday and it seems to be going on and on, that the judge may say, "We're headed for a mistrial" or "none of us want a mistrial. " But he, I would say, at least five times said, "Do you want a mistrial? Just, let's have a mistrial, " which is something, of course, that nobody wants to have to go through.

Q. Did the judge's poor demeanor towards Ms. Huddle begin on the first day of trial?

A. Yes.

Q. Did it continue throughout the trial?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you observe Ms. Huddle do anything that would justify Judge McBrien's attitude towards her?

A. No. I felt that she and Ms. Keeley comported themselves as professionals.

Q. Would you say that Ms. Huddle was ever rude or disrespectful to the judge?

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)

A. No.

Q. I think you touched on this, but how did Judge McBrien treat Ms. Keeley?

A. In a much more respectful manner.

Q. Did Judge McBrien treat you poorly?

A. No.

Q. Were the attorneys rude to each other?

A. No.

Q. In your years as a court reporter, have you ever seen a judge behave this way, the way Judge McBrien behaved towards Ms. Huddle?

A. Not to be glib, but not even on television.

Q. So that's a no?

A. That's a no. I certainly have seen judges lose their temper, if they're consuming time or if it's just -- for a reason. But I have not seen a judge, without some prior history of dealing with this attorney or -- or for some other reason, just seeming to have disdain for them.

To read Robbi Joy's complete testimony, click here.

In 2008, the 3rd District Court of Appeal described how Huddle's client, Ulf Carlsson, was ultimately treated at the conclusion of the 2006 trial. The description bears similarities to the recent treatment of Huddle client Andrew Karres by Judge Jaime R. Roman.

"Judge McBrien issued a written decision, ruling against Ulf on almost every issue. He rejected Ulf's contention that Mona was underemployed, ruled ruled that Ulf and Mona were sole owners of the rental property; ordered both the family residence and the rental property sold; failed to segregate Ulf's retirement account for purposes of awarding Mona her community share; and ordered Ulf to pay Mona $35,000 in attorney and expert witness fees. Despite the court's prior handwritten order that child support would not be determined until custody was resolved, the judgment ordered Ulf to pay $736 per month in child support." Click here.

NEXT: The Huddle-Keeley-McBrien backstory, continued: The revealing ex parte communication between Judge Peter J. McBrien and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley, and McBrien's secret transcript request.

Related articles: Sacramento Family Court News has continuing coverage of issues involving judge pro tem attorneys and financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants. For a list of all posts about temporary judges, click here. Our special, independent Judge Pro Tems Page is at this link. Specific issues with direct links include:

A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here.

Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.

Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 4 9 9 6 1

158

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590

4 comments

Top comments

Cynthia Aguayo 11 months ago - Shared publicly

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 3:06 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, CHILD CUSTODY, JAIME R. ROMAN, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, OPINION, PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, SHARON HUDDLE Location: Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse

Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here.

Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.

Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.

Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.

Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.

Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.

Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.

Judges cherry-pick state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here.

The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here.

Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.

Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here.

Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.

Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here.

Permitting Family Law Facilitator Office staff to dispense false information to unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

+4 Recommend this on Google

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 (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

(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)

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)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

18 July 2013

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

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance. Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure.

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

As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view an example of the same, current day collusion, click here.

The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:

"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.

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

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

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

3 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

3 comments

Top comments

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

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

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 11:20 AM

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

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

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

- William R. Ridgeway

court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts.

The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported:

"Around 1990, McBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time there were continual postponements of trials.

'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was probably the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.'

The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling.

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

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

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

+3 Recommend this on Google

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

1

2

3 - - - -

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

- -oOo

4 INQUIRY CONCERNING

JUDGE PETER J. McBRIEN

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

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 1, 2009

VOLUME 1, PAGES 1 - 250

REPORTED BY: SANDRA LEHANE

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTE:R

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER NO. 7372

155 Orr Road

Alameda, California 94502

(510) 864-9645

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

Q. That's the main Sacramento County courthouse?

A. It is.

Q. And how long were the family law departments

in that particular courthouse?

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

building.

Q. Going back to when you were first appointed

to the family law department or assigned to the family

law department, what were the problems with this

master calendar system?

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

the family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar

here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to

Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some

ideas about how their courts were structured. And

myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys

made that trip and came back with various i as of how

to restructure the system.

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

Sacramento County Bar Association?

A. There is.

Q. And was there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association back in 1991?

A. There was.

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

188

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Is there an organization called the Family

Law Executive Committee?

A. There is.

Q. What is the Family Law Executive Committee?

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

bar e ects to take care of the administrative needs

for the section.

Q. And did you work with the Family Law

Executive Committee in developing the current system

in the fami y law practice in Sacramento County?

A. We did.

Q. Could you describe what that wor ng

relationship was?

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

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

We keep making adjustments to the system when there

are problems. But basically, we moved to a system

where we have law and motion in the family aw

departments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and we hear

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

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

than two days, they go down through the master

calendar.

Q. Backing up, the Family Law Executive

Committee is appointed in what fashion?

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

189

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. They are elected by the membership of the

family law bar.

Q. The family law bar section of the Sacramento

County Bar Association?

A. Correct.

Q. And you and other judges worked together with

this Family Law Executive Committee in developing the

current system?

A. Correct.

Q. Who are the other judges?

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

now Justice Raye.

Q. Justice Vance Raye of the Third District

Court of Appeal?

A. Yes.

And another individual whose name always

escapes me, but he left the bench after about two

years.

Q. Dave Sterling?

A. Dave Sterling.

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

with the Family Law Executive Committee and

developed - or started to develop a plan. Was that

presented to the Superior Court for its approval?

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

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

190

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

through the various ideas and options, came up with a

plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made

what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then

presented the whole of it to the full bench.

Q. And was that plan approved?

A. It was.

Q. When?

IA. In 19 I want to say late 91 .

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

is employed in the family law departments?

A. It is.

Q. You testified that on Mondays, Tuesdays and

Wednesdays f ly law courts hear law and motion

matters and trials of two days or less on Thursday and

Friday; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Who hears the settlement conferences?

A. The family law bar indicated that they would

be willing to volunteer, and they serve as the

settlement pro terns. There are two for each day of

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

week where they have two volunteers. And they try to

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

and they hear the settlement conferences.

Q. And are settlement conferences assigned

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

191

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1.1

12

13

1 4

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

dependent upon the length of the trial?

A. They are.

Q. How does that work?

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

less trial, the settlement conference would be one

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

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

Q. And in connection with the estimation of the

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

judge would do?

A. No.

Q. Who makes the estimation?

A. The attorneys.

Q. Are the attorneys encouraged to work together

in developing the estimated time?

A. They are.

Q. And is there any significance to the

estimated length of the case, at least from the

judicial perspective of the Sacramento County Superior

Court judge?

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

many of them, that they generally are accurate. They

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

be accurate, stay within the guidance that we have.

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

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

192

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

complete it, they can be mistried.

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

parties will then be given a new trial date?

A. They would.

Q. You were involved, obviously, with the

Carlsson vs. Carlsson case?

A. Correct.

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

in the respondent's

A. I think mine is over there.

MR. MURPHY: May I approach the witness?

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Yes. You don't need

to seek permission.

THE WITNESS: you said C?

MR. MURPHY: Exhibit C, yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I have it before me.

BY MR. MURPHY:

Q. For the record, could you describe what

Exhibit Cis?

A. This is an Order to Show Cause filed by

Ms. Huddle on behalf of Mr. Carlsson asking to

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

Q. What was the basis of the request for a

continuance?

A. That she was just served with a joinder

'-------------IN RE CJ.F NO. 185 411109------------~

193

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 April, 2015.

As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. For a detailed overview of the alleged collusion between judge pro tem attorneys and family court employees and judges, we recommend our special Color of Law series of investigative reports.

The Color of Law series reports catalog some of the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our reports about family court temporary judges and controversies, click here.

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,

Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy

Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations, Charge Whistleblowers

Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion between judges and local attorneys deprives financially disadvantaged, unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

217 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's testimony.

In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.

Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

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

Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction. Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.

Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.

Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative report, click here.

Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details.

Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest posts.

Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the 70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers. For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial Performance, McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule. Click here and here.

In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.

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

An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

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

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

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

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

In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's conduct in the case as a "judicial reign of terror." McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009. Click here to read the court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.

Judge pro tem attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009. As a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage of conflict issues.

Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane Wasznicky and Donna

Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento News and Review report.

Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

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

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

Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were clients and potential clients of the attorney. The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to read our report.

Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall was disbarred from the practice of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge. Click here to view our report.

Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in 2008 helped Donna Gary - the wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.

In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court administrators and judges. Click here for our report.

Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code § 17200, reform advocates claim.

Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources.

Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and "outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.

After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete, scathing account.

The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about FLEC.

Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 5 5 1 2 1

163

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

ATTORNEY

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

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

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

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

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

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

Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator, 206 5th

Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN

(1) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

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

(4)

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

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

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

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

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

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

This ongoing investigative project was updated in April, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Third District Court of Appeal:

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

A Sacramento Family Court News investigation indicates that ideology and undisclosed conflicts of interest play a significant role in the outcome of appeals in the Third District Court of Appeal.

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

2 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

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

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

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

Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of ten judges. The background of each appears to be a critical factor in how an appeal is decided.

For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from Sacramento County Superior Court will often effectively cover for judicial errors in appeals from the same court.

Third District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye previously were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Each have personal, social, or professional ties to family court judges and attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on the bench.

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

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

To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.

Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating from Sacramento Family Law Court. Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial Performance prosecution of family court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal and CJP decision against McBrien, click here. The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions.

It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to avoid the appearance of partiality. Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California due to personal and professional relationships with local state court judges.

The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have

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

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

Friends in Low Places

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

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

institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court structure. The public court system was built to the specifications of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To view the same, current day collusion, click here.

The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by the family law bar:

"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to view.

But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who restructured the family court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper McBrien dishonestly implied that the system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid trip with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway.

"[M]cBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts. At the time, there were continual postponements of trials. 'This is how we came up with the system today,' McBrien said. 'It was the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.' The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials..." the Daily Journal reported. Click here to view.

Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys - which then essentially was rubber-stamped by the bench.

"[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented the whole of it to the full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view.

In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if any, consideration of the needs of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here.

"[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli said.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and

History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System

Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997-2005.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."

"In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as 'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge. To view a list of similar CJP decisions, click here.

According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf], published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics. To view this section of the Handbook, click here.

One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties to the family law bar.

"The judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported.

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court judges and appellate court justices because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program, court reform advocates charge.

Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge pro tem attorney favoritism, and flagrant bias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys. Click here for a list of watchdog claims. Published and unpublished 3rd District opinions indicate that Court of Appeal justices without direct ties to the same superior court are more likely to follow the law, and less likely to whitewash trial court mistakes.

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section

Holiday Luncheon.

Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology & Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Issues

JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 5 5 1 2 1

163

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY

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.

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.

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

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)

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)

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.

"[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

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.

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

JAMES M. MIZE (15) JEFFREY POSNER (6)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JULIE SETZER (7) LAURIE M. EARL (10)

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

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)

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)

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.

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

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.

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPINION (12)

PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (11) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (9) ROBERT O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

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)

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)

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

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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.

Contrary to the explicit findings by his colleagues at the 3rd District Court of Appeal, in his deceptive CJP testimony Justice Arthur

Scotland blamed attorney Sharon Huddle for the egregious misconduct of his old friend, Judge Peter McBrien.

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.

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.

Rehabilitation FAIL

Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement Blue Code of Silence

Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson rode to the bench on a "law and order" agenda.

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 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

Role of Political Ideology

3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert thatJustice George Nicholson is ethically-challenged,

and not particularly qualified to speak on the subject.

"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest Indigent and Low-Income Litigants

Home

foundational attribute of American Democracy.

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.

+2 Recommend this on Google