supreme court misconduct canon 3d(1) california code of judicial ethics - justice marvin baxter,...

1

Stephen James

From: Stephen James @gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:02 PMTo:Subject: Follow Up to Judicial Administrative Records RequestAttachments: 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.pdf; PhoneCallRecords.pdf; AmicusRequestReplies.pdf;

PetForReview.pdf; Jan&FebRequestLetters.pdf; 2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail.pdf; 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.pdf; PhoneCallRecords.pdf; AmicusRequestReplies.pdf; PetForReview.pdf; Jan&FebRequestLetters.pdf; 2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail.pdf

Dear Justice Chin, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Pat

CJBNN-Yel

2

I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication. My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporter’s transcript (RT), regardlessof whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the “Why Review Should Be Granted” portion of the petition. I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself. The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the petition, and the primary author of In re Marriage of Newby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case. I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief justice’s failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court. In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didn’t receive a response to the request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file “Jan&FebRequestLetters.” On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were properly addressed, but that the letters may have been “improperly routed.” Mr. Olrich’s email is attached as the file “2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail.” I received the requested records on March 9, 2012. The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late. Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day late. I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to be troublesome. Sincerely, Stephen James Stephen James Independent Investigative Journalism & Photography www.stephenjames.us

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

1

Stephen James

From: Stephen James @gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:11 PMTo:Subject: Judicial Administrative Records Request Follow-UpAttachments: 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.pdf; PhoneCallRecords.pdf; AmicusRequestReplies.pdf;


Dear Justice Corrigan, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication. My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporter’s transcript (RT), regardlessof whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the “Why Review Should Be Granted” portion of the petition. I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself. The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the petition, and the primary author of In re Marriage of Newby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case. I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief justice’s failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court. In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didn’t receive a response to the request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file “Jan&FebRequestLetters.” On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were properly addressed, but that the letters may have been “improperly routed.” Mr. Olrich’s email is attached as the file “2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail.” I received the requested records on March 9, 2012. The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late. Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day late. I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to be troublesome. Sincerely, Stephen James

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

1

Stephen James



Dear Justice Liu, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om


Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

1

Stephen James



Dear Justice Kennard, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om


Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

1

Stephen James

From: Stephen James @gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:51 PMTo:Subject: Follow-Up to Judicial Administrative Records RequestAttachments: 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.pdf; PhoneCallRecords.pdf; AmicusRequestReplies.pdf;


Dear Justice Werdegar, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om


Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

1

Stephen James

From: Stephen James @gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:06 PMTo:Subject: Request for Judicial Administrative Records-follow upAttachments: 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.pdf; PhoneCallRecords.pdf; AmicusRequestReplies.pdf;


Dear Justice Baxter, On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about irregularities in the court’s handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010. I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14 petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19, 2010. To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf file “2011-10-19-LetterRePostage.” The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under rule 8.500(e)(2) “if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely.” This letter was mailed Oct. 20. On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in the court’s form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that based on the postage date mix-up I didn’t need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file “PhoneCallRecords.” The first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket. During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for submission to the Academy’s amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file “AmicusRequestReplies.” On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was not memorialized in the court docket.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om


Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS................................ N/A

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii

ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................................... 2

WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED ............................................................. 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE ................................................................. 8

ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 12

I. IN AN APPEAL NOT VOLUNTARILY TAKEN WITHOUT A REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE CRITICAL TO RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS UNREASONABLY IMPEDES THE RIGHT TO A MEANINGFUL APPEAL . 12

II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS REQUIRE PROVIDING APPELLANTS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN JURISDICTIONS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE COURT REPORTERS .................................................................. 15

A. In the Absence of a Compelling State Interest, the Unequal Treatment of Family Court Litigants Based On Geography is Prohibited by Equal Protection Principles .................................. 15

B. Under the Circumstances of this Case, Petitioner’s Right of Due Process of Law is Unreasonably Obstructed by the Denial of His Motion to Take Evidence on Appeal. .......................................... 17

C. Under the Circumstances of this Case, Petitioner’s Right of Access to the Courts is Unreasonably Obstructed by the Denial of His Motion to Take Evidence on Appeal ................................ 18

III. THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND JUDGMENT ROLL APPEAL POLICY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT TO A MEANINGFUL APPEAL ....................................................................... 18

CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 20

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

ii

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT .................................................................. 22

PROOF OF SERVICE

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Published Cases Pages Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 .......................................... 18

Garcia v. Santana (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 464 ............................................. 18

Hearn v. Howard (2009) 117 Cal.App.4th 1193 ........................................... 20

In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412 ................................................ 20

In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522 ................................................................. 16

In re King (1970) 3 Cal.3d 226 ..................................................................... 16

In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130 ................................... 18

In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 ......................................... 17

In re Mary G (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184 ..................................................... 16

In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 .............................................................. 14

Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 814 .................. 18

Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 90 .............................................. 20

Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 ...................................................... 19

Tupman v. Haberkern (1929) 203 Cal. 256 ................................................. 14

Unpublished Cases Pages Ballard v. Tuimavave

(3d Dist. 2008) No. C055067 .................................................................... 6

County of Colusa v. Crawshaw (3d Dist. 2008) No. C054929 .................................................................... 6

In re Marriage of Alvarez .............................................................................. 6 (3d Dist. 2010) No. C063155

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

iv

In re Marriage of Carvalho (2d Dist. 2010) No. B214701 ............................................................. 20

In re Marriage of Fathali ................................................................................ 6 (3d Dist. 2008) No. C057521 In re Marriage of Joann ................................................................................. 6 (3d Dist. 2009) No. 057967 In re Marriage of Nesbitt

(3d Dist. 2008) No. C058175 .................................................................... 6

In re Marriage of Sharma .............................................................................. 6 (3d Dist. 2011) No. C062094 Rucker v. Wells ……… ..................................................................................... 6 (3d Dist. 2008) No. C054663 California Constitution ......................................................................... Pages

Article I, §§11, 21 ................................................................................... 16

California Rules of Court ...................................................................... Pages

Rule 8.500(a)(1)........................................................................................ 1

Rule 8.500(b)(1).. ..................................................................................... 3

Rule 8.252(c)….... ..................................................................................... 9

Rule 8.252(c)(3)….... ................................................................................. 7

Rule 10.960(b)….... ................................................................................. 18

California Statutes .............................................................................. Pages

Assembly Bill 590 (Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act)…………………17, 19 (Government Code 68650-68651) Code of Civil Procedure

§909 .................................................................... 1,7, 9, 12,14

Other Authorities

Elkins Family Law Task Force Final Report and Recommendations ...... 12

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

2

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Family courts throughout California have different court

reporter policies whereby some jurisdictions provide court reporters for all

hearings and trials, while other jurisdictions do not. In an appeal from a

family court jurisdiction which does not provide court reporters for all

hearings and trials, may an appellate court deny to an appellant a motion

to admit undisputed extrinsic documentary evidence that will help

reconstruct the trial court record in the absence of a reporter’s transcript?

2. Is there a compelling state interest which justifies dissimilar

appellate court treatment of family court litigants taking appeals from trial

court jurisdictions that do not provide court reporters?

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

3

WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED

Review is necessary in this case both to settle an important

question of law involving the record to which an indigent, involuntarily pro

per appellant is entitled and to secure uniformity of decision and practice

among the Courts of Appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b)(1).) This

case presents issues of first impression, public policy and the

administration of justice. The issues affect similarly situated indigent,

involuntarily self-represented family court parties within the Third District,

and throughout the state. Family court litigants in jurisdictions that include

Contra Costa (First District), Santa Clara (Sixth District) and El Dorado

(Third District) counties are provided court reporter services for all family

court proceedings. In other jurisdictions, including counties within the

same three appellate court districts, court reporter services are not

provided or are only provided on advance request. This case originates in

Sacramento County, a jurisdiction that provides court reporters only by

advance request. Although most family law attorneys are aware of the

court reporter only by request policy, the family court does not provide

adequate notification about the policy to self-represented parties, many of

whom, including petitioner, are indigent, involuntarily self-represented,

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

4

and face an opposing party with counsel. In addition, self-represented

parties in contested dissolution cases in Sacramento County family court

are provided through the office of the family law facilitator erroneous self-

help information indicating that court reporters are provided for all

hearings and trials. There does not appear to be a compelling state

interest which justifies the unequal treatment of family court users in

Sacramento County versus similarly situated family court litigants in

Contra Costa, Santa Clara and El Dorado County. The ramifications of

taking a family court appeal without a reporter’s transcript are uniquely

severe in the Third District Court of Appeal.

When a self-represented party takes an appeal from the

Sacramento County family court without a reporter’s transcript, the Third

District Court of Appeal designates it as a “judgment roll” appeal. Although

the historical body of decisional law that applies to judgment roll appeals

makes clear that the designation is appropriate only where an appeal is

deliberately and voluntarily, or for tactical reasons, taken on the judgment

roll, the Third District apparently applies the designation to all family court

appeals that do not include a reporter’s transcript. Contrary to controlling

precedent, the court does not appear to distinguish cases where an

indigent pro per party does not voluntarily and deliberately take an appeal Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

5

without a reporter’s transcript. An appeal without a transcript is by the

Third District subjected to the judgment roll standard of review, which

rarely, if ever, does not result in affirmance. The judgment roll standard

restricts review to determining whether any error appears on the face of

the record. As the standard is explained by the Third District in

unpublished decisions, the court must conclusively presume evidence was

presented that is sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. The

standard is indisputably harsher on appellants than the substantial

evidence, abuse of discretion, or independent review standards. Pro per

parties taking an appeal from trial court jurisdictions which provide court

reporters benefit from review under the substantially more favorable

standards.

The uniqueness of the Third District judgment roll policy is

corroborated by review of published and unpublished appellate court

decisions from all districts, which show that the Third District applies the

judgment roll designation and standard of review far more often than any

other court of appeal. There does not appear to be a compelling state

interest which justifies this unequal treatment of family court litigants

based solely on geography. Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

6

While it is reasonable to assume that many attorneys are aware of

the Third District’s judgment roll appeal policy, it is equally reasonable to

infer that few, if any, self-represented family court parties are. The Third

District apparently has never published a family court decision disclosing

the policy. The policy can only be found in unpublished Third District

family court decisions.2

After the first trial court hearing in this case, which addressed

several issues including pendente lite attorney fees and support, petitioner

took this appeal. Prior to the trial court hearing, petitioner relied on the

self-help material provided through the office of the family law facilitator

and believed that court reporters were provided for all family court

proceedings.3 The lack of a reporter’s transcript in this appeal therefore is

not a voluntary or tactical choice made by petitioner.

2 Although unpublished opinions are available at the California Official Reports website for only 60 days, the Google Scholar search engine archives unpublished opinions indefinitely. The Google archive indicates that virtually every unpublished Third District family court case without a reporter’s transcript is designated a “judgment roll appeal.” Examples include Ballard v. Tuimavave (2008) No. C055067; County of Colusa v. Crawshaw (2008) No. C054929; In re Marriage of Alvarez (2010) No. C063155; In re Marriage of Joann (2009) No. C057967; In re Marriage of Nesbitt (2009) No. C058175; Rucker v. Wells (2008) No. C054663; In re Marriage of Fathali (2008) No. C057521; In re Marriage of Sharma (2011) No. C062094. 3 There is at least circumstantial evidence that Sacramento County directly or indirectly discourages court reporter requests: A comparison of

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

7

As a means of partly mitigating the lack of a reporter’s transcript,

petitioner filed a Code of Civil Procedure § 909 motion to take evidence on

appeal. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.252(c)(3), which permits

admission of documentary evidence without a hearing, petitioner sought

to admit two pages of undisputed extrinsic documentary records which

reconstructed a portion of the trial court hearing at issue. In other

jurisdictions, the same evidence would be part of the record on appeal

because it would be memorialized in the reporter’s transcript. In a single

sentence order, the Court of Appeal denied the motion. The court’s

refusal to allow the admission of the evidence aggravates the inherently

grave implications of the court reporter policy of Sacramento County, and

underscores the disadvantages faced by family court parties in

jurisdictions that do not provide court reporters for all family court

proceedings.

Under these circumstances, the denial of the motion to take

evidence on appeal is contrary to the constitutional principles of due

process, equal protection of the laws, and access to the courts. The court’s

practice of restricting the admission of evidence deprives a class of

unpublished cases among all appellate courts shows that a disproportionate number of appeals originating from Sacramento County are taken without a reporter’s transcript.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

8

appellants in general, and in this case, of a basic prerequisite for a

meaningful and fair appeal: the opportunity to present a relevant and

complete record for review, and the ability to seek a fair and appropriate

standard of review.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

This petition arises in the context of an appeal from more than a

dozen collateral final orders from the first and only trial court hearing in

this case, held on October 27, 2011. The orders include denials or failure

to rule on oral and written requests for pendente lite attorney fees,

temporary support, a continuance, motion to strike, sanctions payable to

the court, and orders granting requests for residence exclusion, and

attorney fee sanctions.

There were troublesome irregularities in the post-hearing

proceedings. The minute orders issued by the trial court did not include

the legal and factual basis for most rulings, and omitted other rulings

entirely. In writing, petitioner brought the minute order errors and

omissions to the attention of the court several times. The court declined

to respond to petitioner’s written requests to correct the record. The trial

court also rejected petitioner’s proposed orders after hearing (OAH), Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

9

which corrected most of the errors and omissions, and instead endorsed

the OAH submitted by opposing counsel, which mirrored the defective

minute orders. Ultimately, the trial court judge declined four opportunities

to put into the record the legal and factual basis for the orders that were

memorialized, and to memorialize the omitted orders.

At the end of the trial court hearing, petitioner asked the judge how

to obtain the record of the hearing, and was told there was no transcript

because neither party had requested a court reporter prior to the hearing.

As a result, Petitioner took this appeal on the clerk’s transcript alone.

Because both the trial court and opposing counsel vigorously and

successfully thwarted petitioner’s attempts to correct the defective

minute orders and OAH so that they accurately reflected the trial court

proceedings, it would have been a manifestly futile act for petitioner to

seek an agreed or settled statement on appeal.

On August 26, 2011, petitioner brought in the Court of Appeal a

Code of Civil Procedure § 909 motion to take evidence on appeal. The

motion was made pursuant to the interests of justice provision of § 909,

and Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.252(c), which permits the admission of

documentary evidence without a hearing. The motion was necessitated by

the absence of a reporter’s transcript, and the incomplete minute orders Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

10

and OAH, and did not request or require factual findings or

determinations. The extrinsic evidence consisted of two undisputed

documents authored by opposing counsel which memorialized (1) sua

sponte constructive orders issued in open court by the trial court judge,

and (2) sanction payment terms orally requested by opposing counsel at

the hearing, but denied by the judge. The documents are included with the

appellate court order attached to this petition. Among other things, the

documents memorialize important, non-cumulative material facts which

were omitted from the minute orders, and omitted from the OAH drafted

by opposing counsel and adopted by the trial court. And under the Third

District’s judgment roll standard of review, the records reveal error on the

face of the minute order and OAH records.

On Sept. 6, 2011 respondent filed an opposition to the motion to

take evidence. On Sept. 7, by telephone petitioner notified the Court of

Appeal that he would file a reply to the opposition. Petitioner received the

opposition pleading by mail on Sept. 8, and mailed a reply to the

opposition to the court on Sept. 9. Before receiving the reply, the court

issued a ruling denying the motion on Sept. 8. The one sentence ruling,

which also returned to petitioner the rejected documentary evidence, is

attached to this petition. Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

11

The opposition pleading was drafted by an experienced appellate

attorney who court records show has since 2007 been associated with

more than 15 cases in the Third District Court of Appeal. It is logical to

assume that the attorney is aware of the judgment roll appeal policy of the

court. In the opposition pleading, the attorney did not dispute the

accuracy of the extrinsic documentary evidence, nor make an argument

against the appellate court exercising discretion to admit the evidence

under the interests of justice provisions of § 909. The opposition simply

decreed that the motion to take evidence was instead a “motion to

redesignate the record” or a motion to augment, and, as either, was

untimely.

This petition seeks review of the court’s order denying the motion

to take evidence. In doing so, it also challenges the circumstances which

compelled the motion: the lack of a reporter’s transcript and the

geography-based unequal treatment of petitioner, and similarly situated

dissolution parties in California.

Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

12

ARGUMENT

I. IN AN APPEAL NOT VOLUNTARILY TAKEN WITHOUT A REPORTER’S

TRANSCRIPT THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE CRITICAL TO RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS UNREASONABLY

IMPEDES THE RIGHT TO A MEANINGFUL APPEAL

In its final report, the Elkins Family Law Task Force emphasized the

importance of protecting the appeal rights of family court litigants.

Access to the record in family law is a serious access-to-justice issue and must be significantly improved both to ensure that parties understand and can finalize the court’s orders and to ensure that the parties’ right to appeal is protected. Parties’ current inability to access the record in their family law proceedings is an area of long-standing concern. This inability to have an accurate record of their family law cases makes the ability of family law litigants to appeal often illusory. (Judicial Council of Cal., Admin. Off. Of Cts., Elkins Family Law Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations (2010) p. 80 ¶8.) Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of petitioner’s

motion to take evidence on appeal unreasonably impedes his ability and

right to have an accurate and complete record of the trial court

proceedings. The circumstances include the lack of a reporter’s transcript,

and trial court orders containing material errors and omissions. Code of

Civil Procedure § 909 provides that a reviewing court may take additional

evidence of or concerning facts occurring at any time prior to the decision

of the appeal for any purpose in the interests of justice. The principle that Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

13

new evidence on appeal must enable the appellate court to affirm the

judgment, not lead to reversal, does not apply under the circumstances

presented in this case. As Petitioner’s motion to take evidence on appeal

explained:

Pursuant to Rule 8.252, subdivision (c), of the California Rules of Court, the Appellant, Steven R. James, moves this Court to take two pages of documentary evidence for the purpose of reconstructing the trial court proceedings. The documents are a record of relevant portions of the trial court hearing at issue in this appeal. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 909 and on the grounds that because there is no reporter’s transcript in this appeal, the evidence is critical to a fair, informed, and meaningful determination of the appeal. The evidence provides material and non-cumulative facts recorded by Respondent’s attorney one and two days after the Oct. 27, 2010 hearing.

The motion to take evidence consisted of a five-page declaration

and an 11-page memorandum of points and authorities. The declaration

and memorandum detailed the purpose and justification for the motion:

As explained herein, the trial court record is incomplete and requires reconstruction because several orders were not adequately memorialized, and because there is no reporter’s transcript. (Declaration of Steven R. James (James Decl.,) at ¶ 3-7) In the trial court proceedings, Appellant made extensive efforts to ensure an accurate record of the orders was produced. Appellant’s efforts were rebuffed by both the trial court judge, and Respondent’s attorney. (James Decl., at ¶ 9, 14)

In this motion, Appellant requests this court take evidence consisting of one letter and one email written one and two days, respectively, after the hearing at issue. The

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

14

letter and email, written by Respondent’s attorney, reference orders issued by the trial court that were not memorialized in the minute orders and orders after hearing (OAH). (Ibid.) Both the attorney and the trial court declined Appellant’s multiple post-hearing written requests that the orders be memorialized in a statement of decision or the subsequent OAH. (Ibid.) The records are a material admission by the attorney that the orders were issued. (James Decl., at ¶ 9, 17) Immediately after the hearing, two of the orders were used by the attorney, along with a sanctions threat, to coerce Appellant to drop all pending matters. (James Decl., at ¶ 10)

The denial of a motion to take evidence on appeal under these facts

constitutes abuse of discretion by the court of appeal. In the language of §

909, the Legislature directed that the statute be liberally construed.

Virtually all of the precedent interpreting § 909, from Tupman v.

Haberkern (1929) 203 Cal. 256 through In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396

are inapplicable under these circumstances because they presuppose a

reporter’s transcript, and the holdings pertain to evidentiary findings by a

reviewing court. Where, as here, a reporter’s transcript is not part of the

record on appeal, and the lack of a transcript is not voluntary or based on

a tactical decision, decisional law assuming a reporter’s transcript is

inapposite. The records petitioner seeks to admit as evidence have never

been disputed and will not usurp the fact finding authority of the trial

court. This application of § 909 is essentially an issue of first impression Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

15

necessitated by court austerity measures which have reduced court

reporter services in some jurisdictions but not others. Petitioner and

similarly situated family court litigants throughout the state are subject to

this difficult situation, and this court should grant review to ensure

uniformity of decisions and practice among the Courts of Appeal.

II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL

PROTECTION, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS REQUIRE PROVIDING APPELLANTS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL

COURT PROCEEDINGS IN JURISDICTIONS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE COURT REPORTERS

A. In the Absence of a Compelling State Interest, the

Unequal Treatment of Family Court Litigants Based On Geography is Prohibited by Equal Protection Principles.

Family courts in Santa Clara, Contra Costa, El Dorado and other

counties provide court reporters for all family court proceedings.

Sacramento County provides court reporters only on advance request of a

party, does not adequately notify self-represented litigants of the court

reporter policy, and provides erroneous self-help information to pro per

parties in contested cases indicating court reporters are provided for all

proceedings. Depending on where they reside, family court litigants

throughout California may or may not be provided a reporter’s transcript

on appeal. The concept of the equal protection of the laws compels

recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated with respect

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

16

to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment. (In re Eric J.

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 531.) It is basic that the guarantees of equal

protection embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, and article I, sections 11 and 21, of the California

Constitution, prohibit the state from arbitrarily discriminating among

persons subject to its jurisdiction. This principle, of course, does not

preclude the state from drawing any distinctions between different groups

of individuals, but does require that, at a minimum, classifications which

are created bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government

purpose. In cases involving suspect classifications or touching on

fundamental interests the state bears the burden of establishing not only

that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law, but that

distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose. (In re

King (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 226, 232.) In a voluntary parentage case, the Fourth

District Court of Appeal held that sections of the family code violated

equal protection principles. “[T]he disparate treatment here is based solely

on geography, and location of a father inside or outside the state bears no

more relation to the purposes of the presumed father statute than

differing locations of fathers within California. (In re Mary G. (2007) 59

Cal.Rptr. 3d 703, 714 [emphasis added].) Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

17

In 2009, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 590, which, among

other provisions, set up pilot programs to provide funding for indigent

litigants in cases where the opposing party has counsel.

“The doctrine of equal justice under the law is based on two principles. One is that the substantive protections and obligations of the law shall be applied equally to everyone, no matter how high or low their station in life. The second principle involves access to the legal system. Even if we have fair laws and an unbiased judiciary to apply them, true equality before the law will be thwarted if people cannot invoke the laws for their protection. For persons without access, our system provides no justice at all, a situation that may be far worse than one in which the laws expressly favor some and disfavor others.” (AB 590 [Feuer]; Stats. 2009, ch. 457, pp. 3-4.)

B. Under the Circumstances of this Case, Petitioner’s Right of Due Process of Law is Unreasonably Obstructed by the Denial of His Motion to Take Evidence on Appeal

Without admission of the extrinsic evidence, petitioner’s right to a

fair and meaningful appeal, encompassed by the constitutional guarantee

of due process, is substantially hindered. Due process is a flexible concept,

and must be tailored to the requirements of each particular situation. The

very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures

universally applicable to every imaginable situation. (In re Marriage of

Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) Where a party is denied a reporter’s

transcript, and denied the ability to reconstruct the trial court record by

other means, due process is implicated. This is an issue of first impression

that affects similarly situated family court parties throughout the state,

and therefore should be reviewed by this court.

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

18

C. Under the Circumstances of this Case, Petitioner’s Right of Access to the Courts is Unreasonably Obstructed by the Denial of His Motion to Take Evidence on Appeal

The constitutional right of access to the courts in California is well

established. (See Garcia v. Santana (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 464, 471-473

[tracing to 1917 the history of the right of access to the courts in

California].) “Numerous cases, in a variety of contexts, may be cited for the

obvious importance of this right to our system of government and, indeed,

to the very fabric of our society [Citations].” (Jersey v. John Muir Medical

Center (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 814, 831.) Providing access to justice for self-

represented litigants is a priority for California courts. (Cal. Rules of Court

rule 10.960(b).) Under the circumstances of this case, the Court of

Appeal’s denial of petitioner’s motion to take evidence on appeal

unreasonably obstructs petitioner’s right of access to the courts.

III. THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND JUDGMENT ROLL APPEAL POLICY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT TO A

MEANINGFUL APPEAL An adequate record of the trial court proceedings is indisputably

the single most critical prerequisite to an appeal. Without it, neither the

court nor the parties can ascertain what occurred and what errors, if any,

were committed. The governing principle of appellate review is that “[a]

judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal”

(In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133), and “error

must be affirmatively shown (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d

557, 564). Because the burden is on the appellant to overcome the

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

19

presumption of correctness, the appellant must procure an adequate

appellate record to demonstrate error, and failure to do so will result in

affirmance of the order appealed from. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d

1281, 1295-1296.)

Petitioner is at a substantial disadvantage in this case because he is

indigent and involuntarily self-represented, while the opposing party has

two experienced attorneys. The Legislature has specifically recognized the

substantial challenges faced by pro per parties in cases where the

opposing party has counsel.

“Many judicial leaders acknowledge that the disparity in outcomes is so great that indigent parties who lack representation regularly lose cases that they would win if they had counsel. A growing body of emphirical research confirms the widespread perception that parties who attempt to represent themselves are likely to lose, regardless of the merits of their case, particularly when the opposing party has a lawyer, while parties represented by counsel are far more likely to prevail. (AB 590 [Feuer]; Stats. 2009, ch. 457, p. 4.)

Petitioner and similarly situated parties taking appeals in the Third

District face the additional hurdle of having an appeal designated as a

“judgment roll appeal.” In virtually all family court appeals without a

reporter’s transcript, the court limits its review to determining whether

any error appears on the face of the record. The court states that it must

conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support

the trial court’s findings. The standard is indisputably harsher on

appellants than the substantial evidence, abuse of discretion, or Cal

iforn

ia J

udic

ial B

ranc

h New

s Net

work

CJBNN.c

om

20

independent review standards. Pro per parties taking an appeal from trial

court jurisdictions which provide court reporters benefit from review

under the substantially more favorable standards. In other appellate court

jurisdictions, even appeals without a reporter’s transcript are rarely

subjected to the judgment roll appeal standard of the Third District.4 To

ensure uniformity of decisions and settle this important question of law,

the court should grant review.

CONCLUSION

Under the conditions presented in this case, the denial of a motion

to take evidence on appeal unfairly impedes the right to a meaningful

appeal, due process of law, equal protection, and access to the courts, and

constitutes abuse of discretion. There is no compelling state interest which

justifies the unequal treatment based on geography of petitioner, and

similarly situated, indigent pro per family court litigants in the jurisdiction

of the Third District, and throughout the state. There is no rational

justification for the “judgment roll appeal” policy of the Third District

4 See, e.g., Hearn v. Howard (2009) 117 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Second District) [applying abuse of discretion standard]; In re Marriage of Carvalho (2010) No. B214701 (Unpublished Second District) [designating judgment roll appeal but applying substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards]; Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90 (Second District) [designating as judgment roll appeal then applying independent review standard and reversing] In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412 (Fifth District) [applying abuse of discretion standard].

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Attachment 1: October 28, 2010 Letter from Paula D. Salinger to Steven James

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Attachment 2: October 29, 2010 Email from Paula D. Salinger to Steven James

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

PROOF OF SERVICE

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

Welcome

Search

E-mail

Calendar

Help

Opinions

Supreme Court Change court

Court data last updated: 07/16/2015 01:35 PM

Case Summary Docket BriefsDisposition Parties and Attorneys Lower Court

Docket (Register of Actions)JAMES, MARRIAGE OFCase Number S197327

Date Description Notes

10/20/2011 Received untimely petition for review

Appellant: Steven Richard JamesPro Per

10/20/2011 Letter sent to: Steven Richard James, appellant, in pro per, to submit Application for Relief from Default.

10/20/2011 Application for relief from default filed

10/25/2011 Application for relief from default denied (case closed)

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy © 2014 Judicial Council of California / Administrative Office of the Courts

http://www.courts.ca.gov/

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/index.html

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/email.cfm?dist=0&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/help.cfm?dist=0

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/briefing.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/trialCourt.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1994826&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/email.cfm?dist=0&doc_no=S197327

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?//www.courts.ca.gov/careers.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9149.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en


http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en



Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

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

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT RECORDS

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

Privacy Policy

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Supreme Court Chief Justice Implicated in California Court Corruption Epidemic

California Judicial Branch watchdogs allege that Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is responsible for a court corruption epidemic sweeping the state.

Case Fixing Scandal, Racketeering Scheme, Whistleblower Retaliation Attributed to Leadership

of Judicial Council Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (69)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

PETER J. McBRIEN (24)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

CJP (20)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (17)

JAMES M. MIZE (17)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

CARLSSON CASE (11)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

0 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/the-oligarchy.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/document-library.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/roaddog-satire.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/about.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/contact.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/terms-conditions.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/privacy.html


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LdxoMXMqXr4/VabQLmGN5PI/AAAAAAAADF0/J4d7kPq4UAs/s1600/Chief%2BJustice%2BTani%2BCantil-Sakauye%2BChair%2BJudicial%2BCouncil%2Bof%2BCalifornia%2BHon.%2BMing%2BW.%2BChin%252C%2BHon.%2BHarry%2BE.%2BHull%2BJr.%252C%2BHon.%2BDavid%2BDe%2BAlba%2BSacramento%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2B-%2BJustice%2BVance%2BRaye%2B3rd%2BDistrict%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%2BJustice%2BGeorge%2BNicholson%2BThird%2BDistrict.jpg

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDICIAL%20MISCONDUCT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGE%20PRO%20TEM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY%20MISCONDUCT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MATTHEW%20J.%20GARY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FLEC

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PETER%20J.%20McBRIEN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ARTS%20%26%20CULTURE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CHILD%20CUSTODY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCBA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20SAUNDERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CJP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WATCHDOGS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EMPLOYEE%20MISCONDUCT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CHARLOTTE%20KEELEY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PRO%20PERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DOCUMENTS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JAMES%20M.%20MIZE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIVORCE%20CORP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CARLSSON%20CASE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COLOR%20OF%20LAW%20SERIES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CONFLICT%20OF%20INTEREST

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RAPTON-KARRES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SATIRE

https://www.blogger.com/


https://www.blogger.com/next-blog?navBar=true&blogID=7936593492457554072

https://www.blogger.com/home#create


Sacramento Family Court News has published an exhaustive, investigative report alleging that a criminal organization involving judges and local attorneys operates within the Sacramento County family law court system. The report is the latest allegation that corruption has reached epidemic levels in California courts.

Court whistleblowers and watchdogs charge that California Judicial Council Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye has used her position to quash investigations into the alleged criminal conduct of her former coworkers in Sacramento Superior Court, and the adjacent, and troubled 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Under the leadership of Cantil-Sakauye, the Judicial Council has been besieged by controversy, including a scathing state audit showing financial and operational mismanagement, and allegations by the Center forJudicial Excellence that the agency ignores criminal conduct by court clerks and judges throughout the state.

Mismanagement of the agency by Cantil-Sakauye - a former Sacramento County criminal prosecutor with no formal education in public policy and administration - is so consistently inept that a dedicated website, Judicial Council Watcher, tracks and reports the seemingly endless stream of problems and scandals.

Last year, Cantil-Sakauye was caught on camera by ABC News10 in Sacramento and San Diego using the California Highway Patrol as a personal limo and security service at taxpayer expense. The chief justice also has been linked to the failed Federalist Society campaign to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act in the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell.

In the latest scandal, the Judicial Council is accused of inaction and failing to investigate an alleged racketeering enterprise in Sacramento County. “Once again, the Judicial Council is turning a blind eye to documented corruption taking place in the state superior courts,” said Judicial Branch watchdog Ulf Carlsson.

“The recent, massive case-fixing scandal discovered by the FBI in Orange County Superior Court shows, again, that the Judicial Branch is incapable of policing itself,” Carlsson said. “Federal law enforcement is the only effective enforcement mechanism available to end this statewide corruption epidemic.”

In the 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, former Nevada County Superior Court employee and whistleblower Emily Gallup described her nightmarish experience when she attempted to report to the Judicial Council systemic problems at the court, including serial violations of state law by court employees.

To view a clip from Divorce Corp featuring the Gallup interview, click here. After she was fired for whistleblowing, Gallup subsequently brought a successful wrongful termination lawsuit against the court, which included a jury award for $313,206.

The documentary, which cataloged court corruption throughout the United States, designated the Sacramento County family court system as the most corrupt in the country.

“The Orange County case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg,“ Carlsson added. ”The corruption in Sacramento County is exponentially worse.”

At least two child deaths have been linked to the Sacramento problems, according to news reports. In 2009, court employee turned whistleblower James Locke revealed, and attempted to correct systemic problems at the court. He received the same response as Gallup: court supervisors orchestrated Locke’s termination.

In the process of trying to draw attention to the serial lawbreaking by court employees, Locke brought the issues to the state legislature, testifying before a judicial panel. Shortly thereafter, outraged Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jerilyn Borack told Locke “You’re dead,“ according to a report by the Sacramento Bee.

Like Gallup, Locke successfully sued the court and won an undisclosed settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Taxpayers footed the substantial bills for both the Gallup and Locke settlements, including litigation costs.

Documentary Film Reveals Judicial Council Oversight of State Trial Courts Nonexistent

Cantil-Sakauye Charged with Cronyism - Protecting Former Coworkers in Sacramento

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WHISTLEBLOWERS


http://www.courts.ca.gov/4645.htm

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tani+cantil-sakauye+corruption


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/08/judge-matthew-gary-commission-on-judicial-performance-victoria-henley-state-bar-jayne-kim-chief-trial-counsel-judge-robert-hight-judge-james-mize-sacramento-superior-court-kamala-harris-state-auditor-elaine-howle.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/07/paula-salinger-obstruction-of-justice-woodruff-ohair-posner-salinger-inc-judge-matthew-j-gary-sacramento-county-superior-court-scba-family-law-executive-committee-judge-pro-tem-penal-code-criminal-conduct.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/01/Judge-Thadd-Blizzard-Authorizes-Illegal-Child-Abduction-and-Out-of-State-Move-Away-for-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Judge-Pro-Tem-Attorney-Richard-Sokol-Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-Member-Judge-Misconduct-Code-of-Judicial-Ethics.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/10/sacramento-superior-court-judge-misconduct-sacramento-county-matthew-j-gary-commission-on-judicial-performance-victoria-henley-state-bar-chief-trial-counsel-jayne-kim-vance-raye.html

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22judicial+council%22+california+corruption

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22judicial+council%22+california+%22state+audit%22

https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/summary/2014-107

http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/


http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cje-projects-initiatives/year-of-action-to-stop-court-crimes/


http://www.csus.edu/ppa/

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/


http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1155911

http://www.news10.net/story/news/investigations/2014/05/16/judicial-protection-section-chief-justice/9159905/

http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/chp-rides-for-judges-security-or-personal-taxi

https://youtu.be/8cJ1cHjM7VM

http://family-court.tumblr.com/post/114688746382/supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye

https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-supreme-courts-obamacare-case-a-secretive-societys-hidden-hand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22ulf+carlsson%22+sacramento+mcbrien

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=fbi+%22orange+county%22+%22superior+court%22+prosecutor+2015

http://www.divorcecorp.com/

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22emily%20gallup%22%20%22nevada%20county%22

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-employee-misconduct-family-court.html

https://youtu.be/ADh_PX1eVQk

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208805143/Emily-Gallup-Family-Court-Whistleblower-Lawsuit-Against-Nevada-County-Superior-Court-and-Court-Employees-Complaint-Gallup-Attempted-to-Report-the

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208805143/Emily-Gallup-Family-Court-Whistleblower-Lawsuit-Against-Nevada-County-Superior-Court-and-Court-Employees-Complaint-Gallup-Attempted-to-Report-the

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/10/12/jury-finds-nevada-county-superior-court-guilty-of-retaliation/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208808044/Emily-Gallup-Jury-Special-Verdict-Awarding-313-206-Family-Court-Whistleblower-Lawsuit-Against-Nevada-County-Superior-Court-and-Court-Employees-Se

https://www.youtube.com/user/DivorceCorp

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/02/Judge-Peter-McBrien-Sacramento-County-Family-Court-Exposed-In-Documentary-Divorce-Corp-Vance-Raye-Robert-OHair-Emily-Gallup-Ulf-Carlsson-Andrew-Karres-Mike-Newdow.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/09/Judge-Sharon-Lueras-Nancy-Grace-Ryder-Salmen-Sarah-Ann-Stephens-Al-Salmen-Judicial-Misconduct-infant-death-drug-laced-breast-milk-Sacramento-Family-Court-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court.html

https://www.scribd.com/collections/4458716/Whistleblower-James-Locke-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Family-Law-and-Probate

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22judge+jerilyn+borack%22+misconduct

http://www.scribd.com/doc/259621605/Sacramento-Supeior-Court-Corruption-Hon-Jerilyn-L-Borack-Julie-Setzer-Jake-Chatters-Edward-Pollard-Whistleblower-Retaliation-Sacramento-County-C#scribd

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211119412/Sacramento-Superior-Court-Julie-Setzer-Family-Court-Operations-Director-and-Court-Administrators-Sued-in-Federal-Court-for-Retaliation-Wrongful-Term


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WOODRUFF%20O%27HAIR%20POSNER%20and%20SALINGER


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JAIME%20R.%20ROMAN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAURIE%20M.%20EARL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NO%20CONTACT%20ORDERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SHARON%20A.%20LUERAS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CHRISTINA%20VOLKERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FERRIS%20CASE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JESSICA%20HERNANDEZ

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JULIE%20SETZER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/YOUTUBE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/3rd%20DISTRICT%20COA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CIVIL%20RIGHTS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CANTIL-SAKAUYE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CHRISTINA%20ARCURI

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CONTEMPT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THADD%20BLIZZARD

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20LAW%20FACILITATOR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LUAN%20CASE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MIKE%20NEWDOW

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/

http://calaware.org/

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family_law/

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/

http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/

http://www.thurmanarnold.com/Blog.aspx


http://kafkaesq.com/

http://abovethelaw.com/

http://thedivorceartist.com/

Judicial Council Chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye previously was a judge in Sacramento County, and an Associate Justice at the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. The Third District also has severe corruption problems, according to an investigative news report.

Shortly after she was promoted from the 3rd District to the Supreme Court, Cantil-Sakauye personally blocked a Supreme Court petition for review that challenged as unconstitutional several irregular appeal policies unique to the 3rd District. Despite a conflict of interest that, by law, required her to disqualify herself from the case, Cantil-Sakauye summarily dismissed the petition, preventing the rest of the court from considering the claims.

“Cantil-Sakauye is using her position of authority to cover up the long-running misconduct of her former colleagues in both courts,” Carlsson charged.

The beginning of the Sacramento Superior Court investigative report, published by the California Judicial Branch News Network, is reprinted below:

"As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Superior Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees.

The lawyers receive an assortment of illegal kickbacks because they are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, work as part-time judges, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. Most of the illegal orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many of the pro pers also are disabled.

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

The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children.

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

The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice and child abduction.

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

To continue reading the rest of the investigative report, visit the Judge Pro Tem Racketeering page at Sacramento Family Court News.

For additional reporting on Judicial Council of California controversy, visit Judicial Council Watcher.

For additional reporting on court corruption in California, visit the Center for Judicial Excellence.

Recommend this on Google

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/207412181/Justice-Tani-Cantil-Sakauye-Conflict-of-Interest-and-Pro-Per-Bias-Alleged-California-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Review-Challenging-3rd-District-Cour








http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/10/temporary-judges-go-outlaw-exploit.html



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/temporary-judge-list-now-available.html#more

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/disabled-family-court-victim-of-judge_28.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/Hon-Jaime-R-Roman-family-law-attorney-Charlotte-Keeley-Judge-Pro-Tem-Katina-Rapton-Andrew-Karres-attorney-Sharon-Huddle-child-custody-vexatious-litigant-judicial-misconduct-divorce-spousal-support-child-support-Mel-Rapton-Honda.html




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/Department-121-Clerk-Christina-Arcuri-Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-Court-Executive-Officer-Chris-Volkers-Hon-Laurie-M-Earl-Director-of-Operations-Julie-Setzer-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-family-courthouse-fee-waivers-misconduct.html




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/03/Judge-Matthew-Gary-Misconduct-Sacramento-Family-Law-Court-Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-Judicial-Misconduct-Susan-Ferris-James-Brosnahan-Judicial-Council-3rd-District-Court-of-Appeal.html






http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/Judge-Sharon-Lueras-Jessica-Hernandez-Hon-Sharon-Lueras-Matthew-Hernandez-Judicial-Misconduct-Phillip-Hernandez-Sacramento-Family-Court-Protest-Demonstration-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-Government-Misconduct.html




https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOTk0RTBvQUJTQkE/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaLXc5U3ByRkVocVk/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaQUJaQnFvb2ZTU0k/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.scribd.com/doc/269699277/Theft-or-Bribery-Concerning-Federal-Funds-18-USC-666-Federal-Criminal-Law-United-States-Code-Title-18-Crimes-and-Criminal-Procedure-United-States-A

http://www.scribd.com/doc/254635500/Mail-Wire-Fraud-Elements-18-USC-1341-1343-Federal-Criminal-Law-US-District-Courts-United-States-Attorney-California-United-States-Code-Mai





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

http://kidsforcashthemovie.com/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-667679-defendants-borris.html

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22orange+county%22+%22superior+court%22+fbi+case+fixing+probe+



https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=3891068455430266590&target=email

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=3891068455430266590&target=blog

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=3891068455430266590&target=twitter

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=3891068455430266590&target=facebook

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=3891068455430266590&target=pinterest

http://www.callawyer.com/

http://www.courthousenews.com/

http://www.metnews.com/metnews.htm


http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/?

http://scholar.google.com/


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

http://www.courts.ca.gov/home.htm


http://www.youtube.com/californiacourts


http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm?genpubtab

http://www.cjp.ca.gov/


http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/family/family-law.aspx


http://www.courts.ca.gov/3dca.htm

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/

http://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/

http://www.sacbar.org/


http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/topic/family+law


http://croixsdadsblog.wordpress.com/


http://www.protectiveparents.com/




http://www.courageouskids.net/

http://divorceandfamily.blogspot.com/


http://divorcedgirlsmiling.com/

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/family-law/


http://www.familylawcourts.com/familylawcourts.html





Privacy Policy

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

This ongoing investigative project was updated in July, 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,

Third District Court of Appeal:

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

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

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)


ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

SCBA (22)


CJP (20)

WATCHDOGS (20)



PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (17)

JAMES M. MIZE (17)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

CARLSSON CASE (11)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)
























http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Family-Court-Sacramento-County-pro-per-pro-se-Appeals-Unit-California-Rules-Of-Court-Notice-Of-Appeal-FL-190-Notice-of-Entry.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/Chris-Volkers-Court-Executive-Officer-Sacramento-Superior-Court-employee-misconduct-appeals-Sacramento-County-Family-Court-divorce-child-custody-visitation-attorneys-lawyers-judges-administrators-family-law-mute-court.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/sacramento-family-court-whistleblower.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/Judge-Matthew-Gary-judicial-misconduct-fee-waivers-socioeconomic-bias-Paula-Salinger-judge-pro-tem-Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-Family-Law-Executive-Committee-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court.html

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202054

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g3QuWqkD66w/UjfdjYVWR8I/AAAAAAAACcc/lkp-cE5oosg/s1600/Tani+Cantil-Sakauye+-+Marvin+Baxter+-+Carol+Corrigan+-+Joyce+Kennard+-+Kathryn+Werdegar+-+Ming+Chin+-+Goodwin+Liu+-+Supreme+Court+of+California+-+3rd+District+Vance+Raye++-+Copy.jpg





























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 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.

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

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)


JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Paula-Salinger-Attorney-Judge-Pro-Tem-Notice-of-Entry-Family-Law-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Color-of-Law-Julie-Setzer-Lollie-Roberts-Family-Court-Sacramento-Family-Law-Facilitator-Bar-Association.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/family-court-sacramento-family-law-facilitator-lollie-roberts-family-courthouse-court-order-judge-attorney-appeal-pro-per-whistleblower-state-auditor-court-rules-investigation-whistleblower-act-sacramento-county-superior-court.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaLXc5U3ByRkVocVk/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaQUJaQnFvb2ZTU0k/view?usp=sharing



http://jlc.org/luzerne-county-kids-cash-scandal






http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ARTHUR%20G.%20SCOTLAND

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaR2otUEFNbEVzWEU/edit?usp=sharing


http://www.sacbar.org/Calendar/default.html

http://www.sacbar.org/For%20Attorneys/sectionindex.html

http://www.sacbar.org/For%20Attorneys/sectionindex.html


http://www.sacbar.org/About%20SCBA/Affiliate%20Bars/affiliateorgs.html

http://www.abassacramento.com/

http://www.abassacramento.com/

http://womenlawyers-sacramento.org/



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaMi12UzI2dVJ5R2c/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZXJ1UVF5ZWVqT1E/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZXJ1UVF5ZWVqT1E/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWlI3QU03MkI0UGs/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWlI3QU03MkI0UGs/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZ0ZjeFl5bUk0bVE/edit?usp=sharing

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PafjTbZKqFs/UGiV3g-q6GI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/fTb-C3WQMQc/s1600/SlotWheel.gif






















http://www.eff.org/

http://www.eff.org/











The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws. Click here. For an example of a Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here. Without oversight or accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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 Statutes




Judicial Council





State Bar Court









Divorce Corp





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-Family-Law-Executive-Committee-FLEC-SCBA-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-family-court-Sacramento-Court-Executive-Officer-Presiding-Judge-Sacramento.html



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNWNSU01paEliRkE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOURDelRndU9FeHc/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anewsreview.com+mcbrien+%22family+court%22&aq=f&oq=site%3Anewsreview.com+mcbrien+%22family+court%22&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.20281j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaT1JPLTBSMTVTVTA/edit?usp=sharing

http://cjp.ca.gov/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNWhndWtZdmVhcHM/edit?usp=sharing


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWVlwa1JmQWtlSVU/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaYU9ZQmE4V0c2TW8/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRWh0aThTQWxwWUk/edit?usp=sharing





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/family-law-attorney-Charlotte-Keeley-Judge-Pro-Tem-Katina-Rapton-Mel-Rapton-Honda-Andrew-Karres-attorney-Sharon-Huddle-attorneys-child-custody-visitation-divorce-alimony-family-lawyers-Hon-Peter-J-McBrien-judges-Hon-Jaime-R-Roman.html#more

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/comments/judges_abrupt_end_to_testimony_results_in_new_trial



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r2JoQ1RCwXg/UgBrcZKi7kI/AAAAAAAACT4/E8CApm49zeE/s1600/Tani+Gorre+Cantil-Sakauye+-+Vance+W.+Raye+-+Judge+Peter+J.+McBrien-+Arthur+G.+Scotland+-+Harry+E.+Hull+Jr.+-+Ronald+B.+Robie+-+George+Nicholson+-+3rd+District+Court+of+Appeal+-+Copy.jpg






































said.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."

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

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

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

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

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court judges and appellate court 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

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 7 1 8 3 7

176

Google+ Badge


AGGREGATED NEWS (14)

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

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)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaMGxkOERxMG1kaVk/edit?usp=sharing



http://www.caljudges.org/files/pdf/CJA-Store-Order-Form.pdf

http://www.caljudges.org/index.php

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KvUFDDkjkjuCP0lsoUHmZAgQJd2VxnhTADThcwmuHtU/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CODE%20OF%20JUDICIAL%20ETHICS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KvUFDDkjkjuCP0lsoUHmZAgQJd2VxnhTADThcwmuHtU/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRWh0aThTQWxwWUk/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRWh0aThTQWxwWUk/edit?usp=sharing







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/family-law-attorney-Charlotte-Keeley-Judge-Pro-Tem-Katina-Rapton-Mel-Rapton-Honda-Andrew-Karres-attorney-Sharon-Huddle-attorneys-child-custody-visitation-divorce-alimony-family-lawyers-Hon-Peter-J-McBrien-judges-Hon-Jaime-R-Roman.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z3i6ozebDio/Ucd28H56SVI/AAAAAAAACBI/1U1iAsbEJqw/s1600/Justice+Ronald+Robie+3rd+District+Court+of+Appeal+-+Justice+Arthur+Scotland+-+Justice+Vance+Raye+-+Third+District+-+Sacramento+Family+Court+-+Copy.jpg

http://www.jdsupra.com/law-news/family-law/


http://fathers-4-justice.us/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/divorce/

http://leonkozioljd.wordpress.com/

http://movingpastdivorce.com/blog/

http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/


http://www.weightiermatter.com/

https://plus.google.com/106506461758701716104






https://www.blogger.com/profile/06152028993950706617








http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AGGREGATED%20NEWS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ANALYSIS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/APPEALS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEYS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/BAR%20ASSOCIATION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/2011%20SACRAMENTO%2FMARIN%20AUDITS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AB%201102


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ABA%20JOURNAL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ADMINISTRATORS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AL%20SALMEN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AMERICAN%20BAR%20ASSOCIATION


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ANDY%20FURILLO

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AOC

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ARCHIBALD%20CUNNINGHAM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY%20DISCIPLINE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY%20ETHICS

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.

ASSOCIATION (11)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (11)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

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

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (12)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

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

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=ulf+carlsson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=9948862291422329649&scilh=0








http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22judicial+reign+of+terror+described+in+Carlsson%22+%22two+of+the+nine+participating+members+voting+to+remove+him+from+the+bench%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=2%2C5&as_ylo=2012

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNlZEYkxGLS1kY1E/edit?usp=sharing

http://cjp.ca.gov/Default.htm

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZXJ1UVF5ZWVqT1E/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaUWYxMEdhMnBSbU0/edit?usp=sharing



http://www.sacnaturecenter.com/atthecenter.html

http://www.sacnaturecenter.com/atthecenter.html

http://www.regionalparks.saccounty.net/Parks/Pages/AncilHoffmanPark.aspx

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/view-to-kill-for/content?oid=8108

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRUJZNkZaRXZVYmM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaemUxRVBua3FUdUk/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNVpPbTZra2p1Ymc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNVpPbTZra2p1Ymc/edit?usp=sharing



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVzRjZnQ0ZVE2SG8/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWG9yS1hwclY1Zmc/edit?usp=sharing

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XA-hyCNYgZY/Uf6DgSv32rI/AAAAAAAACTI/ZKdCaS8GYJk/s1600/Ronald+B.+Robie+-+Harry+E.+Hull+Jur.+-+George+Nicholson+-+Cole+Blease+-+Tani+Gorre+Cantil+Sakauye+-+Vance+Raye+-+3rd+District+Court+of+Appeal+-+Sacramento+County+Superior+Court+-+Sacrameto+Mafia+-+Central+Valley+Mob+-SCBA+Family+L+-+Copy.jpg





















http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CRIMINAL%20CONDUCT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIVORCE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIVORCE%20ATTORNEY




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIVORCE%20LAWYER



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ELAINE%20VAN%20BEVEREN




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/BARACK%20OBAMA


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/BARTHOLOMEW%20and%20WASZNICKY


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/BUNMI%20AWONIYI


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CALIFORNIA%20JUDICIAL%20CONDUCT%20HANDBOOK


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CALIFORNIA%20LAWYER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CALIFORNIANS%20AWARE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CAMILLE%20HEMMER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CECIL%20and%20CIANCI

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CEO

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CHILD%20SUPPORT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CIVICS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CIVIL%20LIABILITY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CJA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ClientTickler

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CNN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CODE%20OF%20SILENCE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COLLEEN%20MCDONAGH


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CONSTITUTIONAL%20RIGHTS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20CONDITIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20EMPLOYEE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20EMPLOYEE%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20POLICIES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20RULES


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURTS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CPG%20FAMILY%20LAW


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CRIMINAL%20LAW


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CRONYISM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DAVID%20KAZZIE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DEMOTION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DENISE%20RICHARDS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIANE%20WASZNICKY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DISQUALIFICATION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DONALD%20TENN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DONNA%20GARY


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DSM-301.7

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EDITORIAL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EDWARD%20FREIDBERG


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EFF

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EFFICIENCY%20IN%20GOVERNMENT%20AWARD


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ELECTIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EMILY%20GALLUP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EMPLOYEE%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EQUAL%20PROTECTION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EUGENE%20L.%20BALONON

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EVIDENTIARY%20OBJECTIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EX%20PARTE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/F4J

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20AUDITS

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

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 LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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


JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)


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

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

NEWS (24) NEWS

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)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA

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




https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaaU1WX1U1QXd4azg/edit?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadFBvVVo1enJiSTg/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/07/Judge-Peter-McBrien-judicial-misconduct-CJP-Commission-on-Judicial-Performance-Arthur-Scotland-James-Mize-Thomas-Cecil-Robert-OHair-Jerry-Guthrie-Russell-Carlson-Camille-Hemmer-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-judge-pro-tem-temporary-judge-Carlsson.html


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaaU1WX1U1QXd4azg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaTjdKOTJtYjBxc2s/edit?usp=sharing


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacUFITnQzOU5TSWM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgael9tN0dOOFlKZk0/edit?usp=sharing

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=marriage+of+carlsson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=9948862291422329649&scilh=0


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadFBvVVo1enJiSTg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadFBvVVo1enJiSTg/edit?usp=sharing


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNXcyWXVzSE1SeWM/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/19-7

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/19-7

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=born%20on%20third%20base

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Switzer

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZ1plVzBRNHZVOHc/edit?usp=sharing

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1GahYJZ_eSg/UjTBsNdC0aI/AAAAAAAACbU/17UPuEDy12o/s1600/tani+g.+cantil-sakauye+-+supreme+court+-+third+district+-+arthur+g.+scotland+-+vance+raye+-+harry+e.+hull+jr.+-+ronald+b.+robie+-+george+nicholson+-+louis+mauro+-+sacramento+-+3rd+district+-+third+district+-+Copy.jpg

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20LAW







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JEFFREY%20POSNER





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDICIAL%20COUNCIL






http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAW%20SCHOOL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAWYERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LOLLIE%20ROBERTS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MATTHEW%20HERNANDEZ



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEWS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEWS%20EXCLUSIVE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20CONDITIONS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20MEDIA%20COVERAGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20PROCEDURE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20SACRAMENTO


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURTHOUSE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20LAW%20COUNSELOR




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FATHERS%20FOR%20JUSTICE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FEDERAL%20LAW

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FEDERAL%20LAWSUITS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FEE%20WAIVERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FIRST%20AMENDMENT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FIRST%20AMENDMENT%20COALITION


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FOIA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FOX

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FREDRICK%20COHEN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GANGNAM%20STYLE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GARY%20E.%20RANSOM


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GARY%20M.%20APPELBLATT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GEORGE%20NICHOLSON


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GERALD%20UELMEN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GINGER%20SYLVESTER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GREGORY%20DWYER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HAL%20BARTHOLOMEW


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HATCHET%20DEATH


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HAZART%20SANKER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HONEST%20SERVICES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/INDIGENT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/INFIGHTING

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/J.%20STRONG


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JACQUELINE%20ESTON


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JAMES%20BROSNAHAN


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JERRY%20BROWN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JERRY%20GUTHRIE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JODY%20PATEL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOHN%20E.B.%20MYERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOSEPH%20SORGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOYCE%20KENNARD


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOYCE%20TERHAAR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JRC

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGE%20SALARIES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDICIAL%20CONDUCT%20HANDBOOK


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDY%20HOLZER%20HERSHER


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/KIDS%20FOR%20CASH

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAW%20LIBRARY


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAWYER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LEGAL%20AID%20ASSOCIATION%20of%20CALIFORNIA


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LEGISLATURE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LINCOLN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LOUIS%20MAURO


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MALPRACTICE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MARY%20MOLINARO


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MCGEORGE%20SOL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MEDIA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MICHAEL%20T.%20GARCIA


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NANCY%20GRACE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NANCY%20PERKOVICH

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEW%20YORK%20TIMES

Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a serious student. So I went to University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained.

"I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D. Schaber], but my dad did. And my dad had done some life insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my dad was an influence on my life because he knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School of Law is my dad's relationship with the dean." Click here to view.

After graduation, but before he was licensed to practice law, Scotland nonetheless practiced law while employed as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. In the outside world, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime. But in Scotland's protective law enforcement bubble, "laws" are only enforced against drug addicts and the unwashed masses. As Scotland explained in his own words, laws are actually only "rules" when a sworn peace officer breaks one.

"Actually, before I even got sworn in in the bar, I was assigned out to juvenile hall and we prosecuted...I prosecuted cases without any supervision - you know, against...really against the rules...we were trying cases without any supervision." Click here.

In McGregor v. State Bar, the seminal case on the unauthorized practice of law, the California Supreme Court explained why a nonlicensed person is prohibited from exercising the special powers and privileges of a lawyer.

"The right to practice law not only presupposes in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust. It is manifest that the powers and privileges derived from it may not with propriety be delegated to or exercised by a nonlicensed person." Click here.

25 years after he obtained his license to practice law, Justice Arthur G. Scotland exploited the implied integrity of his court of appeal office and exercised his special privilege in a way that to many Sacramento Family Court litigants was a manifest violation of the public trust.

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.

EXCLUSIVE (26)


OPINION (12)

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

PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

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

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

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

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

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

SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSjc0YUVpdnNRMkU/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVDZERjFmVG1rMjg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVDZERjFmVG1rMjg/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/wall-street-versus-poor-in-america

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_growth_and_overcrowding

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaUjZldE4wQXhtdjA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaUjZldE4wQXhtdjA/edit

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1642968755820901221&q=%22right+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%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUPREME%20COURT

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22right+to+practice+law+not+only+presupposes+in+its+possessor+integrity%2C+legal+standing+and+attainment%2C+but+also+the+exercise+of+a+special+privilege%2C+highly+personal+and+partaking+of+the+nature+of+a+public+trust.+It+is+manifest+that+the+powers+and%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=2%2C5




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZ1plVzBRNHZVOHc/edit?usp=sharing

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4WPygbSMy4/UkNDZssyrdI/AAAAAAAACds/ht2C6dj34Yk/s1600/Arthur+Scotland+-+Arthur+G+Scotland+-+tani+sakauye+-+tani+cantil-sakauye+-+George+Nicholson+-+3rd+District+-+Vance+Raye+-+William+Murray+-+Elena+Duarte+-+Harry+Hull+-+Ron+Robie+-+Louis+Mauro+-+Third+District+-+Supreme+Court+-+-+Copy.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--2TB0Rk_t0U/UitGglBJwBI/AAAAAAAACaQ/vJCA1S_HGws/s1600/Carol+A.+Corrigan+-+Tani+Cantil+Sakauye+-+Joyce+L.+Kennard+-+Goodwin+Liu+-+Marvn+R.+Baxter+-+Ming+W.+Chin+-+Kathryn+M.+Werdegar+-+Supreme+Court+of+California+-+3rd+District+Court+of+Appeal+-+Sacramento.jpg



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/OPINION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PAULA%20SALINGER




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PROTEST



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RICHARD%20SOKOL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20HIGHT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20O%27HAIR


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SACRAMENTO%20FAMILY%20COURT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SACRAMENTO%20SUPERIOR%20COURT




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCOTT%20BUCHANAN



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SHARON%20HUDDLE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SOCIOECONOMIC%20BIAS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STATE%20AUDITOR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STATE%20BAR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUNDAY%20FUNNIES


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEWS%20YOU%20CAN%20USE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/News10

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/OPEN%20GOVERNMENT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PARENT%20RIGHTS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PARENTAL%20ALIENATION


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PHILLIP%20HERNANDEZ

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PRESIDING%20JUDGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PSY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PUBLIC%20RECORDS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RAOUL%20M.%20THORBOURNE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RECOGNITION%2FAWARDS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/REVISIONISM%20SERIES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROLAND%20L.%20CANDEE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RON%20BURGUNDY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RONALD%20ROBIE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RUSSELL%20CARLSON

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RUSSELL%20L.%20HOM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RYDER%20SALMEN


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/S.%20HINMAN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SACRAMENTO%20BEE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SACRAMENTO%20COUNTY%20SUPERIOR%20COURT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SANCTIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SANTA%20CLARA%20LAW%20SCHOOL


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SARAH%20ANN%20STEPHENS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCHWARZENEGGER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCOTT%20KENDALL


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCSD

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SEATON%20CASE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SELF-HELP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SETTLEMENT%20CONFERENCE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SFCN%20READERSHIP%20DATA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SO%20YOU%20WANT%20TO%20GO%20TO%20LAW%20SCHOOL


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEPHEN%20WAGNER


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEUART%20LEAVENWORTH


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEVE%20WHITE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEVEN%20BURLINGHAM


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEVEN%20GEVERCER


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STEVEN%20SPIELBERG


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUNSHINE%20WEEK

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUPERIOR%20COURT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TAMI%20BOGERT

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

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)

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)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOU1wa0NqX2M1eVU/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOU1wa0NqX2M1eVU/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZThEVzh2M05WY2M/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZThEVzh2M05WY2M/edit?usp=sharing




http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22no+distinction+can+therefore+be+drawn+among+concealment%2C+half-truth+and+false+statement+of+fact%22+Grove+v.+State+Bar&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C5








http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V0zRmX3tu7Y/UkNDrg0qk0I/AAAAAAAACd4/PNkTgOPC5YQ/s1600/Arthur+G.+Scotland+-+Tani+G.+Cantil+Sakauye+-+Joyce+L.+Kennard+-+Marvin+R.+Baxter+-+Kathryn+M.+Werdegar+-+Ming+Chin+-+Carol+A.+Corrigan+-+Vance+Raye+-+George+Nicholson+-++-+Copy.jpg



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THOMAS%20WOODRUFF

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TIMOTHY%20ZEFF

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ULF%20CARLSSON









http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TAXPAYERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TERRY%20FRANCKE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THADDEUS%20STEVENS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THE%20RUTTER%20GROUP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THOMAS%20M.%20CECIL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TOMMY%20LEE%20JONES


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/UNITED%20NATIONS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/UPDATE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VANCE%20W.%20RAYE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VEXATIOUS%20LITIGANT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VICTORY%20OUTREACH%20CHURCH

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VL-CLASS-ACTION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WALL%20STREET%20JOURNAL


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WASTE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WHISTLEBLOWER%20PROTECTION%20ACT


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WHITE%20HOUSE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/XAPURI%20B.%20VILLAPUDUA


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/YOLO%20COUNTY


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.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaT285aHU2QU9xeVE/edit?usp=sharing



http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carlsson+%22The+case+developed+a+certain+notoriety%22+disciplinary+charges+against+the+trial+judge+before+the+Commission+on+Judicial+Performance%2C+which+ultimately+imposed%22+%22severe+public+censure%22+%22judicial+reign+of+terror+described+in+Carlsson%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=2%2C5

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22judicial+reign+of+terror+described+in+Carlsson%22+%22two+of+the+nine+participating+members+voting+to+remove+him+from+the+bench%22&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C5

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22marriage+of+carlsson%22+structural+constitutional+%22reversible+per+se%22+%22the+failure+to+accord+a+party+litigant+his+constitutional+right+to+due+process%22+%22denied+him+his+constitutional+right+to+due+process+and+a+fair+trial%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=2%2C5





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacDFkTUtLLWJYUVE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacDFkTUtLLWJYUVE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadGQwaUdtak8wNVU/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaN1ROc0hJcUowYmM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZjhQMDJnT1plOXc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZjhQMDJnT1plOXc/edit?usp=sharing



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaYkJVeGdhMXNnQ0E/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaYkJVeGdhMXNnQ0E/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOTJUTVAyT1JJV3c/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.cecilcianci.com/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSHFuT2xhaEgxTTA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSk91YUdVaVNKYjg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaak4wNVpBT2pSdnM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaakdUWVVjSzVMRDQ/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSEdRLWpwRmpQNG8/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaQWdoMDM3Z2xLTHM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadkQtdFNXZDVBRWM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaT2tINHJ1Rll1czA/edit?usp=sharing






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pinsky

http://www.youtube.com/user/DivorceCorp/videos

http://www.redbox.com/

https://signup.netflix.com/


http://www.youtube.com/user/DivorceCorp/videos

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wf0TKaFYoHs/VM0-OST9bmI/AAAAAAAAC-c/iDHW9MgCzzk/s1600/Arthur%2BG.%2BScotland%2B3rd%2BDistrict%2BCourt%2BJudge%2BArthur%2BScotland%2BThird%2BDistrict%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%2B-%2BSacramento%2BFederal%2BCourt%2BEastern%2BDistrict%2Bof%2BCalifornia%2BUnited%2BStates%2BCourts%2BUS%2BDistrict%2BCourt.jpg

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.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacmdmZFk0eGJqTWs/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacmdmZFk0eGJqTWs/edit?usp=sharing


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaX1Q1Mk9ZOUhLVmc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaX1Q1Mk9ZOUhLVmc/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-Family-Law-Executive-Committee-FLEC-SCBA-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-family-court-Sacramento-Court-Executive-Officer-Presiding-Judge-Sacramento.html#more

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-Family-Law-Executive-Committee-FLEC-SCBA-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-family-court-Sacramento-Court-Executive-Officer-Presiding-Judge-Sacramento.html#more

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22not+to+be+published%22+%22third+district%22+%22court+of+appeals+of+california%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=4%2C103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaMjVJZFcxVkU5dUk/edit?usp=sharing



http://www.crimevictimsunited.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing



http://www.ccpoa.org/union/about

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/prison-officers-crime-victims-and-prospects-sentencing-reform

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17504

http://www.ccpoa.org/

http://www.ccpoa.org/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNXcyWXVzSE1SeWM/edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird


http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaaUhpOTdDV3BtREE/edit?usp=sharing


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaN1ROc0hJcUowYmM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaYWpZUG1CNUhKNzA/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/5210/agency.html

http://www.baycitizen.org/education/interactive/education-vs-prisons-shifting-priorities/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-n63ceRvKHrs/UGnp1y7ifvI/AAAAAAAAAGw/ZXQSjZ6L-vA/s1600/CCPOA-3.jpg

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

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/School-Safety-Center-Hit-By-Allegations-of-Mismanagement/id-5ec45b12e40f884c266aea559119ee9c

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/School-Safety-Center-Hit-By-Allegations-of-Mismanagement/id-5ec45b12e40f884c266aea559119ee9c



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgabS1uSEtjdXc5TFE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgabS1uSEtjdXc5TFE/edit?usp=sharing

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=%22not+to+be+published%22+%22third+district%22+%22court+of+appeals+of+california%22+%22judgment+roll%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,103




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m2-ur2rO0II/VMwuD31msBI/AAAAAAAAC-M/J7yJCJf-OLE/s1600/George%2BNicholson%2B3rd%2BDistrict%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%2BSacramento%2B-%2BHon.%2BGeorge%2BNicholson%2BThird%2BDistrict%2BAppellate%2BCourt%2BCalifornia%2BJudge%2BVance%2BRaye%2BJudge%2BArthur%2BG%2BScotland%2B-%2BJudge%2BJames%2BMize.jpg

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













https://www.facebook.com/SacramentoCountyFamilyCourtNews

https://www.youtube.com/user/FamilyCourtNewsBlog

https://plus.google.com/+SacramentocountyfamilycourtnewsBlogspot/posts

http://www.scribd.com/FamilyCourtNews

http://vimeo.com/sacramentofamilylawcourt

https://twitter.com/SacFamCourtNews

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7CxJ_2pthk/UiVCdkzf2QI/AAAAAAAACYs/1IvLDMzADDs/s1600/Tani+Cantil-Sakauye+-+Carol+Corrigan+-+Joyce+Kennard+-+Kathryn+Werdegar+-+Ming+Chin+-+Marvin+Baxter+-+Goodwin+Liu+-+Supreme+Court+-+California+-+Justice+Cantil+Sakauye+-+3rd+District.jpg

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=1449796896028365566&target=email

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=1449796896028365566&target=blog

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=1449796896028365566&target=twitter

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=1449796896028365566&target=facebook

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7936593492457554072&pageID=1449796896028365566&target=pinterest





Privacy Policy

JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING

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

As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Superior Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a "cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other forms of preferential treatment from family court judges, administrators and employees.

The lawyers receive an assortment of illegal kickbacks because they are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, work as part-time judges, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. Most of the illegal orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many of the pro pers also are disabled.

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

Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy

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

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


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)


ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

SCBA (22)


CJP (20)

WATCHDOGS (20)



PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (17)

JAMES M. MIZE (17)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

CARLSSON CASE (11)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)










































http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/03/Judge-Matthew-Gary-Misconduct-Sacramento-Family-Law-Court-Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-Judicial-Misconduct-Susan-Ferris-James-Brosnahan-Judicial-Council-3rd-District-Court-of-Appeal.html








http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/Judge-Sharon-Lueras-Jessica-Hernandez-Hon-Sharon-Lueras-Matthew-Hernandez-Judicial-Misconduct-Phillip-Hernandez-Sacramento-Family-Court-Protest-Demonstration-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-Government-Misconduct.html



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EEUil2sD4yA/VA5nZ6dXuZI/AAAAAAAAACY/74rHVe2BtDc/s1600/California%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BTani%2BCantil-Sakauye%2B-%2BState%2BAuditor%2BElaine%2BHowle%2BBureau%2Bof%2BState%2BAudits%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BState%2BBar%2BChief%2BTrial%2BCounsel%2BJayne%2BKim%2B-%2BAttorney%2BGeneral%2BKamala%2BHarris%2B-%2BVance%2BRaye%2B3rd%2BDistrict%2B-%2BJudge%2BRobert%2BHight%2BSacramento%2BMize.jpg





























The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children.

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

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

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

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

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)


JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOTk0RTBvQUJTQkE/edit?usp=sharing



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaQUJaQnFvb2ZTU0k/edit?usp=sharing



http://www.scribd.com/doc/254635500/Mail-Wire-Fraud-Elements-18-USC-1341-1343-Federal-Criminal-Law-US-District-Courts-United-States-Attorney-California-United-States-Code-Mai





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-667679-defendants-borris.html

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22orange+county%22+%22superior+court%22+fbi+case+fixing+probe+





https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaV1dGSW52VEpGamM/edit?usp=sharing



https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaV1dGSW52VEpGamM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSEdRLWpwRmpQNG8/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&biw=935&bih=1026&q=%22judge%20james%20mize%22%20racketeering&oq=%22judge%20james%20mize%22%20racketeering&gs_l=hp.3...24938068.24943447.0.24943816.24.21.0.0.0.2.146.1989.17j4.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..12.12.1108.O_qmL4mdO7s&pbx=1&ion=1&cad=cbv&sei=r4iUVYCqA4epogStprbYAQ&rct=j

https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/family/one-day-divorce.aspx

https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/family/one-day-divorce.aspx


https://www.scribd.com/doc/254637299/Illegal-Gratuity-and-Bribery-Involving-Public-Officials-and-Witnesses-Elements-18-USC-201-Federal-Criminal-Law-United-States-Code-Title-18-Crimes-a

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ictx_rlFaAwce6m7IzWApiDaZG8VWiOi2StdJHokF9I/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.scribd.com/collections/4472006/California-Jury-Instructions-Sacramento-Family-Law-Court

https://www.scribd.com/collections/13131680/Federal-Criminal-Law-Title-18-Crimes-Procedure

https://www.scribd.com/collections/13940510/Public-Private-Conspiracy-Civil-Rights-Violations






https://youtu.be/rB_63CqImiI?list=UUS8ZFlGnJJYw4YVsO8gzVJA


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/02/Fredrick-Cohen-Campaign-for-Judge-Challenged-by-Family-Court-Watchdog-Group-Rick-Cohen-Yolo-County-Superior-Court-Judge-Election-Faces-Opposition-by-Family-Court-Reform-Advocates-From-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Consumer_protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxmoWgmUghgaTjJSeVo0UVZPblk&usp=sharing






















http://www.eff.org/

http://www.eff.org/











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

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

Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence






California Statutes




Judicial Council





State Bar Court









Divorce Corp






http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/01/Diane-Wasznicky-Unlawful-Court-Filing-Ignored-By-Sacramento-Family-Court-Clerks-Employee-Misconduct-Bartholomew-and-Wasznicky-Divorce-Judge-Pro-Tem.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Divorce-Lawyer-Paula-Salinger-Misconduct-State-Law-Violations-Moral-Turpitude-Acts-Documented-In-Court-Filing-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Inc-Judge-Pro-Tem-SCBA-Family-Law-Section.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaTjdKOTJtYjBxc2s/view?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Divorce-Lawyer-Paula-Salinger-Misconduct-State-Law-Violations-Moral-Turpitude-Acts-Documented-In-Court-Filing-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Inc-Judge-Pro-Tem-SCBA-Family-Law-Section.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/disabled-family-court-victim-of-judge_28.html#more

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



http://www.calbarjournal.com/May2011/Opinion/JaniceMBrickley.aspx





https://www.scribd.com/collections/14200128/Judge-Peter-McBrien-Racketeering-Controversy



https://www.scribd.com/doc/267980173/Camille-Hemmer-Testimony-for-Judge-Peter-McBrien-Defense-Team-Code-of-Judicial-Ethics-Violations-Prosecution-by-the-Commission-on-Judicial-Performanc

https://www.scribd.com/doc/268039931/Russell-Carlson-Testimony-for-Judge-Peter-McBrien-Defense-Team-Code-of-Judicial-Ethics-Violations-Prosecution-by-the-Commission-on-Judicial-Performan

https://www.scribd.com/doc/268078762/Attorney-Tim-Zeff-Answer-to-Judge-Matthew-Gary-Disqualification-Motion-by-Pro-Per-Party-Susan-Ferris-Divorce-Attorney-Timothy-Zeff-Larscheid-Buchan

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadkQtdFNXZDVBRWM/view?usp=sharing




https://www.scribd.com/doc/217766002/Sacramento-Family-Law-Court-Employee-Misconduct-Pro-Per-Documents-Illegally-Refused-for-Filing-by-Court-Clerk-Sacramento-Family-Court-Director-of

https://www.scribd.com/doc/217766002/Sacramento-Family-Law-Court-Employee-Misconduct-Pro-Per-Documents-Illegally-Refused-for-Filing-by-Court-Clerk-Sacramento-Family-Court-Director-of

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/divorce-attorney-Paula-Salinger-lawyer-Sacramento-judge-pro-tem-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-officer-employee-misconduct-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Inc-Sacramento-family-court.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2014/01/Diane-Wasznicky-Unlawful-Court-Filing-Ignored-By-Sacramento-Family-Court-Clerks-Employee-Misconduct-Bartholomew-and-Wasznicky-Divorce-Judge-Pro-Tem.html


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaMm1vVTc4RWpmQ2M/view?usp=sharing

https://www.scribd.com/doc/270229586/Sacramento-Court-Clerk-Judge-Misconduct-Refusal-To-Accept-Pro-Per-Filing-Judge-Matthew-J-Gary-Court-Clerk-Christina-Arcuri-Sacramento-County-Sup

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVzRXYXJHYmZnUjQ/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVzRXYXJHYmZnUjQ/view?usp=sharing

https://www.scribd.com/doc/270228281/Sacramento-Court-Clerk-Misconduct-Filing-Withheld-Until-Expiration-of-Filing-Deadline-for-Statement-of-Decision-Judge-Matthew-J-Gary-Court-Clerk-C

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadlRZbkIwSDV0SHM/view?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/family-court-sacramento-family-law-facilitator-lollie-roberts-family-courthouse-court-order-judge-attorney-appeal-pro-per-whistleblower-state-auditor-court-rules-investigation-whistleblower-act-sacramento-county-superior-court.html



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRXNrZlVtNW9rQkU/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaRXNrZlVtNW9rQkU/view?usp=sharing




















































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

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

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

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 7 1 8 3 7

176

Google+ Badge


AGGREGATED NEWS (14)

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

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

ADMINISTRATORS (4)









https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgadHRUY1NUMko5U0k/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230347459/Paula-Salinger-Witness-Intimidation-Influence-Witness-by-Fraud-Obstruction-of-Justice-Divorce-Attorney-Paula-D-Salinger-Sacramento-Family-Law-Woo



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=paula%20salinger%20fraud%20on%20the%20court

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=judge%20matthew%20gary%20misconduct




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVWUtV2VCYTJxLTA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVWUtV2VCYTJxLTA/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/temporary-judge-list-now-available.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/Judge-Pro-Tem-conflict-of-interest-Family-Court-Sacramento-judges-temporary-judges-Commission-on-Judicial-Performance-Code-Of-Judicial-Ethics-California-Judges-Association-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court.html








https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNjlKMVZjQkVTNkk/edit?usp=sharing




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaNjlKMVZjQkVTNkk/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWWVwVXR3SW5Eakk/edit?usp=sharing








http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/Judge-Jaime-R-Roman-Certified-Family-Law-Specialist-Charlotte-L-Keeley-Judge-Pro-Tem-Sharon-Huddle-Andrew-Karres-Katina-Rapton-vexatious-litigant-class-action-lawsuit-child-custody-visitation-Sacramento-Family-Court.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LOM6e-zcJaQ/VXzQr2Xy2GI/AAAAAAAADBM/xSIt9y180cE/s1600/Divorce%2BCorp%2BCalifornia%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BLeondra%2BKruger%2B-%2BMariano-Florentino%2BCuellar%2B-%2BTani%2BCantil-Sakauye%2B-%2BJoyce%2BKennard%2B-%2BMing%2BChin%2B-%2BCarol%2BCorrigan%2B-%2BKathryn%2BWerdegar%2B-%2BGoodwin%2BLiu%2B-%2BVance%2BRaye%2B3rd%2BDistrict%2BAppellate%2BArthur%2BScotland%2BJustice.jpg



http://fathers-4-justice.us/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/divorce/

http://leonkozioljd.wordpress.com/

http://movingpastdivorce.com/blog/



http://www.weightiermatter.com/















http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AGGREGATED%20NEWS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ABA%20JOURNAL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ADMINISTRATORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (11)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

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

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (12)

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)











https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVzhoLTVEdUJJUDQ/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Judge-Matthew-Gary-divorce-attorney-Timothy-Zeff-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-judge-pro-tem-scott-buchanan-S-Hinman-appeals-3rd-District-employee-miscondct-judicial-misconduct-.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Judge-Matthew-Gary-divorce-attorney-Timothy-Zeff-SCBA-Family-Law-Section-judge-pro-tem-scott-buchanan-S-Hinman-appeals-3rd-District-employee-miscondct-judicial-misconduct-.html

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/james_brosnahan

http://www.mofo.com/





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/09/supervising-family-law-probate-and-ada.html#more


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWUFrVGRhY0p1cXM/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Sacramento-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-attorneys-Russell-Carlson-Elaine-Van-Beveren-Fredrick-Cohen-Paula-Salinger-Judge-Pro-Tem-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Family-Court-Temporary-Judge-Conflict-Of-Interest.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/04/Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-disqualification-judicial-misconduct-contempt-Hon-Xapuri-B-Villapudua-judges-pro-per-Robert-Saunders-pro-se-Sacramento-Family-Court-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-Family-Court-Accountability-Coalition.html





http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3vjfiwBWpQo/VXzB5G_3NTI/AAAAAAAADA0/osxjujLhTNM/s1600/Charlotte%2BKeeley%2B-%2BKatina%2BRapton%2B-%2BRapton%2BHonda%2B-%2BSacramento%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BLeondra%2BR%2BKruger%252C%2BMariano-Florentino%2BCuellar%252C%2BGoodwin%2BH%2BLiu%252C%2BCarol%2BA%2BCorrigan%252C%2BMing%2BW%2BChin%252C%2BKathryn%2BM%2BWerdegar%252C%2BTani%2BG%2BCantil-Sakauye.jpg

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ANALYSIS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/APPEALS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEYS
























http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AL%20SALMEN



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ANDY%20FURILLO

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/AOC

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ARCHIBALD%20CUNNINGHAM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY%20DISCIPLINE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ATTORNEY%20ETHICS









http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CALIFORNIA%20LAWYER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CALIFORNIANS%20AWARE


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CECIL%20and%20CIANCI

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CEO



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CIVICS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CIVIL%20LIABILITY

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CJA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ClientTickler

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CNN







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20CONDITIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20EMPLOYEE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURT%20POLICIES



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/COURTS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/CRONYISM

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DAVID%20KAZZIE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DEMOTION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DENISE%20RICHARDS


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall was disbarred from the practice

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

have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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


JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)

JUDICIAL

DISQUALIFICATION (2)

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

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

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

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

(4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.

STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)

JAMES

BROSNAHAN (1)

JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT

HANDBOOK (1)

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anewsreview.com+%22peter+j.+mcbrien%22&aq=f&oq=site%3Anewsreview.com+%22peter+j.+mcbrien%22&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.21431j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=ulf+carlsson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=9948862291422329649&scilh=0



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=carlsson&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5&case=9948862291422329649&scilh=0

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaYWhidEthUFlBelU/edit?usp=sharing






https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWUFrVGRhY0p1cXM/edit?usp=sharing








http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/judge-not-lest-ye-be/content?oid=666707




https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sacramento+county+bar+association%22+%22judge+of+the+year%22&aq=f&oq=%22sacramento+county+bar+association%22+%22judge+of+the+year%22&aqs=chrome.0.57.14019j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sacramento+county+bar+association%22+%22judge+of+the+year%22&aq=f&oq=%22sacramento+county+bar+association%22+%22judge+of+the+year%22&aqs=chrome.0.57.14019j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/judge-not-lest-ye-be/content?oid=666707


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2011/05/Paula-Salinger-Family-law-attorney-Judge-Pro-Tem-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Sacramento-Family-Court-Judge-Steve-White-Robert-OHair-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-FRC-Judge-Peter-McBrien.html#more




http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/local-judge-under-investigation/content?oid=865070

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/local-judge-under-investigation/content?oid=865070







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2011/05/Paula-Salinger-Family-law-attorney-Judge-Pro-Tem-Woodruff-OHair-Posner-and-Salinger-Sacramento-Family-Court-Judge-Steve-White-Robert-OHair-Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-FRC-Judge-Peter-McBrien.html


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaazA2dC1CQUU4WGs/edit?usp=sharing




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOXB2b3F4eTNwUk0/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaTy1iNUwzeDl1NDA/edit?usp=sharing




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/judge-pro-tem-temporary-judge-program-sacramento-superior-court-bar-association-family-court-family-law-attorney-gary-appelblatt-divorce-lawyer-criminal-case.html

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/judge-pro-tem-temporary-judge-program-sacramento-superior-court-bar-association-family-court-family-law-attorney-gary-appelblatt-divorce-lawyer-criminal-case.html#more




http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TMcJeThpx7g/VXzUzmBdCkI/AAAAAAAADBk/nIuSGct5cbA/s1600/Judge%2BMatthew%2BGary%2B-%2BJudge%2BJaime%2BRoman%2BSacramento%2BCounty%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BJustice%2BLeondra%2BKruger%252C%2BMariano-Florentino%2BCuellar%252C%2BMing%2BChin%252C%2BGoodwin%2BLiu%252C%2BCarol%2BCorrigan%252C%2BKathryn%2BWerdegar%252C%2BTani%2BCantil-Sakauyue%2BCalifornia.jpg

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DIVORCE












http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20LAW












http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGES




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DISQUALIFICATION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DONALD%20TENN



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/DSM-301.7

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EDITORIAL



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EFF



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ELECTIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EMILY%20GALLUP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EMPLOYEE%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EQUAL%20PROTECTION

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EUGENE%20L.%20BALONON

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EVIDENTIARY%20OBJECTIONS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/EX%20PARTE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/F4J





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20MEDIA%20COVERAGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FAMILY%20COURT%20PROCEDURE









http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FATHERS%20FOR%20JUSTICE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FEDERAL%20LAW



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FEE%20WAIVERS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FOIA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/FOX


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GANGNAM%20STYLE







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GERALD%20UELMEN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GINGER%20SYLVESTER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/GREGORY%20DWYER





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HAZART%20SANKER

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/HONEST%20SERVICES

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/INDIGENT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/INFIGHTING







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JERRY%20BROWN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JERRY%20GUTHRIE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JODY%20PATEL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOHN%20E.B.%20MYERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOSEPH%20SORGE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JOYCE%20TERHAAR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JRC

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/JUDGE%20SALARIES



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons, Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.

For information about the role of temporary judges in

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

from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

MISCONDUCT (69)

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

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)


OPINION (12)

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

PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

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

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

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

SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)

JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAW LIBRARY (1)

LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

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

LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)

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

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

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL

ALIENATION (1)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

ROLAND L. CANDEE (1)RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD

ROBIE (1) RUSSELL CARLSON (4) RUSSELL L. HOM (1) RYDER SALMEN (2) S. HINMAN (3)

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVjVOVld2OGRfWGM/edit?usp=sharing

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2011/12/Sacramento-County-Superior-Court-Judge-Pro-Tem-Scott-Kendall-disbarred-State-Bar-family-court-temporary-judge-Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-SCBA-attorney-misconduct-discipline.html





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2011/06/Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-Donna-Gary-ClientTickler-Software-Legal-Administrative-Services-attorney-Jacqueline-Eston-attorney-judge-pro-tem-Nancy-Perkovich-temporary-judge-conflict-family-law-divorce-child-custody-Family-Court-Sacramento.html


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2011/06/Hon-Matthew-J-Gary-Donna-Gary-ClientTickler-Software-Legal-Administrative-Services-attorney-Jacqueline-Eston-attorney-judge-pro-tem-Nancy-Perkovich-temporary-judge-conflict-family-law-divorce-child-custody-Family-Court-Sacramento.html


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWFFhSDFTLW5JYms/edit?usp=sharing







http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/The-Family-Law-Counselor-attorney-Mary-C-Molinaro-attorney-Hal-D-Bartholomew-attorney-Diane-E-Wasznicky-Bartholomew-and-Wasznicky-Sacramento-County-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-Divorce-with-Respect-child-custody.html




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZXYxbWNRMGg4Zmc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVzNkUU9LM0hHQUE/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaeEMycjRRY0VzdTQ/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaT1dIZ1lfUTRhRms/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaT1dIZ1lfUTRhRms/edit?usp=sharing



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/Judge-Jaime-R-Roman-Certified-Family-Law-Specialist-Charlotte-L-Keeley-Judge-Pro-Tem-Sharon-Huddle-Andrew-Karres-Katina-Rapton-vexatious-litigant-class-action-lawsuit-child-custody-visitation-Sacramento-Family-Court.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaQVZjNVhOeWdMTjA/edit?usp=sharing



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaazhCQnlYMXRuMjg/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaSjZvbEQ0QU04TGM/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZC0yQzExcS0yZUk/edit?usp=sharing











http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/Sacramento-Bar-Association-Family-Law-Section-FLEC-attorneys-Russell-Carlson-Elaine-Van-Beveren-Fredrick-Cohen-Paula-Salinger-Judge-Pro-Tem-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Family-Court-Temporary-Judge-Conflict-Of-Interest.html#more


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVDdCWXFsSGRaa3M/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWkVoNzhpOUdzQVk/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaWkVoNzhpOUdzQVk/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaVDdCWXFsSGRaa3M/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgacUFITnQzOU5TSWM/edit?usp=sharing

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oA-qQZjetd0/VXzNbzhSTRI/AAAAAAAADBA/yyf4lRcTzm8/s1600/Judge%2BJames%2BMize%2BSacramento%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2BHon.%2BJames%2BM.%2BMize%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BLeondra%2BR%2BKruger%252C%2BMariano-Florentino%2BCuellar%252C%2BTani%2BCantil-Sakauye%252C%2BMing%2BChing%252C%2BGoodwin%2BLiu%252C%2BCarol%2BCorrigan%252C%2BKathryn%2BWerdegar%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2Bof%2BCalifornia.jpg




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAW%20SCHOOL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAWYERS






http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEWS




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/OPINION





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PROTEST




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20HIGHT















http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/KIDS%20FOR%20CASH



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LAWYER



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LEGISLATURE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LINCOLN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/LOUIS%20MAURO


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MALPRACTICE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MCGEORGE%20SOL

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MEDIA

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/MICHAEL%20T.%20GARCIA





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/NEW%20YORK%20TIMES



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/News10

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/OPEN%20GOVERNMENT





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PHILLIP%20HERNANDEZ

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PRESIDING%20JUDGE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/PSY





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RECOGNITION%2FAWARDS


http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROLAND%20L.%20CANDEE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RON%20BURGUNDY




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/RUSSELL%20L.%20HOM



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/S.%20HINMAN

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SACRAMENTO%20BEE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SANCTIONS





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCHWARZENEGGER



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SCSD



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SELF-HELP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SETTLEMENT%20CONFERENCE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SFCN%20READERSHIP%20DATA


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.

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (5)

ULF CARLSSON (6)

WATCHDOGS (20)

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

YOUTUBE (7)

LAW SCHOOL (4)

STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN BURLINGHAM (1) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN

SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

TOMMY LEE JONES (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (2)

VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)

WHITE HOUSE (1)

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


http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/temporary-judge.aspx



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/temporary-judge-list-now-available.html

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaZnZlR2gwclJKY1E/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxmoWgmUghgaOTAyM0JEQVlsaGc/edit?usp=sharing


http://www.mcgeorge.edu/

http://www.mcgeorge.edu/



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LsMhhkeJD_k/VA5rsY9-iWI/AAAAAAAAACg/D0YSUFjvp90/s1600/California%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BGoodwin%2BLiu%2C%2BMing%2BChin%2C%2BMariano-Florentino%2BCuellar%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BState%2BBar%2BChief%2BTrial%2BCounsel%2BJayne%2BKim%2B-%2BCalifornia%2BState%2BAuditor%2BElaine%2BHowle%2BBureau%2Bof%2BState%2BAudits%2B-%2BCommission%2Bon%2BJudicial%2BPerformance%2BVictoria%2BHenley.jpg

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SOCIOECONOMIC%20BIAS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STATE%20AUDITOR

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/STATE%20BAR





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THOMAS%20WOODRUFF























http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUNSHINE%20WEEK

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/SUPERIOR%20COURT




http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TAXPAYERS

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/TERRY%20FRANCKE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THE%20RUTTER%20GROUP

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/THOMAS%20M.%20CECIL





http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/UPDATE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VANCE%20W.%20RAYE

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VEXATIOUS%20LITIGANT

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VICTORY%20OUTREACH%20CHURCH

http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/VL-CLASS-ACTION



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WASTE



http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/WHITE%20HOUSE



