Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Cited
As of: Feb 20, 2015
In re the Marriage of MAUREEN J. DURIS and WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY.
MAUREEN J. DURIS, Appellant, v. WILLIAM AUGUST URBANY, Respondent.
B222002
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,
DIVISION SIX
193 Cal. App. 4th 510; 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 275
HEADNOTES-1
OPINION BY: Gilbert
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
(1) Costs 11--Sanctions--Notice and Hearing
Requirement--Opportunity to Present Evidence.--The
trial court erred in awarding attorney fees as sanctions
against a former wife because (1) there was no notice that
sanctions were an issue at a child support modification
hearing, (2) there was no hearing on sanctions, and (3)
there was no evidence to support the findings on the
award of attorney fees.
[Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2010) ch.
226, Dissolution of Marriage: Attorney's Fees, 226.12;
11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005)
Husband and Wife, 10.]
COUNSEL: Vanessa Kirker Wright for Appellant.
OPINION
GILBERT, P. J.--Summary proceedings are
common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however
certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a
family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in
mind an immutable principle that cuts across all areas of
the law: sanctions may not be summarily imposed. Due
process demands more.
Petitioner Maureen J. Duris appeals a postjudgment
order requiring her to pay $10,000 to respondent William
August Urbany as sanctions for unnecessary litigation
filed by Duris's former attorney in this dissolution of
marriage action. We conclude, among other things, that
the trial court erred by (1) awarding sanctions without
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Fair Oaks-Carmichael
Find Your Patch
43
Partly Cloudy
Home
All Topics
Opinion
Sacramento BarAssociation
Family Law Executive
CommitteeviolatedCaliforniaPenal Code sections
prohibiting
witness intimidationand
deceit of a witness.
Under California law, both offenses are designated as
obstruction of justice crimes.
The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger
and Judge
Matthew Gary. As reflected by page one of the
document set posted at Scribd and SFCN, at an unrelated court
hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the
contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that
hewould deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had
yet to file a response to the contempt pleading.Salinger then
egregious misconductagainst
unrepresented pro perswho
can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court
litigants.
Civil law statutes, including
wrongful use of civil proceedings,
and
abuse of processmay also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking
acts.SFCNis completing an in-depth investigative report on the
criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and
documents from the same case.The report will be published by
SFCNin the near future.
Family court
reform advocatessay the latest revelations are
additional proof that the court operates effectively as a
Share
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
07 July 2014
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Woodruff O'Hair Posner & Salinger Inc Criminal Conduct by Partner Paula
D. Salinger Alleged and Documented in Leaked Court Records - All Firm
Partners Hold Office of Temporary Judge
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(66)
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
Allegations thatjudge
pro temlawyerPaula Salingercommittedobstruction of justice crimesagainst an
indigent, unrepresented pro per havegone viralthroughout family court reform social
media.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed
by family law attorney and temporary judgePaula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family
court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger
client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records. Family court reform
advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys
who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal
representation.
As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals
includingfiling counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to
obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable
waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge. Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge
JAMES M. MIZE
(14)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and
domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an
appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner &
Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpracticein a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.
The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where
several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the
claims, SFCNdid not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the
accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set is
embedded below.
Obstruction of Justice
The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and
officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated CaliforniaPenal Code
sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are
designated as obstruction of justice crimes. The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and
Judge Matthew Gary.
As reflected by page one of the document set, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date
calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt
claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Garys prejudgment of the
contempt matter was a clear violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, the state laws governing judge
conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly disciplined several judges for acting in a way
that manifested prejudgmentA trial judge should not prejudge the issues but should keep an open mind
until all the evidence is presented to him. In one CJPjudicial discipline case, Judge Bruce Van Voorhis was
disciplined for creating "the appearance of prejudgment in your discussion of the case in open court by
improperly predicting the outcome of the case," according to CJP records. Click herefor a compilation ofCJP
disciplinary decisions about prejudgment.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(4)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
Salinger then used the judge's unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:
"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re:
Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on
November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions
pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide
written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00
p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions
pursuant to FC 271,"Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of
the document set below is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,
unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court
allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing
charged several violations of the Standard Family Law
Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce
proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against
both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in
family court.
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to
Salinger's lawbreaking acts. In addition, an attorney who intentionally deceives a party to a court case is subject to
misdemeanor criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code 6128.SFCN is completingan indepth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from
the same case. Our report will be published in the near future.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
An attorney who intentionally deceives a judge or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor crime under California law. Family court reform
advocates assert that many family court lawyers routinely and deliberately engage in deceptive tactics, and that the law goes unenforced
by judges, prosecutors, and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.
Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as
a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government
services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the
form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees. The
divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference
program in exchange for the kickbacks andemoluments,watchdogs charge. California Penal Code 94makes
receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar
conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in
the United States.For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document
set:
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families and Children
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
Email: paula@woplaw.com
PO Box 60662
Sacramento, CA 95860
VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSIO
Re: Marriage ofDearAs the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case Re:
Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on
November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to
Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt.
Additionally, the court offered you the opportunity to drop your Notice of Motion filed October
20, 201O and your Notice of Motion filed October 22, 2010 since the court had already ruled on the
issues related to your motions. Since you refuse to drop your frivolous motions, I intend to seek
sanctions pursuant to FC 271 for the necessity of defending the motions.
Lastly, your motion filed October 8, 2010 does not set forth a basis to strike the Memorandum
to Set filed October 1, 2010. I am requesting you drop this hearing. Should you refuse to drop your
hearing, I intend to seek sanctions pursuant to FC 271.
Your behavior in this matter furthers arid frustrates the policy of law intended to promote
settlement of litigation and encourage cooperation. Should you provide written proof (a copy of a
confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have
been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC 271.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
WOODRUFF, O'HAIR, POSNER & SALINGER, INC.
Dictated but not reviewed to avoid delay.
Paula D. Salinger
pds:sbo
cc:
1wyers
1. Contempt
a. [18:105] Nature of contemptin general: A party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the
ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt
penalties (see CCP 1218 & 1219, 18:220 ff.). As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court
to compel compliance with its valid orders. [In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1014, 41 CR3d 864865]
(c) [18:212] No affirmative relief by responsive declaration: In OSC and motion hearings generally,
respondent is permitted to use the responsive declaration to seek affirmative relief alternative to that requested by
the moving party, on the same issues raised by the moving party; this is an exception to the general rule that an
independent OSC or notice of motion must be filed to obtain affirmative relief. [See Fam.C. 213, discussed at
5:372 ff.]
However, Fam.C. 213 does not apply to contempt hearings; i.e., the citees responsive declaration may only
be used to answer the contempt charge or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds (above).
[Fam.C. 213(a)In a hearing on an order to show cause ... other than for contempt (responding party may seek
affirmative relief on same issues by filing responsive declaration) (emphasis and parentheses added)]
13:107. Witness intimidation, L & R, California Criminal Law 13:107 (2011-2012 ed.)
People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial
of rehg, (Apr. 14, 2008).
People v. Leon, 161 Cal. App. 4th 149, 158, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 793 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial
of rehg, (Apr. 14, 2008).
End of Document
608. Bribe or deceit of witness, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against...
End of Document
604. Generally, 17 Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Crimes Against Admin. of Justice 604
0030
(Pub. 1284)
0031
543
(Pub. 1284)
0032
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements
of the crime.
In element 1, alternative 1A applies to charges under Penal Code section
136.1(a), which prohibits knowingly and maliciously preventing or
attempting to prevent a witness or victim from giving testimony. Alternatives
1B through 1D apply to charges under Penal Code section 136.1(b).
Subdivision (b) does not use the words knowingly and maliciously.
However, subdivision (c) provides a higher punishment if a violation of
either subdivision (a) or (b) is done knowingly and maliciously, and one of
the other listed sentencing factors is proved. An argument can be made that
the knowledge and malice requirements apply to all violations of Penal Code
section 136.1(b), not just those charged with the additional sentencing factors
under subdivision (c). Because the offense always requires specific intent, the
committee has included the knowledge requirement with the specific intent
requirement in element 3. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 990
[193 Cal.Rptr. 684]; see also People v. Womack (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926,
929930 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].) If the court concludes that the malice
requirement also applies to all violations of subdivision (b), the court should
give the bracketed word maliciously in element 1, in alternatives 1B
through 1D, and the definition of this word.
If the defendant is charged with one of the sentencing factors in Penal Code
section 136.1(c), give CALCRIM No. 2623, Intimidating a Witness:
Sentencing Factors. If the defendant is charged with the sentencing factor
based on a prior conviction, the court must give both CALCRIM No. 2623
and CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless the
court has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction or the defendant
has stipulated to the conviction.
Note that Penal Code section 136.1(a)(3) states, For purposes of this
section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in
an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the
act was without malice. It is unclear whether the court must instruct on this
presumption.
544
(Pub. 1284)
0033
AUTHORITY
Elements.
Malice Defined.
Witness Defined.
Victim Defined.
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, 5, 6.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 82,
Witnesses, 82.07, Ch. 84, Motions at Trial, 84.11 (Matthew Bender).
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,
Sentencing, 91.23[6][e], 91.43 (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142,
Crimes Against the Person, 142.13[4][b]; Ch. 144, Crimes Against Order,
144.03[2], [4] (Matthew Bender).
(Pub. 1284)
0034
RELATED ISSUES
Penal Code Sections 137(b), 136.1, and 138
Because one cannot influence the testimony of a witness if the witness
does not testify, a conviction under Penal Code section 137(b) is inconsistent
with a conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 or 138, which requires that
a defendant prevent, rather than influence, testimony. (People v. Womack
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].)
546
(Pub. 1284)
0027
(Pub. 1284)
0028
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements
of the crime.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with The People do not need to
prove that if the evidence shows that the testimony or information of the
alleged target was not affected.
AUTHORITY
Elements.
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, 12.
RELATED ISSUES
Deceiving a Witness
Deceiving a witness is a separate crime under Penal Code section 133:
Every person who practices any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes or
exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to any
witness or person about to be called as a witness upon any trial,
proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, with
540
(Pub. 1284)
0029
541
(Pub. 1284)
News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
SIGN UP
625
449
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
LOG IN
Location
Sacramento, California
443
"This package of evidence was compiled over four years, and includes
records dating back ten years," said Ulf Carlsson, the spokesperson for the
group. "Judges, court employees and lawyers involved in this criminal
enterprise have been able to conceal it for a long time."
The group asserts that the documents show the scheme began in 1991 when
two judges, Peter McBrien and Vance Raye, restructured the family court
system with attorneys from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law
Section. The conspiracy has expanded and been ongoing since that time,
according to the whistleblowers. Judge Vance Raye has since been elevated
to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, and continues to assist the
organization when cases involving the enterprise reach the appellate court
level.
documented that the lawyers are in fact compensated with illegal kickbacks in
the form of 'rubber-stamped' rulings and court orders for their clients, in
ByRobertE
Frozen Florida
Bywasta1
Deep Freeze
When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are
required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed
ByLonnaDFisher
Icicle Wonderland
judges.
Byingridsilvia
"In many cases, only one side has an attorney - who is a member of what we
refer to as the 'cartel' - while the other side can't afford a lawyer and is selfrepresented. These cases are where the one-sided outcomes are the most
severe," Carlsson said. "You have someone going through a traumatic
divorce without a lawyer facing off against a spouse represented by a veteran
family law attorney. On top of that, the party without a lawyer is forced into a
settlement conference run by a judge pro tem lawyer who often is a personal
friend of the other attorney. As we've now documented, the outcome of these
rigged settlement conferences is not fair, ethical, or legal. The conflicts of
interest are required by state law to be disclosed, but never are."
The alleged criminal enterprise deprives the public of the federally protected
right to honest government services, a crime under 18 USC 1346, includes
predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, and thereby constitutes a RICO
racketeering enterprise under federal criminal law (18 USC 1962), according
to the watchdog group.
Carlsson said the judge-attorney collusion also violates a number of state laws
as well. "The scheme results in unjust enrichment for the judge pro tem
attorneys, constitutes unfair business practices, and implicates antitrust laws,"
Carlsson asserted. "Due to their consistent, virtually perfect success rate in
obtaining favorable outcomes in court proceedings, the temporary judge
lawyers have achieved a significant monopoly on the family law and divorce
business in the greater-Sacramento area."
TAGS:
vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,
Log in to comment
Comments (5)
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they
post. See the
iReport community guidelines
for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
garyonthenet
January 8, 2015
As bkain222 says, this happens all over the country, it only when they get to
cocky with their power and get sloppy in covering their tracks, as in this