72-Page Master Compilation: Color of Law Conspiracy - Private Party Engaged in State Action - Federal Civil Rights - California Supreme Court, Justice Leondra R Kruger, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Goodwin H Liu, Justice Carol A Corrigan, Justice Ming W Chin, Justice Kathryn M Werdegar, Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, Supreme Court of California

112. Liability of private party, 12 Cal. Jur.
3d Civil Rights 112
12 Cal. Jur. 3d Civil Rights 112

California Jurisprudence 3d
Database updated May 2012
Civil Rights
Alys Masek, J.D.
VI. Interference with Civil Rights
B. Violation of Rights under Color of State Law
Topic Summary Correlation Table References
112. Liability of private party
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Civil Rights
1335
Liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act extends to a private party where the private party engaged in state action under
color of law and thereby deprived a plaintiff of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of
the United States. 1 Thus, a private individual may be liable under the Federal Civil Rights Act if he or she conspired or entered
joint action with a state actor. 2 To be engaged in joint action, a private party must be a willful participant with the State or its
agents in an activity which deprives others of constitutional rights. A private party is liable under this theory, however, only
if its particular actions are inextricably intertwined with those of the government. 3 Whether a private party engaged in state
action as would support a finding of liability is a highly factual question. 4
In addition where a private party and the government exist via what amounts under the law to a symbiotic relationship, the
private party may be held responsible as a state actor. In a symbiotic relationship the government has so far insinuated itself
into a position of interdependence with a private entity that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged
activity. Substantial coordination and integration between the private entity and the government are the essence of a symbiotic
relationship. Often significant financial integration indicates a symbiotic relationship. 5
Finally, an individual may become a state actor under the public functions test. Private activity becomes a public function only
if that action has been traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State. If private actors hold elections, govern a town, or
serve as an international peacekeeping force, they have been held responsible as state actors. On the other hand, if private actors
educate maladjusted youth or resolve credit disputes, they have not been held to perform an exclusive prerogative of the State,
and thus, they have not been held responsible as state actors. 6
Illustration:
Foster care providers for a child who allegedly was improperly removed from her mother's home could not be held liable to the
mother under the Federal Civil Rights Act, given the absence of evidence that the providers were acting under color of state
law as county agents or employees. 7
Footnotes
Brunette v. Humane Society of Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc,
1
(Aug. 23, 2002).
2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
112. Liability of private party, 12 Cal. Jur. 3d Civil Rights 112
2
3
4
5
6
7
Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2002) (referring to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983); Brunette v. Humane Society of Ventura County,
294 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc, (Aug. 23, 2002).
(Aug. 23, 2002).
(Aug. 23, 2002).
(Aug. 23, 2002).
(Aug. 23, 2002).
Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dept. of Public Social Services, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (referring to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983).
End of Document
1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action..., 1 State and Local...
1 State and Local Government Civil Rights Liability 1:4 (2d ed.)
State and Local Government Civil Rights Liability
Database updated December 2011
Ivan E. Bodensteiner; Rosalie Berger Levinson
Chapter 1. Protecting Federal Rights under Section 1983
II. Coverage
Summary
1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action requirement
In addition to creating a cause of action against government officials, it is possible to bring suit against private
individuals under 1983 either because their conduct is deemed to be state action or because they have
conspired with government officials.
As to the first theory, because most 1983 claims assert constitutional rights that entail a state action
requirement, the under the color of law issue and the state action issue often merge.1
The Supreme Court has stated that where private individuals meet the state action requirement of the Fourteenth
Amendment they will be deemed to be acting under the color of state law for purposes of 1983.2
In Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks,3 a creditor acting pursuant to the U.C.C. self-help provision seized the plaintiffs
property allegedly in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Although an individual
exercising his rights under state law is acting under the color of state law, the Court held that there was no
Fourteenth Amendment state action.
Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further limited the concept of state action by refusing to
attribute private conduct to the state despite significant government involvement with the private entity.4
This trend is reflected in several lower court opinions holding that neither state regulation nor funding of a private
entity will convert its conduct into state action.5
Further, neither government approval or acquiescence in the private conduct will suffice.6
Although the Supreme Court has been generally reluctant to treat the action of private parties as that of the state
for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has been less than clear in articulating a coherent doctrine, a
review of Supreme Court precedent indicates that private parties may be sued under 1983 under the following
theories:
(1) Joint Participation: In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,7 the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test
whereby private individuals who act in joint participation with government officials will be considered
state actors.
First, the Court explained that the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege
created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is
responsible.8
Second, the defendant must fairly be said to be a state actor.9 As to the latter, the Court inquires into
whether the defendant has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials.10
The Lugar analysis was applied in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.11 to hold that a private litigants
race-based exercise of peremptory jury challenges in a civil action constitutes governmental action.
Applying the Lugar standard several lower courts have found that private individuals or entities may be
viewed as state actors because of their involvement with government officials.12
On the other hand, many federal courts applying the Lugar analysis have concluded that a defendants action
was not attributable to the state.13 In several of these cases, it was held that the private individual did not
truly act in concert with government officials.
For example, the mere fact that a private citizen files a complaint with the police department or asks that an
individual be arrested does not, without more, constitute the type of concerted activity required by Lugar.14
The Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Tarkanian lends support to this narrow approach. The fact that the
NCAA promulgated regulations governing the state universitys athletic program, investigated alleged
violations on the part of the university, and concluded that the university had to suspend its basketball coach
or face sanctions did not justify the state Supreme Courts conclusion that the NCAA was acting under the
color of state law.15
Reasoning that the NCAA and the state university acted more like adversaries than like partners, the Court
rejected the joint participation theory.16
(2) Conspiracy: The Supreme Court has held that where private individuals enter into a conspiracy with state
officials to deprive persons of their rights, they may be joined as defendants.
In fact the Court held in Dennis v. Sparks17 that a private citizen who bribes a judge may be sued under
1983 even though in that situation the judge himself enjoyed absolute immunity from suit.18
Further, in Tower v. Glover19 it was held that although the actions of a public defender do not subject him to
liability, a public defender who conspires with state officials will be deemed to be acting under the color of
law.20
Similarly, although federal officials may not be sued under 1983, federal officials acting in concert with
state authorities may be sued.21
Counsel should be cautioned that although the requirements of a conspiracy are fairly stringent, private
individuals who fit within the joint participation theory of state action may also be sued under 1983.22
Because of the overlap between the doctrines, some lower courts have narrowly construed the joint
participation theory to require a conspiratorial type of relationship between the state and the private parties.23
Others, however, have explicitly rejected the notion that evidence of a conspiracy is needed in order to sue
private individuals whose conduct is deemed to be state action.24
(3) Compulsion or Significant Encouragement: Although, as noted, government approval or acquiescence

in private conduct will not transform this conduct into state action, where the state actually compels the
private party to engage in the proscribed conduct, 1983 liability will be triggered.25
(4) Government Function: The Supreme Court has held that a private party will be deemed a state actor
where it performs an exclusive, traditional public function.26
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has narrowly construed this doctrine to exclude private entities that
provide utility service,27 medical assistance,28 or education.29
Relying on the public function doctrine, lower courts have ruled that volunteer firefighters should be viewed
as state actors.30
Similarly, private parties who assist the police in carrying out their investigative functions will be bound by
constitutional norms.31
More difficult are the cases involving private entities who contract with the government to carry out official
functions. Because the government is increasingly privatizing the operation of jails and prisons, these cases
are proliferating. In West v. Atkins32 the Supreme Court held that a private physician under contract with the
state to provide medical services at a state hospital is acting as a state actor for purposes of 1983.
Generally, where the government contracts out official functions that implicate statutory or constitutional
duties, state action will be found.33
On the other hand, several cases have held that those who contract with the state to carry out state-sponsored
programs or to perform public functions do not necessarily become state actors for all of their conduct.34
Further, note that even where private parties are acting under the color of state law, difficult questions
remain as to whether private individuals or entities will be shielded by the defenses that protect government
officials and entities.35
(5) Symbiotic Relation/Entwinement: The Supreme Court has ruled that where a private party enters into a
symbiotic relationship with the government, state action will be found.
In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority,36 a private owner of a restaurant who leased space from a
governmental agency and who refused to serve African-Americans was held subject to suit under 1983
where both the government and the restaurant benefited from the lease arrangement.
The Court focused on the states overall relationship with the private actor and determined that the state had
insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the private party.37
Since this 1961 case, the Supreme Court has never again relied on the symbiotic relationship doctrine to
support a finding of state action.
Similarly, lower courts have consistently distinguished and narrowed Burton as a case where the government
was actually profiting from the racially discriminatory practices of the restaurant.38
Although the symbiotic relationship theory appears dead, the Supreme Court in Brentwood Academy v.
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association39 held that a nominally private statewide voluntary
association that governs sports among public and private secondary schools was a state actor because of the
pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials.
The Court relied on several factorspublic schools predominated in the membership of the organization at
the time of the incident in question, public school officials held all slots on the governing bodies, members of
the State Board of Education were assigned ex officio to serve as members of the governing bodies, and the
organizations employees were eligible for membership in the state retirement system.
Further, the Court noted that there were no substantial countervailing reasons not to apply constitutional
standards to the Associations actions.40
Some lower courts have relied on Brentwoods entwinement theory to find state action.41 However, in many
cases the fact-intensive inquiry demanded by Brentwood has resulted in findings of insufficient evidence to
support entwinement,42 or
(6) Judicial Intervention: In Shelley v. Kraemer43 the Supreme Court found state action where white
property owners sued in a state court to enforce a racially restrictive covenant and thus stop a sale between a
willing buyer and seller.
The Court reasoned that the state court had interjected itself into the private dispute such that the judiciary
became the efficient, effective cause of the adverse treatment, thus subject to Fourteenth Amendment
restrictions.44
Subsequent rulings have limited Shelley to its unique facts, namely judicial enforcement of racially restrictive
covenants.45
Practice Tip:
Although, as discussed earlier in this section, private individuals or entities may sometimes be sued as defendants
under 1983, the rules governing liability of private entities is less certain.
As discussed in 2:1 to 2:5, government officials may enjoy absolute or qualified immunity from damages.
Further, as discussed in 1:6, 1:7, government entities cannot be held liable unless the injury was inflicted
pursuant to a policy or custom and they are shielded from punitive damages. See 2:8. On the other hand, they do
not enjoy qualified immunity. See 2:7.
The Supreme Court in two cases, Wyatt v. Cole46 and Richardson v. McKnight,47 has ruled that private
individuals do not enjoy the qualified immunity available to government defendants. It has not, however,
provided guidance regarding private entities.
Generally the lower courts have ruled that private entities are liable only if a policy or custom can be
established.48 There is disagreement, however, on the immunity issue.
While some courts have extended the Supreme Court rule denying municipal immunity to private entities,49
others have decided to award private defendants a good faith defense.50 There has been little discussion as to
whether punitive damages should be available to private entities.51
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CCPCIVILRGHTS, 7:8. State action test, Cal. Civ. Prac. Civil Rights Litigation 7:8
Cal. Civ. Prac. Civil Rights Litigation 7:8

California Civil Practice Civil Rights Litigation
Database updated October 2012
Judge Harold E. Kahn and Robert D. Links, Esq.
Chapter 7. Due Process of Law
III. The Elements of a Due Process Claim
Summary
7:8. State action test
The issue of what constitutes state action has been the subject of vigorous litigation. [See, for example, Moose Lodge No.
107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972); Adams v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Cal. 3d 146,
113 Cal. Rptr. 145, 520 P.2d 961, 64 A.L.R.3d 803 (1974) and numerous law review articles. See, e.g., The State Action
Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court, 25 Hast Const LQ 588 (1991)] For years, commentators have struggled to find consistency
in the decisions defining state action for constitutional purposes. One commentator has labeled the courts treatment of the
issue a conceptual disaster area. [See The Supreme Court, 1966 TermForward: State Action, Equal Protection and
Californias Proposition 14, 81 Harv L. Rev. 69 (1967)]
While the many state and federal decisions dealing with the concept of state action are difficult to reconcile, they have
established several broad principles that help determine when a given act amounts to state action.
To begin with, there must be a significant level of state involvement. [See Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 146
Cal. Rptr. 208, 578 P.2d 925 (1978); Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank, 11 Cal. 3d 352, 113 Cal. Rptr. 449, 521 P.2d 441, 65
A.L.R.3d 1266 (1974)]
Often, state action consists of legislative action, such as the passage of statutes or regulations that improperly deprive people
of life, liberty, or property without adequate procedural safeguards. [See, for example, Randone v. Appellate Department, 5
Cal. 3d 536, 96 Cal. Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13 (1971) (attachment statute ruled unconstitutional on procedural grounds)]
However, state action can also consist of executive and judicial action. [Adams v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Cal. 3d
146, 113 Cal. Rptr. 145, 520 P.2d 961, 64 A.L.R.3d 803 (1974)]
Therefore, a key ingredient in finding state action is that the government must be a joint participant in the challenged
conduct, even if only by way of ministerial actions. For example, the United States Supreme Court found state action present
in a private, racially restrictive real estate covenant, because the covenant could not be enforced without the involvement of
the Illinois courts. [Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161, 3 A.L.R.2d 441 (1948)]
The contrary situation, where action can be taken solely by private parties without governmental assistance, yields the
opposite result. Hence, the California Supreme Court refused to find state action in a case involving a private banks setoff of
charge account debts against a depositors checking account. The court held that, in contrast to other prejudgment remedies,
the banks setoff procedure required no act of assistance from state officials, and thus did not violate the federal and state Due
Process Clauses. [Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank, 11 Cal. 3d 352, 113 Cal. Rptr. 449, 521 P.2d 441, 65 A.L.R.3d 1266 (1974)]
The governments participation does not have to be direct or all-encompassing in order to constitute state action for due
process purposes. In a given case, private conduct may become so entwined with governmental action that it becomes subject
to the constitutional limitations of due process. [See, e.g., Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 87 S. Ct. 1627, 18 L. Ed. 2d 830
(1967); Adams v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Cal. 3d 146, 113 Cal. Rptr. 145, 520 P.2d 961, 64 A.L.R.3d 803 (1974)]
The question in these cases is whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action so that
the action may be fairly treated as that of the state itself. [Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 146 Cal. Rptr. 208, 578
P.2d 925 (1978); see also Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477, 8 Pub. Util.
Rep. 4th (PUR) 1 (1974)]
Often, this question turns on whether the state has encouraged or actively participated in the challenged conduct. Mere
recognition by the state of private relationships does not meet the test. Nor does the fact that state action facilitates a private
partys conduct. The state must be an integral participant in the conduct. [Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 146
Cal. Rptr. 208, 578 P.2d 925 (1978)]
Thus, for example, though the government may license certain conduct, such as the serving of liquor, it does not necessarily
follow that state action occurs as the result of the licensees activities. [See, for example, Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407
U.S. 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972)] It is important to remember that even where a large, institutional
organization exerts substantial control over an important enterprise, there may not be state action. [See, for example, National
Collegiate Athletic Assn v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 109 S. Ct. 454, 102 L. Ed. 2d 469, 50 Ed. Law Rep. 17 (1988) (acts of
NCAA, which controls college athletics in United States, did not amount to state action); see also San Francisco Arts &
Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522, 107 S. Ct. 2971, 97 L. Ed. 2d 427, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1145
(1987) (actions of United States Olympic Committee, a federally chartered nonprofit corporation, did not constitute state
action)]
In a case challenging Californias procedure for nonjudicial foreclosures of deeds of trust on real property, the California
Supreme Court found that the procedure constituted private action exempt from the due process constraints of the federal and
state constitutions. The court concluded that mere recognition of the legal effect of private arrangements between a lender
and trustor is not sufficient to convert the acts of the lender or trustee into state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
The court also discounted the argument that the state encouraged nonjudicial foreclosure by acknowledging the legal validity
of the title transferred thereby. [Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 146 Cal. Rptr. 208, 578 P.2d 925 (1978)]
Practice Note:
At first glance, Garfinkle appears difficult to distinguish from Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161,
3 A.L.R.2d 441 (1948), in which the United State Supreme Court found state action in an equal protection context where
there was solely private conduct, in the form of a restrictive covenant contained in a private sale agreement involving
residential real estate. The only state action in Shelley was judicial enforcement of the parties contract, something virtually
identical to the nonjudicial foreclosure at issue in Garfinkle. The two cases are distinguishable, however, in that Shelley
involved the states participation in racial discrimination, something prohibited by the equal protection clause, while
Garfinkle involved private foreclosures that did not involve any other constitutional right. This may also explain why the
Garfinkle court did not cite Shelley in its state action analysis.
Generally speaking, the California Supreme Court has utilized the federal standard in deciding whether there is state action
for purposes of the California Due Process Clause. [See Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 146 Cal. Rptr. 208, 578
P.2d 925 (1978); Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank, 11 Cal. 3d 352, 113 Cal. Rptr. 449, 521 P.2d 441, 65 A.L.R.3d 1266 (1974)
(implying state action requirement into California Due Process Clause, then following federal case law)]
Practice Tips:
The U.S. Supreme Court has enumerated at least seven approaches to determine if a private partys conduct amounts to state
action. The approaches were summarized in Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn, 531 U.S.
288, 296, 121 S. Ct. 924, 148 L. Ed. 2d 807, 151 Ed. Law Rep. 18 (2001). As the court there explained, the activity of a
private party may be state action when:
1) it results from the states exercise of coercive power; or
2) the state provides significant encouragement, either overt or covert; or
3) a private actor operates as a willful participant in joint activity with the state or its agents; or
4) it is controlled by an agency of the state; or
5) it has been delegated a public function by the state; or
6) it is entwined with government policies or

7) when government is entwined in the management or control of the private actor.
While these factors are important, the court also cautioned that no one fact can function as a necessary condition across the
board for finding state action, or is any set of circumstances absolutely sufficient. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee
Secondary School Athletic Assn, 531 U.S. 288, 29596, 121 S. Ct. 924, 148 L. Ed. 2d 807, 151 Ed. Law Rep. 18 (2001).
A relevant example of how a court analyzes a state action problem can be found in Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim,
N.A., 639 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Florer case, the plaintiff was a prisoner who complained that a private organization
had violated his rights by not providing appropriate religious services. The court refused to find state action, noting that the
inquiry begins with the presumption that conduct by private actors is not state action. [Florer v. Congregation Pidyon
Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2011)] The court did not find a close nexus between the private
congregations actions and any particular state policy; moreover, the court also found that the plaintiff could not show that
the defendant had exclusive dominion over the religious services that the state was bound to provide at the prison. The
plaintiff failed to show that any law or policy restricted him from receiving a Torah, calendar, or rabbi visit from persons or
organizations other than Defendants. [Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 925 (9th Cir. 2011)]
While the defendants were under contract to provide certain services, they were not the exclusive avenue for the plaintiff to
exercise his religious beliefs and because there was no joint activity and the action in question was not the public
function of the state (nor could it be, given the strictures of the First Amendments Establishment Clause); hence, there was
no state action. The case is a good discussion of the major factors to analyze in these cases.
Westlaw. 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
End of Document
Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on
CNNgo.
SIGN UP
106
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport
LOG IN
Sacramento Superior Court

Designated Most Corrupt in U.S.
by Documentary Film
Not verified by CNN
By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

| Sacramento, California
Posted July 27, 2014
by
Follow
LegalNews
Location
Sacramento, California
Assignment
This iReport is part of an assignment:

Sound off
More from LegalNews
It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court

system - rebuilt more than 20 years ago to the specifications of local judge
pro tem family law attorneys by controversial and criminally convicted
Judge Peter McBrien, then-Judge Vance Raye, divorce attorney Robert
O'Hair, and others - has become the most corrupt family court in the
nation.
California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme
Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest
Disclosure Violations Continue
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct
Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using
Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security
Service
The proof is now available to anyone for $20: the cost of the documentary film
Divorce Corp, recently released on DVD, and also available by download
at the iTunes store. In his first, full-length documentary film, director Joe
Sorge meticulously documents the epidemic of corruption and collusion in
family courts throughout the United States. And the Sacramento County
system rises to the top of the toxic slurry pond.
A parade of litigants from Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, California and other
locales recount their nightmare experiences in child custody and other
divorce-related court disputes. Retired judges, active attorneys, child custody
evaluators and court reform advocates are interviewed over the one hour, 33
minute run time of the film.
In one compelling segment, Nevada County Superior Court whistleblower
More iReports you should see
Red Rocks Amphitheater in

winter
Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of

California family courts is effectively nonexistent. In a tacit admission, the
Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts declined Sorge's
request to be interviewed and respond to Gallup's documented accusations.
ByRasarag
Cesky Krumlov
ByRocioZ
SoCal Snow
Byhappyholly
Annual New Year's Day Coney

Island Polar Bear
But the locally well-known Ulf Carlsson case takes center stage and is woven
throughout the movie, overshadowing the horror stories of other litigants.
Judge Peter McBrien's clinically sociopathic, personal vendetta against
Carlsson - which in 2012 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice
Conrad Rushing called a "judicial reign of terror" - is chronicled in all its
perverse glory.
ByBQueen1
THE MISSING CHIBOK

SCHOOLGIRLS
ByAlashock
In the Divorce Corp clip above, Carlsson tells his harrowing story of personal
and financial ruin at the hands of McBrien, who ruthlessly punished Carlsson
for filing an appeal of orders issued by the judge. Sacramento family court
litigants Andrew Karres, Mike Newdow and Robert Saunders, and Nevada
County pro per Elena Haskins also make appearances in the movie
criticizing virtually every aspect of local court operations.
Judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, the family law facilitator, and even the
"child's best interest" legal standard are all held under the microscope and
come away nakedly exposed and tarnished. Sometimes, only a clich will do:
Divorce Corp must be seen to be believed.
Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Used with permission.
TAGS:
corrupion, carlsson, family, divorcecorp, sound_off, sacramento, judges, courts, comment,
mcbrien
GROUPS:
My life, Sound off

News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on
CNNgo.
SIGN UP
49
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport
LOG IN
Sacramento Superior Court

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Violations Continue
Not verified by CNN
By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

Posted July 27, 2014
by
Follow
LegalNews
Location
Assignment
This iReport is part of an assignment:

Breaking news
More from LegalNews
Family Court Judges Continuing Failure To

Disclose Judge Pro Tem Conflicts Violates
Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions Directive
California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme
Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt
in U.S. by Documentary Film
Service
An attorney and Sacramento Family Court News reader provided the

California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
Formal Opinion at this link. The opinion provides yet another legal reference
specifying that family court judges must disclose potential conflicts of
interest on the record. At court hearings where no court reporter is present,
the disclosure must be in writing, according to the CJEO.
In our original May, 2013 investigative report, we provided the legal
authority, including Judicial Ethics Updates and Ethics Opinions from the
California Judges Association requiring judges to disclose to opposing
parties and attorneys when a judge pro tem attorney represents a client in
court. As we reported at that time, in violation of state law family court judges
were failing to make the required disclosure.
The violations remain ongoing, and hundreds of cases are tainted by the error.
Red Rocks Amphitheater in

winter
ByRasarag
Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight is

responsible for the oversight of temporary judges, according to the CJA, the
Code of Judicial Ethics and other authority. Click here to view our 2013
report.
Cesky Krumlov
ByRocioZ
SoCal Snow
Byhappyholly
Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Reprinted with permission.

Family Court Judge Pro Tem Conflict of Interest Disclosure Law - California Supreme Court
Committee on Judi... by Sacramento Family Court News
Annual New Year's Day Coney

Island Polar Bear
ByBQueen1
THE MISSING CHIBOK

SCHOOLGIRLS
TAGS:
courts, law, sacramento, judges, corruption, breaking_news, family, conflict
GROUPS:
CNN International, News
ByAlashock
What do you think of this story?

Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this
iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
More from this assignment - Breaking news
AirAsia emergency landing in
Sony Hack - My Story and
Australians Do Not Fear
Philippines
Advice
Cowards
See all 16,855 iReports

News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
SIGN UP
676
459
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport

Not verified by CNN
LOG IN
California Appellate Court

Judge Vance Raye Implicated in
Alleged Federal Racketeering
Scheme
Posted December 30, 2014

by
Follow
LegalNews
By LegalNews | Posted December 30, 2014

Location
More from LegalNews

Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt
in U.S. by Documentary Film
Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest
Disclosure Violations Continue
Service
A Sacramento Superior Court watchdog group has posted online court

records and other documents which they allege detail a racketeering
enterprise operating in the local court system. Using court filings, court
reporter transcripts, public records and other documentary evidence,
members of the group say they have reverse engineered the structure and
players of the scheme.
448
"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.
The goal of the judge-attorney partnership is to significantly reduce the

caseload and administrative duties of full-time judges by effectively privatizing
the Sacramento Family Court settlement conference program, according to
the whistleblowers. The attorneys agreed to take over and run the program in
exchange for kickbacks in the form of preferential treatment from judges
when they appear in court representing clients.
"The attorneys ostensibly act as volunteers," said Carlsson. "But we have

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
Walter Scott Rally in North

Charleston
addition to other perks."
ByJStidham22
Bangkok Street Food

ByMarieSager
In order to run the settlement conference program, the attorneys are

designated as "judge pro tems," or temporary judges. In operating the
settlement program, the lawyers reportedly use heavy-handed, unethical
A brother, a sister and a

dinosaur
By
EtanHorowitz
tactics to coerce couples going through a divorce to reach a settlement.

When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are
Walker Scott Protest, North

Charleston City Hall
Byjwopd
required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed

judges.
Walker Scott Protest North

Charleston, SC
Byjwopd
"The coerced settlements often result in an unequal division of community

property, one-sided child custody arrangements, and unfair child and spousal
support payment terms that don't comply with state law," Carlsson explained.
"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."
The 43-page set of documents compiled by the group is posted online at

Scribd, and can be viewed at this URL:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/251282897/Justice-Vance-W-Raye-Charged-inColor-of-Law-Conspiracy-RICO-Racketeering-Scheme-in-3rd-District-Court-ofAppeal-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Sacramen
TAGS:
vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering,
3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud
What do you think of this story?

Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this
iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Comments (5)
Log in to comment
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

Elk Grove
Home

Find Your Patch
38
Partly Cloudy
All Topics
Opinion
Judge James Mize Misconduct: Criminal

Acts by Judge Pro Tem Condoned by
Supervising Family Court Judge
Family Court Whistleblowers Charge Oversight and Accountability of Attorney
Misconduct Nonexistent Under Leadership of Judge James Mize
By
Cathy Cohen (Open Post)
July 11, 2014 at 2:10pm
Sacramento Family Court Supervising Judge James Mize Fails

to Effectively Train, Supervise and Discipline Temporary
Judges, according to an Unsettling New Report from

Sacramento Family Court News
Whistleblower leaked records from aSacramento Family
Courtcase indicate that

criminal actswere
committed by
family law attorney and temporary judge
Paula
Salingeragainst
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 advocatessay
the case is another example
of the complete lack of
oversight and accountabilityof
attorneys who engage in

egregious misconductagainst
disadvantaged,
pro per litigantswho
can't afford legal
representation.
AsSacramento Family Court Newspreviously reported,
Salinger
has been caught in several scandals including
filing
counterfeit documentsin
court, violating
state lawsand
court rules,
illegally
attempting to obtain a final divorce
judgmentwhile
an appeal in the same case was pending, and
obtaining a questionable waiverof

the requirements to
become a temporary judge.
Attorney Collusion with

Judge Matthew J. Gary Documented
by Court Records
Salinger also obtained from

controversialJudge
Matthew
Garyan
illegal order for more than
$10,000 in attorney fee
sanctionsagainst
the same
contemptand domestic violence
victim.
To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use
fee waiver law
to
obstruct an appealof
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
Facebookand
Twitter,where
several posts
linked to supporting documents
posted at Docstocand
Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the

claims,SFCNdid not
report on the assertions pending
authentication of the
records.SFCNhas now verified the
accuracy of the documents
and posted the complete set
at our Scribd account.
The Scribd
document setalso is embedded with the original articleat
Sacramento Family Court News.
Obstruction of Justice
Crimes
The records indicate thatPaula Salinger, aSacramento

County
Superior Court
sworn temporary judgeand
officer of the
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
andJudge
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
used the 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
posted at Sacramento Family Court Newsis
an
authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
Contempt Filing Against

Salinger Client Triggers Criminal
Acts
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,
unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court

allegation against a
Salinger client. The contempt filing charged
several violations of the Standard
Family Law Restraining
Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings.SFLRO's are
automatically ordered against both parties when a
dissolution of
marriage is initiated in family court.
As page one of the document set posted at SFCNreflects,

Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial
harm in the
form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop
the criminal contempt case.
As page three and four reflect,
Salinger concurrently filed an illegal
responsive declaration in
the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in
attorney fee
sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.
As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law
the
response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer
the contempt
charge, or move to discharge the contempt on
appropriate grounds. Requesting
"affirmative relief," including
attorney fee sanctions, in response
to a contempt allegation is
prohibited by law. As page five of the document set
indicates,
Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the
contempt matter.
Witness Intimidation -
Influencing a Witness by Fraud
As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN

and Scribd,
Penal Code 133makes
it a crime to use fraud or
deceit to affect the testimony of a victim
orwitness.
Penal Code
136.1(a) & (b)make
it a crime to maliciously prevent or
discourage a witness or victimfrom
giving testimony at a judicial
proceeding.
Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by
the
State Bar,
Supreme Courtor
Judicial Council, or
otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per

advocates call the
absence of accountability more proof that
attorneys are effectively immune from
punishment for
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
racketeering enterprisethat
deprives the public of the
federally protected right to
honest government services.
Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro

tem attorneys
receive kickbacksin
the form of
rubberstamped ordersand
other
preferential treatmentfrom
family
court
judgesand
employees.
The divorce lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary
Judgeoperate
the family court settlement conference program
in exchange for the kickbacks
and
emoluments,watchdogs
charge.
California Penal Code 94makes
receipt of an
emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several
federal
criminal statutesprohibit
similar conduct. The 2014
documentary film
Divorce
CorpdesignatesSacramento Family
Courtas
the
most corrupt in the United States.For
our
complete coverage of the movie,
click here.
Click here to
view the original article at Sacramento Family
Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism
organization
publishing investigative reporting, news analysis,
opinion and
satire about the local family court system.

Fair Oaks-Carmichael
Home

Find Your Patch
69
Partly Cloudy
All Topics
Health & Fitness
Judge James Mize Apologist Shifts Blame

for Court Corruption to Judicial Council
Forms
Professor John E.B. Myers, a family law instructor at University of the Pacific McGeorge
School of Law, pens an intellectually dishonest defense of Sacramento Family Court
corruption and Supervising Judge James Mize.
By
CATHY COHEN
(Open Post)
July 23, 2014
Share

1
Comments
Sacramento Bee Editorial

Reveals Family
CourtCronyism ReachesLaw SchoolAcademic
Community
In a laughably inaccurate editorialpublished by the
Sacramento Bee, McGeorge School

of Law family law
professor John E.B. Myers redefined the meaning of the
out-oftouch, ivory tower academic.
Among other clueless assertions,
Myers made the bizarre, demonstrably falseclaim that:
Sacramentos family court, under the wise leadership of Judge

James Mize, serves the community well.
Family court watchdogs have collected and catalogued

overwhelming
evidence that Judge Mize provides anything but
wise
leadership, and that the court which operates essentially
as an organized, criminal enterprise serves only a select,
exclusive group of judge pro tem lawyers.

The community at large, and especially those financially
disadvantagedfamily court users without an attorney,
are
subjected to second-class statusunder an illegal two-track
system of justice.
Rationalization FAIL: "Unworkable Form-Driven

System" Responsible forInjustice
Myers went on to attribute what in fact is incompetence and

corruptionby family court judges and
employees to
incomprehensible Judicial Council family court forms:

Today, there are more than 200 family-law forms, making the
law
incomprehensible to anyone but an expertThe amazing
thing is that so many
lawyerless litigants somehow navigate
the labyrinth of financial and other
forms to accomplish their
goals in family court. Countless others simply give
up. Many try
their best but do not receive justice. Not because the people at
family court dont care, but because our form-driven family law
system is
unworkable, Myers wrote.
News Flash Professor Myers: Real world, lawyerless
family
court users will be happy to explain to you that the people at
family
court not only dont care, the people at family
court
knowingly and routinely collude with a secretive, insular
groupof for-profit, private sector judge pro tem divorce

lawyersto deprive lawyerless litigants of their children, income
and assets, and civil and constitutional rights.
Click here to
view a list of the divorce lawyers who also act as
judge pro tems and run the
family court settlement conference
program in exchange for favorable treatment by judges and
court employees.
The number of family law forms is not why
lawyerless litigants do
not receive justice, and the claim that there are 200
family-law
forms is a misleading red herring. But, nice try, professor.
Few, if any, uncontested divorce cases require more than 6-8
forms in total to complete a divorce, and a typical family court

law and motion
hearing requires just 1-3 forms.
As the recently released documentary film Divorce Corp makes
clear, lawyerless litigants do not receive justice because of

rampant, garden
variety corruption and collusion between
attorneys and judges.
University of the Pacific

McGeorge School of
LawAlumni Discredit the Legal Profession
And, in an ironic coincidence, many of the most corrupt,
unethical attorneys in
the group of attorneys from the cases
chronicled in Divorce Corp are
graduates of McGeorge School
of Law where Myers has taught family law and other courses
since
1984.
In addition, two McGeorge alumni not included in the movie
have been disbarred by the State Bar of California: divorce

lawyer Scott Kendall (for multiple
acts of misconduct), and
divorce lawyer Gary Appelblatt (for

sexual battery against
clients).
The Sacramento County judge pro tem group accurately is
called a cartel by family court reform advocates.

The cartel is
led by the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law
Executive Committee,
known among cartel attorneys by the
acronym FLEC.
Click here to read a

laundry list of documented examples of
collusion and corruption between cartel
attorneys and family
court judges and employees.
Family law attorney and Sacramento Bar Association
Family
Law Executive Committee officer Paula Salinger is an
esteemedMcGeorge Law Schoolclass of 2002
alumna.Salinger, alsoaSacramento Superior Court sworn
temporary judge, was recently accused of committing
obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent,

unrepresented family court domestic violence victim.
Salinger alsohas been caught inother scandals, including
filing
counterfeit documentsin court, violating
state lawsand
court rules, illegally

judgmentwhile an appeal in the same case was pending, and
obtaining a questionable waiverof the requirements to

In addition, corrupt and controversial family
court Judge
Matthew J. Garyis a McGeorge SOL graduate. Gary has been
involved in a string of misconduct allegationsdating back to
when he became a full-time judge in 2007, and reportedly is
currently under investigation by the Commission on Judicial

Performance,
the state agency responsible for oversight and
discipline of California judges.

Judge Sharon Lueras,
another proud McGeorge graduate, has
been blamed in the family
court-relateddeaths of 8-month-old
Ryder Salmen, and

9-year-old Matthew Hernanez. The
cases
have been covered by localand
national news outlets, including
Nancy Grace at Headline News.
Divorce Corp Documentary Film ExposCompels

Damage Control & Blame Shifting
Apparently coordinated with Judge James Mize and

Sacramento
Family Court administrators and employees,
Professor Myers editorial is nothing more than strategically

timed damage
control and blame shifting. The
nationwide
release of the documentary film Divorce Corp has put
the local
court system under intense, national scrutiny.
Featuring four cases from Sacramento
County more than
from any other court jurisdiction covered in the film
the
documentary portrays the family court system as the most
corrupt in the nation.
The Sacramento Family Law Court
cases of litigants Andrew Karres, Mike
Newdow, Robert
Saunders and Ulf Carlsson all get
screen time in the movie.
The details of the Carlsson case, involving criminally
convictedand twice CJP disciplined Judge
Peter McBrien and
judge
pro tem attorney and McGeorge graduate - Charlotte
Keeley, are
the most disturbing, and Ulf Carlsson himself
rightfully receives a
starring role.
The Divorce Corp video clip above provides the unsettling
details of the Carlsson case. For more on the film, visit the
Divorce
Corp website or the Divorce Corp YouTube Channel.
Sacramento
Family Court News is the only California news
source accurately reporting

on family court corruption. Click
here to visit the SFCN home page.
Share
FROM THE WEB
Tweet
Sponsored Links by Taboola

Fair Oaks-Carmichael

Find Your Patch
43
Partly Cloudy
Home
All Topics
Opinion
Paula Salinger Charged with Obstruction

of Justice Crimes by Family Court
Watchdog
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Accused of Criminal Acts Against
Domestic Violence Victim.
By
Cathy Cohen (Open Post)
July 14, 2014 at 4:46pm
Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner
Implicated in UnsettlingNew Report from

Whistleblower leaked records from aSacramento Family

Courtcase indicate that
criminal actswere committed by
family law attorney and temporary judge
Paula
Salingeragainst 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 advocatessay the case is another example
of the complete lack of
oversight and accountabilityof
attorneys who engage in
disadvantaged,
pro per litigantswho can't afford legal
representation.
AsSacramento Family Court Newspreviously reported,
Salinger has been caught in several scandals including
filing
counterfeit documentsin court, violating
state lawsand
court rules, illegally

judgmentwhile an appeal in the same case was pending, and
obtaining a questionable waiverof the requirements to

Attorney Collusion with Judge Matthew J. Gary

Documented by Court Records
Salinger also obtained from

controversialJudge
Matthew
Garyan illegal order for more than
$10,000 in attorney fee
sanctionsagainst the same
contemptand domestic violence
victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use

fee waiver law to
obstruct an appealof 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
Facebookand
Twitter,where several posts
linked to supporting documents
posted at Docstocand
Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims,SFCNdid not

report on the assertions pending authentication of the
records.SFCNhas now verified the accuracy of the documents
and posted the complete set
at our Scribd account. The Scribd
document setalso is embedded with the original article at
Sacramento Family Court News.
Obstruction of Justice Crimes
The records indicate thatPaula Salinger, aSacramento County

Superior Court
sworn temporary judgeand officer of the
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
used the 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
posted at Sacramento Family Court Newsis an
authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
Contempt Filing Against Salinger Client Triggers

Criminal Acts
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,

unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court
allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged
several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining
Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are
automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of
marriage is initiated in family court.
As page one of the document set posted at SFCNreflects,
Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial
harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop
the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect,
Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in

the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee
sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.
As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law the
response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer
the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on
appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including
attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is
prohibited by law. As page five of the document set indicates,
Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the
contempt matter.
Witness Intimidation - Influencing a Witness by

Fraud
As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN

and Scribd,
Penal Code 133makes it a crime to use fraud or
deceit to affect the testimony of a victim orwitness.
Penal Code
136.1(a) & (b)make it a crime to maliciously prevent or
discourage a witness or victimfrom giving testimony at a judicial
proceeding.
Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by
the
State Bar,
Supreme Courtor
Judicial Council, or
otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per
advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that
attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for
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
racketeering enterprisethat deprives the public of the

federally protected right to
honest government services.
Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro
tem attorneys
receive kickbacksin the form of
rubberstamped ordersand other
preferential treatmentfrom family
court
judgesand
employees.
The divorce lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary
Judgeoperate the family court settlement conference program
in exchange for the kickbacks and
emoluments,watchdogs
charge.
California Penal Code 94makes receipt of an
emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several
federal
criminal statutesprohibit similar conduct. The 2014
documentary film
Divorce CorpdesignatesSacramento Family
Courtas the
most corrupt in the United States.For our
complete coverage of the movie,
click here.
Click here to view the original article at Sacramento Family

Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism organization
publishing investigative reporting, news analysis, opinion and
satire about the local family court system.
Share
217
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
RoadDog SATIRE
Privacy Policy
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS
Terms & Conditions
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge

Program Controversy
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court

Operations, Charge Whistleblowers
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report

This investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in April, 2015.
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
As many of the articles on our main page reflect,

Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers
and watchdogs contendthat a "cartel" of local
family lawattorneys receive kickbacks and other
forms ofpreferential treatment from family
courtjudges, administrators and
employeesbecause the lawyers are members
of the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section, hold the Office of
Temporary Judge,and run the family court
settlement conference program on behalf of
the court.
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.For a detailed
overview of the alleged collusion between judge
pro tem attorneys and family court employees
and judges, we recommend our specialColor of
Law series of investigative reports.
The Color of Law series reports catalog some of

the preferential treatment provided by family
court employees and judges to SCBA Family
Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here
to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our
reports about family court temporary judges and
controversies, click here.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion

between judges and local attorneysdeprives financially disadvantaged,
unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community
assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system andattorney operated settlement conference program
was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his
2009Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
testimony.
In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J.
O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County
Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view
O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.
Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right
to honest government services.
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar- through the Family Law
ExecutiveCommitteeor 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
fourcases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.Judge pro tem
attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each
accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case,
featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case
profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as theGround Zeroof 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.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
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.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
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.
Californians Aware
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive Committeefor 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. Romanissued a rubber-stamped,
kickback orderdeclaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to
the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney
who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in
both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and
costing taxpayers significant sums.Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders
and help a client of judgepro 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
First Amendment Coalition
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child supportorder, 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 Beverenhelped 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 isan 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.
California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
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
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association
In 2008controversial family courtJudge Peter J. McBriendeprived a family court litigant of a fair trial
in a case where the winning party was represented by judge protemattorney Charlotte Keeley. In a
scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appealreversed in full and ordered a new
trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's
conduct in thecase 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 attorneysCamille Hemmer,Robert O'Hair,Jerry GuthrieandRussell Carlsoneach
testified in support ofJudge Peter J. McBrienwhen thecontroversialjudge was facing removal from
the bench by theCommission on Judicial Performancein 2009.As a sworn temporary judges aware
of McBrien's misconduct, each wasrequired byCanon 3D(1)of theCode of Judicial Ethicsto take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a
character witnessin supportof the judge. In theCJP'sfinal disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to
remain on the bench, theCJPreferred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment.Click here. Court records indicate thatJudge McBrienhas not disclosed the
potentialconflict of interestto opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge.Click hereforSFCNcoverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro temattorneysTerri Newman,CamilleHemmer,Diane WasznickyandDonna
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
Reedwereinvolved in a proposedscheme to rig a recall electionofcontroversialJudgePeter J.

McBrienin 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the
Year" before the November election.Click herefor theSacramento News and Reviewreport.
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 & Salingerwas later granted a waiver of the requirements to
become ajudge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's
testimony for McBrien.Click hereto read our exclusive investigative report.
Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
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 bySCBA Family Law Section officer
and temporary judgePaula 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 temporaryjudgeandfamily law lawyerGary 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 fourof
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
hereto read our report.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott Kendall was disbarred from the practice
of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate
the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not
telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without
notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to view our report.
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Estonin 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.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
155121
163
Google+ Badge
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 ofChair 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 otherarticles 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
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons,Click here. For a Judicial Council
directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.
For information about the role of temporary judges in

family court,click here.For officialSacramento County
Superior Courtinformation about theTemporary 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 Countyjudge pro tem list
withCalifornia 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 officialState Bar data for each attorney. The
State Bar data was obtained using thesearch function
at the State Bar website.
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
CECIL and CIANCI

(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court

recordsindicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from
judges kickbacks and otherpreferential treatment in exchange
for operating the familycourt settlement conference program.
For-profit, private sector

lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary Judge:
Sandy
LAW
SERIES
(11)
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
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
CONDUCT
(11)
CRIMINAL
Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
Street,Auburn, CA95603.
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
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 afterbeing convicted of
sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of
Law.
Beth
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135,1430 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA
95816.
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
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
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
Roseville, CA 95678.
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
RoadDog SATIRE
Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Terms & Conditions
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
Third District Court of Appeal:
Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
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
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
This ongoing investigative project was updated in April, 2015.
PRO PERS
(18)
Sacramento Family Court Newsis conducting an ongoing investigationof 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.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
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.
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
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.
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
In addition, a separateSFCN investigation has uncovered evidence that both trial and appellate court judges,
part-time judges, and court employees deliberately obstruct appeals by indigent, unrepresented parties. Appeal
data from the Third District reveals that most pro per appeals are never decided on the merits and are instead
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
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.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
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.
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
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.
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
Friends in Low Places
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions

show that Court of Appeal justices who were
elevated to the appellate courtfrom Sacramento
CountySuperior 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. Rayepreviously
were trial court judges inSacramento County
Superior Court.
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal
outcomesare inconsistent, and in large part determined by
the work history,and social or professional connections
ofthe three judges assignedtodecide an appeal.
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.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
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 fromSacramento 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 courtJudge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal andCJP 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.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
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 Californiadue to personal
and professional relationships with local state court judges.
Above the Law
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
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
The Divorce Artist
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.
History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County

Family Court System
In 1991, as a superior court judge, current3rd District
Justice Vance Raye partneredwith controversial family
court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law
Sectionin establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento
Family Courtsystem, 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
Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien
here in Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip
in Sacramento County Superior Court from 1997-2005.

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 hereto 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
McBriendishonestly impliedthat 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 theneeds of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has
shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and
Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here.
"[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...
[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town counsel," Gianelli
said.
According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
Page
Judicial Council
Performance
Court
State Bar Court
Association
be gender-specific)
Directory
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Divorce Corp
FindLaw
JDSupra Law News

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.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

CONTRIBUTORS
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.
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
"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
justicesbecause 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.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
155121
163
Google+ Badge
Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section
Holiday Luncheon.
Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge pro tem attorney favoritism, and
flagrantbias 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.
Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology &

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Issues
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
ABA
1102
(1)
AB 590
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
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.
One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family
Court system was the 2008 decisionIn re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate JusticesM. 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 Districtdecision subjected McBriento a second disciplinary action by the state
Commission on Judicial Performance.
The judge's first go-round with the CJPstemmed 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 2001Sacramento 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 thevalue 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.
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
CECIL and CIANCI

(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
(11)
SERIES
LAW
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT
(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
FAMILY LAW
(1)
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(11)
CRIMINAL
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)

EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using
COURT
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.
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in

McBrien CJP Prosecution
On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge
PeterMcBrien 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.
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
LAW
COURTHOUSE
(1)
FAMILY
(9)
FAMILY
LAW
COUNSELOR
(4)
FAMILY
LAW
FACILITATOR
(4)
FATHERS FOR JUSTICE

(1)
FEDERAL LAW
(2)
FEDERAL
LAWSUITS
(2)
FEE WAIVERS
(2)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
FIRST
AMENDMENT
(2)
FIRST
AMENDMENT COALITION
(2)
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.
FLEC
(28)
FOIA
(2)
FOX
(1)
FREDRICK COHEN
(4)
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.
GANGNAM STYLE
(1)
GARY E.
RANSOM
(1)
GARY
M.
APPELBLATT
(2)
GEORGE
NICHOLSON
(1)
GERALD UELMEN
(1)
GINGER
GREGORY
SYLVESTER
(1)
DWYER
(1)
HAL
BARTHOLOMEW
(1)
HATCHET
DEATH
(1)
HAZART SANKER
(2)
HONEST SERVICES
(4)
INDIGENT
(1)
INFIGHTING
(1)
J.
STRONG
(2)
JACQUELINE
ESTON
(2)
JAIME R.
ROMAN
(10)
JAMES
BROSNAHAN
(1)
JAMES
M.
MIZE
(15)
JEFFREY
Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and
Peter McBrien all workedfor former California Attorney General
While under oath before the CJP, Scotland verified
and Governor George Deukmejian.All were appointed to the
Sacramento County bench by Deukmejian.

that he was aware ofMcBrien's misconduct in the
Carlsson case.Scotland essentially defied the selfpolicing 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 reducedMcBrien'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
CaliforniaAppellate 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 beingborn on third base and going through life thinking he hit a triple. His interest in law developed
when he worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the state Department of Justice.
"[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was
an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've
bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me
fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view.
Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland
decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster
performance as a college student, law school presented a
problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family
connection.
"[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go
to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied
in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the
Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't
POSNER
(6)
(1)
JERRY
JERRY BROWN
GUTHRIE
(1)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JODY PATEL
(1)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
(1)
JOSEPH SORGE
(1)
JOYCE
KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JUDGE
PRO TEM
(50)
JRC
(1)
JUDGE
(1)
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)
JUDGES
(10)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK
(1)
JUDICIAL
COUNCIL
(5)
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDY HOLZER
HERSHER
(1)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
KIDS FOR CASH
(2)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
LAW
LIBRARY
(1)
LAW SCHOOL
(5)
LAWYER
(1)
LAWYERS
(7)
LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA
(1)
LEGISLATURE
(1)
LOLLIE
LINCOLN
(1)
ROBERTS
(5)
LOUIS MAURO
(1)
LUAN
CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
MARY
MOLINARO
(1)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ
(7)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
MCGEORGE
SOL
(2)
all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did
excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get
accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a
serious student. So I went to University of Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained.
"I didn't know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D.Schaber],
but my dad did. And my dad had done some life
insurance, estate planning work for McGeorge. And
again, my dad was an influence on my life because he
Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into
knew people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure
a law schoolwith liberal admission standards.

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. Scotlandexploited 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.
The Artifice
MEDIA
(1)
MICHAEL
T. GARCIA
(1)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH
(4)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)
NEWS
(24)
NEWS
EXCLUSIVE
(26)
NEWS
YOU CAN USE

(3)
News10
(1)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT
(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENT
RIGHTS
(1)
PARENTAL
PAULA
(15)
SALINGER
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ
ALIENATION
(1)
(3)
PRESIDING JUDGE
(2)
PRO
PERS
(18)
PROTEST
(9)
PSY
(1)
PUBLIC
RECORDS
(1)
RAOUL
THORBOURNE
(1)
M.
RAPTON(11)
KARRES
RECOGNITION/AWARDS
(3)
REVISIONISM SERIES
(2)
RICHARD SOKOL
(12)
ROBERT
HIGHT
(9)
ROBERT
O'HAIR
(8)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
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)
SACRAMENTO
FAMILY
COURT
(13)
SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT
(12)
SANCTIONS
(2)
SANTA
CLARA
LAW SCHOOL
(1)
SARAH ANN
STEPHENS
(1)
SATIRE
(11)
SCBA
(22)
SCHWARZENEGGER
(1)
SCOTT
BUCHANAN
(5)
SCOTT
KENDALL
(1)
SCSD
(1)
SEATON
CASE
(1)
SELF-HELP
(1)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(2)
SFCN READERSHIP DATA
(4)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
SHARON HUDDLE
(6)
SO YOU WANT TO GO TO
LAW
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.
In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character witness testimony for his old friend and law
enforcement co-workerPeter 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
SCHOOL
(4)
SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS
(5)
STATE AUDITOR
(6)
STATE BAR
(5)
STEPHEN
WAGNER
(2)
LEAVENWORTH
WHITE
BURLINGHAM
GEVERCER
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
STEUART
STEVE
STEVEN
STEVEN
STEVEN
performance.
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 theinitiative (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.
SUNDAY
(15)
FUNNIES
SPIELBERG
(1)
While testifying for McBrien,Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge'sbehalf 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.
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.
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.SFCNcurrently is
conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.
Blame the Victim

In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-workerPete McBrien,
and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of AppealJusticesKathleen Butz, Cole Blease and
Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson caseresulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland
SUNSHINE
WEEK
(2)
SUPERIOR COURT
(2)
SUPREME COURT
(3)
TAMI
BOGERT
(1)
TAXPAYERS
(1)
TERRY FRANCKE
(1)
BLIZZARD
(5)
THADD
THADDEUS
STEVENS
(1)
THE RUTTER GROUP
(1)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)
THOMAS WOODRUFF
(5)
TIMOTHY ZEFF
(5)
TOMMY
ULF
LEE
JONES
(1)
CARLSSON
(6)
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)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
ACT
(2)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WHITE HOUSE
(1)
WOODRUFF
O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
(11)
XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA
(4)
YOLO
COUNTY
(1)
YOUTUBE
(7)
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 Rushingknew 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, egregiousstructural and constitutional error by Judge
McBrien.Aftercarefully 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
thecarefullycrafted 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 attorneySharon 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 effectiveblame
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
includingCrime Victims United of California, and the
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's
defense team, Scotland dusted off thedog-eared
playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to
advance his personal agenda.
Contrary to the explicit findings by his colleagues at the 3rd District

Court of Appeal, in his deceptive CJP testimony JusticeArthur
Scotland blamed attorney Sharon Huddlefor the egregious
misconduct of his old friend, Judge Peter McBrien.
Scotland's irony-infusedblame the victim testimony,

misleading appeal reversal data, and theweight of character witness testimonyfrom a sitting Court of Appeal
presiding justice, along with similar character testimony from Sacramento CountySuperior Court Judges James
Mize, Thomas Cecil (currentlyOf 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
temsCamille 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
croniesMcBrien 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 Rushingalso 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.
Rehabilitation FAIL
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.
Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement

BlueCode of Silence
In addition, unpublished Third District Court of
Appealdecisions 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.
Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George Nicholson
rode to the benchon a "law and order" agenda.
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 asubsidiaryof - 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.
Role of Political Ideology

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 ProjectNicholson 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.
3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that
Justice George Nicholson is ethically-challenged,
"George Nicholson: We are here with retired
and not particularly qualified to speak on the subject.
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.
"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest

Indigent and Low-Income Litigants
In addition, the Third District Court of Appealin 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
efficientCourt of Appeal in the state. Equal protection of the law is implicated because other appellate court
districts do not apply the standard nearly as often as the Third District. Equal application of the law is a
foundational attribute of American Democracy.
Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento:

Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice.
Cole Blease
Ronald Robie
William Murray Jr.
George Nicholson
Kathleen Butz
Elena Duarte
Harry Hull Jr.
Louis Mauro
Andrea 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.
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
Home
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
JUDGE PRO TEMS
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL
RoadDog SATIRE
Terms & Conditions
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
14 January 2013
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court

Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule
Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and

Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law
Violations, Whistleblower Charges
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report.Part 1.
This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013
JUDGE PRO TEM

(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer and Manager Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees to
disregard state laws mandating entry of judgment procedure, charges a family court whistleblower.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked toSacramento Family Court Newscourt records
indicating that countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork required by state law. After any family
court hearing which results in a judgmentregarding child custody or visitation, spousal support, orany other
judgmentsubject to immediate appeal,California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to enter, file
and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court rule 8.104(e)defines "judgment" as any appealable
order.By law, the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide the notice of entry to all
parties.The notice provides an important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the destruction of exhibits
on file with the court. In addition, two other components of theFL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time frame
for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. In a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of
the mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the notice were drafted specifically to
eliminate miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click here and scroll down to the highlighted
text to view the relevant sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case.
For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations
Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
court employees to simply ignore the law, according to the source, who provided the information on the condition of
anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.
To continue readingPart 1 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
Omission of FL-190 Reduces Appeals by Family Court

Parties Without Lawyers
"This has been going on for years and judges, attorneys, the family law facilitator, the court of appeal, everyone is
in on this. One objective is to reduce or eliminate appeals by the indigent and self-represented," the source
explained. "The FL-190 is the first notification they get that they even have appeal rights. Without the notice, most
pro per parties are completely unaware that they can appeal child custody, visitation, support and many other
rulings from OSC and motion hearings."
The mandatory Judicial Council form contains a notification about the right to appeal a court order, and a warning
that exhibits may be destroyed or disposed of after 60 days from the expiration of the appeal time.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
Indigent and self-represented Sacramento Family Court parties do not receive this notice about their right to appeal child
custody/visitation, support and other orders.
California Supreme Court Confirms FL-190

Mandatory
In a 2007 decision,Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., theCalifornia Supreme Courtemphasized the
importance of the mandatoryJudicial Council FL-190form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to
family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time
frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.
"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc.,
664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always
give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically
drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to
occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that
clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of
Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's
certificate of mailing."Click here to viewAlan v. American Honda Motor Co.
Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form
which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious formalsois
served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil
Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form
that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raisesmoral turpitudeand other
ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the
counterfeit form issue.
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
The clerks certificate of mailing at the bottom of the FL-190 form contains information critical to filing a timely appeal.
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
Judge-Attorney Legal References Confirm FL-190

Procedure
Using the family law legal references used by judges and attorneys, Sacramento Family Court Newsverified
that the FL-190 must beserved and filed by a court clerk for all appealable orders. To view the FL-190
procedure reference in California Practice Guide: Family Law, written by judges for judges and attorneys, and
published by The RutterGroup, click here. To view a similar reference in the companion California Practice
Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, click here. In addition to the gold standard family law references, California
Practice Guide: Family Lawand Civil Appeals and Writs, the same procedure also is specified in Witkin
California Procedure. Click hereto view the Witkin instructions.
3rd District Court of Appeal Verifies Appealable

Orders Require FL-190
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented
litigants which confirms that, by law, appealable orders are the same as judgments, and therefore require service
of the FL-190 form. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:
"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an
appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an
order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help
Manual.
The whistleblower pointed out that superior court and Court of Appeal judges, the family law facilitator and
court employees are all paid by taxpayers to know and comply with the law. "There are thousands of court files
without FL-190's. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that they all have never noticed that the files do not
contain this mandatory Judicial Council form where required after law and motion hearings." According to public
records, Julie Setzer is paid $4,460 every two weeks, Colleen McDonagh earns $3,460 every two weeks, and
Denise Richards earns $36 per hour. Family court judges are paid $169,000 per year.
Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of
2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower
Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance,
bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct.Court employees who
violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics.At
the local level,Sacramento County Superior Courtpolicies and administrative proceduresprovide a discipline
processfor court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory,
dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior.Click hereto read the court'sdisciplinepolicy.
"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is
vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees
will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations,"reads the
policy introduction.
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
Page
Judicial Council
Performance
Court
State Bar Court
Association
be gender-specific)
Directory
Parents Association
Related posts:
Click herefor articles about family court employee misconduct.
Click herefor reporting on judicial misconduct.
Center for Judicial

Excellence
Click herefor posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
Click herefor family court whistleblower articles.
Click herefor family court watchdog coverage.
Divorce Corp
If you found this article useful or informative please share it onFacebook,Twitteror recommend it
onGoogle+and other social networking sites.
Posted by
PR Brown
at
11:15 PM

FindLaw
Labels:
ADMINISTRATORS,
ANALYSIS,
APPEALS,
CEO,
CIVIL LIABILITY,
COLLEEN MCDONAGH,
COLOR OF LAW SERIES,
EMPLOYEE
CODE OF ETHICS,
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT,
JULIE SETZER,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
STATE AUDITOR,
WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location:
Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Relations Courthouse

JDSupra Law News
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
JUDGE PRO TEMS
RoadDog SATIRE
Terms & Conditions
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
16 January 2013
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Sacramento Family Law Facilitator Misconduct: Lollie Roberts Violates

State Law - Mirrors Unlawful Court Administrator Policy, Whistleblower
Alleges
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
Family Law Facilitator OfficeGives False Info To Pro

Per Per Parties - Parrots Illegal Court Administrator
Policy
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 2
JUDGE PRO TEM

(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
Lollie Roberts, the Sacramento County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator has directed her staff to dispense false information about
the state law mandated Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form, a whistleblower charges.
This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013.
In a scheme allegedly coordinated with family court administrators, Sacramento Superior Court Supervising
Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts has directed her staff to dispense false information to unrepresented
family court litigants.Roberts' objective is to help conceal systemic violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and
state court rules by family court employees, according to court records and other information leaked by a family
court whistleblower to Sacramento Family Court News.Another objective of the alleged plan is to obstruct pro
per appeals by concealing a critical, state law mandated appeal rights notification from unrepresented, indigent or
financially disadvantaged family court litigants,according to the whistleblower, who provided the information on the
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
The appeal notice is part of a mandatory Judicial Council form, FL-190, which under state law court clerks are
required to file and serve after a family court judge issues an appealable order. As SFCNpreviously reported,
court administrators have instructed court clerks not to issue the FL-190 paperwork for appealable orders issued at
law and motion hearings. Roberts and her staff are conveying the same inaccurate information by instructing pro
per parties that the FL-190 is only issued when a divorce is finalized, and that appealable law and motion orders
are not judgments requiring issuance of the form. The falsity of the information has been verified by both the
California Supreme Court and Third District Court of Appeal.
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
Tocontinue readingPart 2of our seriesColor of Law, click Read more >> below.
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
The Plan to End Pro Per Appeals

As ourseries of reports documents, the alleged plan involves ensuring that unrepresented, financially
disadvantagedpro per family court parties do not receive notification of their right to appeal court orders related
to child custody/visitation, support and other judgments that can immediately be appealed. Other parts of the
scheme include obstructing the appeal fee waiver process, imposing an illegal 60-day appeal time frame where the
lawful time frame is 180-days, and impeding the ability to obtain a court reporter at trial court hearings, and a court
reporter transcript, without which an effective appeal is impossible. Co-conspirators in the planallegedly
includefamily court administrators, employees and clerks, judges, andjudge pro tem members of the
Sacramento County BarAssociationFamily Law Section. Staff at the Third District Court of Appeal
reportedly have tacitly condoned the plan by ignoring trial court irregularities and other evidence that reaches the
reviewing court.
The Family Law Facilitator

The function and duties of the Family Law Facilitator for
each county in California are specified in the Family Law
Facilitator Act, Family Code Section 10000100015.Facilitator duties include assisting
"unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigants
in gaining meaningful access to family court."
California Rules of Court rule 5.430 sets out the

minimum standards for the Office of the Family Law
Facilitator. The minimum standards include knowledge of
family law procedures and child support law. In
addition,Appendix C of California Rules of
Courtprovides guidelines for operation of the facilitator's
office. The guidelines include providing competent legal
information, including procedural information and
education so that litigants will have increased access to
the court.
As we reported in Part 1 of our Color of Law series, a

family court whistleblower alleges thatSacramento Family
Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Court Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom
Clerk Denise Richards have directed court employees to ignore state lawsthat require family court parties to be
notified of their appeal rightsand the time frame within which an appeal can be filed.The notifications are part of
themandatory Judicial Council FL-190Notice of Entry of Judgment form that must be filed and served by
court clerks after any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation,
support, or any other appealable order. To read Part 1 of the series, click here.
Family Law Facilitator Dispenses False Information

Court records provided bythe whistleblower indicate that Family Court Facilitator Lollie Roberts has instructed
her staff to notifyunrepresented, in pro perfamily court litigants seeking help that the Notice of Entry of
Judgment is only required for a final judgment, issuedat the conclusion of a divorce, separation or nullity. The
information is demonstrably false and canultimately result in a waiver of critical appeal rights of orders
involving child custody, support, and other appealable orders. When the FL-190Notice of Entry of Judgment
form is not served on unrepresented and financially disadvantaged pro perlitigants, most are unaware that they
have a right to appeal the order, and after 180-days the right to appeal the order is lost forever. In Part 3 of our
Color of Law report,additional court documentsleaked by a family court whistleblower indicate that family court
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)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
administrators have implemented an unlawful policy that condenses the 180-day appeal time frame to just 60-days.
Facilitator records provided to SFCN about the

entry of judgment issue indicate unlawful conduct
by the Family Law Facilitator's Office. Using
the facilitator e-Correspondence System, in
writing an indigent, unrepresented pro perfamily
court party asked facilitator staff why they had
not received a Judicial Council FL-190 Notice
of Entry of Judgment form after court orders for
child custody and support were issued in the
case. To read the original written question
submitted by the pro perto the Family Law
Facilitator, click here.
In response, staff of theFacilitator's Office
falsely claimed that the FL-190 "is only issued
when a judgment of dissolution, legal separation,
nullity (or some other judgment such as
In assessing whistleblower claims, Sacramento FamilyCourt News
paternity) is entered on the record." The
relies on the gold standard reference for family law, California Practice
Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide is used by family court judges and
response also falsely asserted that a Notice of
family law attorneys. Using the Practice Guide,Sacramento Family Court
Entry of Judgment is not issued when "a formal
Judge Matthew J. Gary provides monthly "Bench Tips" to family law attorneys.
Findings and Order After Hearing is
entered."Click here to read the response. The answer is calculated to confuse an unrepresented and financially
disadvantaged in pro perlitigant who would have little or no knowledge of family law and procedure, according to
the whistleblower. The FL-340 findings and order after hearing form is usually prepared by the opposing
attorney and the form does not contain the FL-190 appeal rights notification, nor the critical clerk's certificate of
mailing which establishes the lawful appeal time frame. Under state law, a neutral court clerk - not an opposing
attorney - is responsible for filing and service of the FL-190. As explained by the source,
"The facilitator response says 'It appears that many times in your case Findings and Orders After
Hearing were entered but since these were not judgments, no Notice of Entry of Judgment was
issued.' That answer is untrue. Almost any court employee knows, or should knowthat the findings
and order after hearing paperwork simply memorializes a court order. Itis unrelated to aNotice of
Entry of Judgment, which in cases with child custody, support and other appealable orders, is by
law required to be filed after the findings and order after hearing paperwork is filed," the
whistleblower said. "Just look at California Rules of Court rule 8.104(e), it defines 'judgment' as
any appealable order."
The leadingfamily law legal reference bookused by judges,attorneys, and appellate courts reviewing trial
court mistakes isCalifornia Practice Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guideverifiesthat for purposes of
appeal, the terms judgment and order are synonymous, and the book refers to the same court rule as the
whistleblower, 8.104(e). "An appealable order is a judgment - the facilitator staff response is not accurate and could
lead an unrepresented, financially disadvantaged party to believe they could not appeal an order that was, in fact,
appealable," the source added. Other legal references parrot the Practice Guide. For example,Witkin California
Procedurespecifies that "Some determinations, although characterized as 'orders' are in effect final judgments..."
and that "the chief test is appealability." Witkin also verifies that in family court cases, the term "judgment"
includes any appealable order, and that the FL-190 must be served and filed on all parties by a court clerk. Click
here to view the Witkin excerpt. The California Supreme Court and theThird District Court of Appeal in
Sacramento provide similar information.

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
Page
Judicial Council
Performance
Court
State Bar Court
Association
be gender-specific)
Directory
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
This notice of appeal specifically notified Sacramento Family Court appeals unit staff that a notice of entry of judgment was never filed in
the case as required by law. The clerk unlawfully applied a 60-day appeal time frame and rejected the appeal as untimely. The notice was
filed well within the correct 180-day time frame. For the full story, see Part 3 of our Color of Law series. Click here.
California Supreme Court Confirms Facilitator Error

In a 2007 decision,Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., theCalifornia Supreme Courtemphasized the
importance of the mandatoryJudicial Council FL-190form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to
family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time
Divorce Corp
FindLaw
JDSupra Law News
frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.
certificate of mailing."Click here to viewAlan v. American Honda Motor Co.
Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they
permitSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Sectionlawyersto file a counterfeit versionof the
form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.Thefictitious formalsois
served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both theCode of Civil
Procedureand the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form
that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raisesmoral turpitudeand other
ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception.Click herefor our complete report on the
counterfeit form issue.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
The "Clerk's Certificate of Mailing" at the bottom of the FL-190 form is a critical part of the form because it establishes the time frame
during which an appeal can be filed, according to the California Supreme Court.
Third District Court of Appeal Verifies Facilitator

Dispensing False Information
138819
136
The 3rd District Court of Appeal publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants that confirms
the same information regarding appealable orders. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:
Manual.
Google+ Badge
PR Brown
Follow
Court Rule Violations Are By Law Government

Misconduct
Filing and service of theNotice of Entry of Judgmentis required byCalifornia Rules of Courtrule 5.134.As of
2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of theWhistleblower
Protection Act,and constitutes government misconduct in thesame categoryas corruption, malfeasance,
bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion andsimilar types of misconduct.Court employees who
violate court rules and other laws also violateTenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics.At
the local level,Sacramento County Superior Courtpolicies and administrative proceduresprovide a discipline
processfor court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory,
dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior.Click hereto read the court'sdisciplinepolicy.
will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations,"reads the
Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws

If, as the whistleblower alleges, the non-compliance with rule 5.134 is part of a larger scheme or conspiracy that
ultimately deprives unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights, court
Labels
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
ABA
1102
(1)
AB 590
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
employees and taxpayers could be exposed to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may
also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color
of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to
honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be
subject to criminal prosecution under federal law.
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
In Part 3 of our Color of Law report,a Sacramento County Family Courtclerk unlawfully refuses to file an
appeal for an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigant. Click here to read Part 3.
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
CECIL
and CIANCI
(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
CHILD SUPPORT
(3)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
(11)
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT

(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(9)
CRIMINAL
FAMILY LAW
(1)
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
The staff of attorney Lollie Roberts, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, provided incorrect legal
information to this indigent, self-represented family court party. The opposing party is represented by a veteran family law attorney.
Sacramento Family Court Newsacknowledges

the confidential source who provided us with the tip that resulted
in this
article. We appreciate the tip.To send us youranonymoustip
by email, use ourContact
Page. All
communications are protected by thereporter's privilegeand
theCalifornia Shield Law. For further details
about our
confidentiality policy, see ourAbout
Pageand ourTerms
& Conditions Page.
Related articles and posts:
A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge
pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged
litigants.Click here.
Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and
attorneys.Click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge.Click
here.
Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual
battery against clients.Click here.
Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges.Click here.
Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards.Click here.
Failure to adequately train family court judges.Click here.
Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and
financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents.Click here.
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(13)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(18)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
COURTHOUSE
(1)
FAMILY
LAW
Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and
employees.Click here.
Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold
theOffice of Temporary Judgewhich may violate state unfair competition laws.Click here.
FATHERS FOR JUSTICE

(1)
FEDERAL LAW
(2)
FEDERAL
Judges cherry-picking state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined
result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys.Click here.
The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other
court proceedings.Click hereandhere.
Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to
remain in family court.Click here.
LAWSUITS
(2)
FEE WAIVERS
(2)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
FIRST
AMENDMENT
(2)
FIRST
AMENDMENT COALITION
(2)
FLEC
(28)
FOIA
(2)
FOX
(1)
FREDRICK COHEN
(4)
Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges.Click
here.
Failing to enforce theCode of Judicial Ethicsprovisions applicable to temporary judges.Click here.
GANGNAM STYLE
(1)
GARY E.
RANSOM
(1)
GARY
M.
APPELBLATT
(2)
GEORGE
NICHOLSON
(1)
GERALD UELMEN
(1)
GINGER
GREGORY
SYLVESTER
(1)
DWYER
(1)
HAL
BARTHOLOMEW
(1)
HATCHET
Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences.Click here.

For additional coverage of the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.
Posted by
PR Brown
at
10:17 PM
(9)
FAMILY
LAW
COUNSELOR
(4)
FAMILY
LAW
FACILITATOR
(4)
Recommend this on Google
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
APPEALS,
COURT RULES,
DENISE RICHARDS,
FAMILY LAW
DEATH
(1)
HAZART SANKER
(2)
HONEST SERVICES
(4)
INDIGENT
(1)
INFIGHTING
(1)
J.
STRONG
(2)
JACQUELINE
ESTON
(2)
JAIME R.
(10)
JAMES
JAMES M.
MIZE
(12)
JEFFREY
POSNER
(6)
JERRY BROWN
ROMAN
BROSNAHAN
(1)
FACILITATOR,
JULIE SETZER,
LOLLIE ROBERTS,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
PRO PERS,
WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location:
Family Court Sacramento - Sacramento County Superior Court: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway
Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
(1)
JERRY
GUTHRIE
(1)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JODY PATEL
(1)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
2 comments
(1)
JOSEPH SORGE
(1)
JOYCE
KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JUDGE
PRO TEM
(49)
JRC
(1)
JUDGE
(1)
Add a comment
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)
JUDGES
(10)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK
(1)
COUNCIL
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
(63)
JUDY HOLZER
Top comments
1 year ago
Most Family Law Facilitator's are also Attorneys who are currently part of the county bar
association. Unlike the facilitator in Sacramento, Attorney Kevin. J, Mendrick, he had once
represented my ex in a child support case. I called him on it, and told him that he worked on
my case back in 2001, in the facilitators office he stated, " I don't remember you" I just
laughed. He immediately got off the case. I am a strong believer in researching your
HERSHER
(1)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
KIDS FOR CASH
(2)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
LAW
LIBRARY
(1)
LAW SCHOOL
(5)
LAWYER
(1)
LAWYERS
(7)
LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA
(1)
LEGISLATURE
(1)
Cole Day Rain 1 year ago

I've been able to talk to the Family Law Facilitator's Office once. They basically took notes
and promised to call me later. Later I was contacted and basically accused of lying. Why
hadn't I signed the property settlement in the case I had agreed to sign on record? (Under
duress I might add.)
My answer was that the so-called agreement, when I finally received it
for signature, was DIFFERENT than what I had been led to believe I was agreeing to. See, I
Newer Post
JUDICIAL
(3)
Older Post
(1)
LUAN
CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
MARY
MOLINARO
(1)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ
(7)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
MCGEORGE
MEDIA
(1)
MICHAEL
SOL
(2)
T. GARCIA
(1)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH
(4)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)
Home
LOLLIE
LINCOLN
(1)
ROBERTS
(5)
LOUIS MAURO
NEWS
(24)
NEWS
EXCLUSIVE
(26)
NEWS
YOU CAN USE

(3)
News10
(1)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT
(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENT
RIGHTS
ALIENATION
(1)
(1)
PARENTAL
PAULA
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
JUDGE PRO TEMS
RoadDog SATIRE
Terms & Conditions
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
06 February 2013
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit

Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals

By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged
Litigants
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3
JUDGE PRO TEM

(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
This actual notice of appealwas filed by an unrepresented, indigent family court litigant and then unlawfully unfiled by a family court
clerk. The clerk's conduct violates state law and constitutes unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. Click here to view the
full image.
Sacramento County Family Court clerks are unlawfully refusing to file appeals by unrepresented, financially
disadvantaged family court litigants, according to a family court whistleblower.The policy constitutes an unlawful
interference with court of appeal proceedings underCalifornia Rules of Court rule 8.23.The rejection occurs
when a pro per party attempts to file a notice of appeal for child custody, support and other immediately
appealable orders more than 60-days after order after hearing paperwork is filed. By law, the time frame to take an
appeal from the orders is 180-days.The longer time frame applies because in family court cases, the court clerk
must give the parties notice of entry of judgment using the Judicial CouncilFL-190 Notice of Entry of
Judgment form. As policy, Sacramento Family Court does not issue the FL-190 form forappealableorders from
motion and OSC hearings. When the form is not issued, the appealtime frame is 180-days.Whenthe form is
issued, the appeal time frame is 60-days.In Sacramento Family Court,all appealable motion and OSC orders
are appealable for 180-days, yet court clerks are illegally rejecting the appeals after 60-days.
Tocontinue readingPart 3of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
Unrepresented Sacramento Family Court litigants report that the second floor "appeals unit" at the Family Relations Courthouse is an
unfriendly place. Sacramento Family Court News audits of several pro per appeals reveal that appeals unit employees routinely do not
follow state laws governing appeals.
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
As Sacramento Family Court News documented in parts one and twoof our Color of Law series, court
administrators - includingSupervisingFamily Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts- have directed subordinate
employees to ignore state law requiring the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgmentform be filed and served for all
appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to read part one andhere to read part two.
The FL-190 form notifies the parties of appeal rights and contains an important clerk's certificate of mailing
which determines the time frame for an appeal, according to state law, including a 2007 California Supreme
Court decision.
When the FL-190 form is correctly issued, the 60-day appeal time frame applies and begins to run when the
clerk's certificate of mailing is completed and the form is served by the court on all parties. When the form is not
issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. Sacramento Family Court clerksboth do not issue the FL-190 form,
andstillapply the shorter 60-day notice of appeal filing window using the filing date of order after hearing
paperwork filed by attorneys. Court records leaked by a whistleblower include a letter from a court clerk
"unfiling" a valid notice of appeal. In the letter, under penalty of perjury the clerkmisstatesthe law, and notifies
the unrepresented party that the previously filed appeal has been "unfiled." Attached to the letter is the litigants
original filed notice of appeal with a red "X" scrawled over the original filing stamp, along with the notation "unfiled"
and "SH," the initials of the clerk. SFCN has verified the authenticity of the documents by inspecting the original
court file. The documents leaked to SFCN are identical to those in the file.
Click here to view the original filed, and then unfiled notice of appeal.
Click here to view the letter from the court clerk.
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION

Shortly after filing a notice of appeal, this indigent, unrepresented family court litigant received this letterfrom Deputy Clerk Stephanie
Hinman "unfiling" the appeal. Hinman misstated the law, and signed the letter under penalty of perjury. Click here to view the full letter.
"A Deception That Is Demonstrably False"

To justify the 60-day time frame used to reject the appeal, the letter from the court clerk refers to "a Judgment
(sic)...filed and signed on May 18, 2012," and that the litigant was "noticed via mail with said judgment on May 25,
2012." The original court file from the case shows that the May 18 "judgment" referred to by the clerk was not a
judgment. The May 18 document is a "findings and order after hearing" filed by the opposing attorney. Click
here to view the complete May 18 document.The May 25 notice referred to by the clerk is a proof of service filed
by the opposing attorney for the findings and order after hearing document.
The clerks rejection of the appeal is based on applying a 60-day appeal window using the May 25 date, making July
25, 2012 the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on August 8, 2012, beyond the
incorrect date used by the clerk, but well within the 180-day lawful time frame. The 60-day time frame is only
applicable when an FL-190 is filed and served by the court clerk. The court file does not contain an FL-190. A
findings and order after hearing filed and served by an opposing attorney is not a substitute for an FL-190, and
does not result in a 60-day appeal time frame, according to state law and the family law references used by family
court judges and attorneys, includingCaliforniaPractice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group.
Click here to view the legal authority that applies to the connectionbetween the FL-190 and the 180-day time
frame. And in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the state Supreme Court pointed out that the title of the FL190 and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the form are specifically designed to eliminate disputes
about the time frame for an appeal in family law cases. The alleged motive of the clerk's letter is to deceive a selfrepresented litigant with limited knowledge of family law, according to the whistleblower.
"The letter from the clerk is designed to confuse the unrepresented party, and make them
believe the appeal was untimely," the whistleblower explained. "A typical pro per unfamiliar with
the law would fall for this deception. But it is exactly that - a deception - and a deception that
is demonstrably false, and illegal under [California Rules of Court] rule 8.23. It is an unlawful
interference with court of appeal proceedings."

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
Page
Judicial Council
Performance
Court
State Bar Court
Association
be gender-specific)
The clerk's certificate of mailing is a critical part of the mandatory FL-190 form because it determines the time fame within which a family
case appeal can be taken, according to the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento also confirms that any appealable order is considered a

Directory
judgment, and therefore requires filing and service of the FL-190 form. Without the form, the 180-day appeal time
frame applies. The information is provided in aSelf-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants published by the
appellate court. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual includes:
Manual.
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Divorce Corp
FindLaw
The notice of appeal filed by the pro per specifically notified the Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerk that no entry of judgment
was filed for the orders being appealed. Under state law, the time frame for the appeal was 180 days. Click here to view the complete
notice.

JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
Oversight and Accountability

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and
employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. More than five months after
the egregious error by Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman in rejecting a valid notice of appeal, the error remains
uncorrected and, it is self-evident, no discipline has taken place.The refusal to file a lawful appeal constitutes
unlawfulinterferencewith appellate court proceedings - a violation of California Rules of Court rule 8.23.
"Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code
of Civil Procedure1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative
responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe
"appropriate standards of conduct."
As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of
theWhistleblower Protection Act,and constitutes government misconduct in thesame categoryas corruption,
malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion andsimilar types of misconduct. Employee
conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by
the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other
laws also violateTenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento
County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees
who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or
unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court'sdisciplinepolicy.
will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the

Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
138819
Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone
unenforced.
Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws

Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights may expose court
employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also
apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of
law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to
honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be
subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. The constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and
access to the courts apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth.
136
Google+ Badge
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
In Part 4 of our report Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals, a court clerk files for a judge pro
tem attorney a faux notice of entry of judgment designed to unlawfully invoke a 60-day appeal time frame.
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
Click here to read all published articles in the Color of Law series.
Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the information and documentation for this article. We
appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and
the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.
Related posts:
Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.
Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.
Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
Click here for family court whistleblower articles.
Click here for family court watchdog coverage.
If you found this article useful or informative please share it onFacebook,Twitteror recommend it onGoogle+and other social networking sites.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.
Posted by
PR Brown
at
11:00 PM
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
APPEALS,
COURT RULES,
FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO,
FERRIS CASE,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
PRO PERS,
S. HINMAN,
WHISTLEBLOWERS
Location:
County of Sacramento: Superior Court-William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,
Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
3 comments
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
CECIL
and CIANCI
(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
CHILD SUPPORT
(3)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
(11)
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT

(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(9)
CRIMINAL
FAMILY LAW
(1)
Add a comment
Top comments
Thomas R 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Can anyone explain to me how the court clerk can set a hearing date that that makes it
completely impossible to abide by California civil code of procedure 1005 where it makes
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(13)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
JUDGE PRO TEMS
RoadDog SATIRE
Terms & Conditions
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
20 February 2013
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court Alleged:

SCBA Family Law Section Officer and Judge Pro Tem Files Fake Notices
with Court
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
Family Court Clerks Let Judge Pro Tem Attorneys File

Counterfeit Entry of Judgment Paperwork,
Whistleblower Charges
A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report.Part 4.
JUDGE PRO TEM

(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
Paula Salinger, a family law attorney who also holds the Office ofTemporaryJudge, uses this fake "Notice of Entry" document to reduce
the chance that an unrepresented opposing party will be able to take an appeal, claims a family court whistleblower. Click here to read
the complete notice.
Sacramento Family Court News has obtainedcourt recordsindicating that family court clerks allow judge pro
tem attorneys to file counterfeit "Notice of Entry" paperwork in place of the Notice of Entry of Judgment that
courtclerks are by law required to file and serve on all parties.The sham notice conceals a critical appeal rights
notification from indigent, unrepresented family court litigants, and at the same time ostensibly constricts the time
frame for filing an appeal from 180-days to just 60-days, according to a family court whistleblower. The fake form
also omits an important clerk's certificate of mailing, which the California Supreme Court has said is designed to
avoid ambiguity in appeal time frames.
"This is a component of thecollaborationbetween court administrators, judges and judge pro tem attorneysto
eliminate pro per appeals," the source said. "The fake 'Notice of Entry' contains none of the mandatory
notifications about appeal rights, and appeals unit clerks use the notice to unlawfully reject appeals after 60-days as if it were the same as the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form," explained
the whistleblower, who spoke on the condition ofanonymitybecause they could be subject to retaliation for the
disclosure. Instead of rejecting for filing the self-serving, homemade form, court clerks file it and then appeal unit
clerks use it to impose an illegal, condensed appeal time frame on unwary pro pers, according to the source.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
To continue readingPart 4of our seriesColor of Law, click Read more >> below.
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
To prevent indigent, unrepresented family court litigants from getting this notice regarding appeal rights, Sacramento Family Court clerks
allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a sham "Notice of Entry" form instead of the FL-190 formrequiredunder state law, according to a
court whistleblower.
As Sacramento Family Court News reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of our Color of Law series, court
administrators, including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts have directed court clerks to
ignore state law requiring court staff to file and serve theFL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgmentfor all appealable
orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Roberts hasinstructed her staff to notify unrepresented,
financiallydisadvantagedlitigants that the FL-190 is not required for appealable orders issued at motion and OSC
hearings. Click here to view the inaccurate information about the FL-190 requirement thatOffice of the Family
Law Facilitator staff dispense to unrepresented litigants. Click here to read all ofPart 1 of the Color of Law
series and click here for Part 2.
Family court supervisors also have directed court employees to

permit judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of
Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" as a substitute
for the FL-190, according to the source. SFCNobtainedthree
filed examples of the fake notice.
The three samples were filed by attorney and temporary judge

Paula Salinger. Salinger also acts as secretary on the Family
Law Executive Committee of the Sacramento County Bar
Association Family Law Section. Click here to view the
notices, which were filed in 2011 and 2012. As SFCN reported,
in 2011 Salinger was granted a waiver by then-Presiding
Judge Steve White of the minimum State Bar membership
requirement for temporary judges. The attorney is a partner at
Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger Inc.,a prominent
family law firm where all four attorneys also hold the Office of
Temporary Judge. One of the deceptive forms was signed on
Salinger's behalf by firm partner and Judge Pro Tem Jeffrey J.
Posner. From 2006-2009, Posner held each officer post on the
Family Law Executive Committee.
Judge pro tem attorneys use thefictitiousnotice of entry against
self-represented litigants who have little knowledge of family
Paula Salinger is a family law attorney,temporary judge,
law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. "The
and secretary of theSacramento Bar Association
attorneys use the fake notice in cases where the opposing party
Family Law Executive Committee.
doesn't have a lawyer and doesn't know any better. If a pro
perdoes somehow figure out that they can appeal an order
from a motion or OSC hearing, and then tries to file a notice of appeal, the appeals unit will use the
spuriousNotice of Entry to claim the appeal is untimely after 60-days," the source explained. "Without the filing
and service of the mandatory FL-190 Judicial Council form by a court clerk, the appeal time frame is, by law,
180-days. The pseudo notice isn't used by judge pro tem attorneys in cases where both sides have a lawyer
because most attorneys know there is no such thing as a quote Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After
Hearing, unquote," the whistleblower said.
"Court clerks also know the fake notices are fake, and that they should not even be filing them.
But they do file them because they are following orders.It also should be troubling that court
filings by pro pers are routinely rejected by filing clerks because of minor technicalities, yet
here you have a judge pro tem filing completely sham paperwork without any problem.It's all
part of the plan by court administrators, full-time judges, and temporary judges to eliminate
appeals by the indigent and unrepresented," the source added.
SFCN has confirmed the allegation as substantially accurate. There is no reference to a "Notice of Entry of Findings
and Order After Hearing" in multiple family and civil law referencessearched by SFCN. The leading family law
treatise written by and for judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, provides detailed
instructions for order after hearing procedure and there is no reference to the notice filed by Salinger.
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
California Supreme Court Confirms Judge Pro Tem

Notice Counterfeit
In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to
family law proceedings.
certificate of mailing."Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.
The fictitious form filed by family court clerks for temporary judgeattorneys does not contain a clerk's certificate of
mailing, and is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk - also raising ethical
issues.Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and
other important notifications required by law raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against
attorneys who engage in the deception.

Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
Page
Judicial Council
Performance
Court
State Bar Court
The deceptive, homemade "Notice of Entry" form filed by family law attorney, judge pro tem, and Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section officer Paula Salinger omits this Clerk's Certificate of Mailing component of the mandatory FL-190 form.
In a related situation, SFCNrecently documentedin Part 3 of the Color of Law series that an appeals unit clerk
unlawfully rejected the appeal of an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Falsely claimingunder penalty of perjury that
the filing and service by the opposing attorney of a Findings and Order After Hearing formconstituted a
"judgment" andtriggered a 60-day appeal time frame, the clerk rejected the appeal as untimely. Click here to read
Part 3.
Family Court Oversight and Accountability

As we reported previously, filing and service of
the FL-190Notice of Entry of Judgment is
required by California Rules of Court rule
5.134.Sacramento Superior Courtinternal
policies and administrative proceduresspecify a

discipline processfor
court employees who
violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or
engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous

or unbecoming behavior.Click hereto read
the
court's employee discipline policy.
"It is understood that
the Court has a
critical role to play in the County's
justice system. It is vital that the public
maintain its trust in the Court system. As
a
result, trial court employees will be
held to a higher standard of conduct
than
employees of other
organizations,"reads the policy
introduction.

Association
be gender-specific)
Directory
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Divorce Corp
FindLaw
JDSupra Law News
In addition,as of 2011, the failure by government

employees to comply with any state court rule is a
violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act,
The Supreme Court of California confirms that court clerks must
and constitutes government misconduct in the
serve and file the FL-190 form in applicable proceedings.
same category as corruption, malfeasance,
bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct.In addition, court
employees who violate court rules and other laws also violateTenet Five of the California Court Employee
Code of Ethics.The lack of oversight and accountability indicates that the deceptive, unlawful court filings are
condoned by court administrators. According to a criminal law attorney,the elementsof a violation ofPenal
Code 182- conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws - specify that an
agreement or conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of those accused of the crime. Other criminal statutes
that may apply includePenal Code 470(c),altering, corrupting or falsifying a legal document, andPenal Code
470(d), altering a document with the intent to cause damage to alegal, financial or property right. The facts and
circumstances surrounding the fake notice of entry filings imply an intent to effectively alter the valid FL-190 form
and replace it with a corrupt or altered document intended to impede the lawful appeal rights of the opposing party.
Federal Civil and Criminal Liability

Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights also may expose court
employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in acivil lawsuit. Federalcriminal statutesmay also
apply. Federal criminal law prohibitsconspiracy against civil rightsanddeprivation of rights under color of
law.Sacramento Family Courtreceives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to
honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who collude with private sector lawyers and fail
to provide honest services to the public may be subject tocriminal prosecutionunderfederal law. To a view a
federal criminal indictment for honest services fraud involving collusion between government and court
employees and private sector attorneys click here.
In Part 5of our Color of Law report:the unlawful fee waiver gauntlet used by court clerks and judges to frustrate
appeals by indigent, unrepresented family court parties.
Click here to read all articles in the Color of Lawseries.
Related posts:
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
138819
Click herefor articles about family court employee misconduct.

Click herefor reporting on judicial misconduct.
Click herefor posts about the Family Law Facilitator.
136
Click herefor family court whistleblower articles.

Click herefor family court watchdog coverage.
Google+ Badge
Click here for articles about judge pro tem attorney Paula D. Salinger.
Click here for coverage of Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger, Inc.
If you found this article useful or informative please share it onFacebook,Twitteror recommend it
onGoogle+and other social networking sites.If you have additional information about this subject, or any news tip
aboutSacramento Family Courtsend us an emailor use ourContact Page.
PR Brown
Follow

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click on the corresponding Labels below.
Posted by
PR Brown
at
10:20 PM
Labels
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
FLEC,
JEFFREY POSNER,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
JULIE SETZER,
LOLLIE ROBERTS,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
PAULA SALINGER,
PRO PERS,
WHISTLEBLOWERS,
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
Location:
County of Sacramento Superior Court - FRC -William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,
Sacramento, CA 95826, USA
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
1 comment
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
Add a comment
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
Top comments
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower
News via Google+ 8 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly
SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Paula Salinger files counterfeit "notice
of entry" paperwork with court.
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
+2
1 Reply
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
CECIL
and CIANCI
(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
CHILD SUPPORT
(3)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
Newer Post
Home
Older Post
(11)
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT

(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(9)
CRIMINAL
FAMILY LAW
(1)
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(13)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In

HOME
JUDGE PRO TEMS
RoadDog SATIRE
Terms & Conditions
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
27 January 2014
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
Attorney Misconduct: Diane Wasznicky Illegal Court Filing Not In

Compliance With State Law - Ignored by Court Filing Clerks
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
Family Court Clerks File Non-Compliant Documents

for Judge Pro Tem Attorneys - Reject Pro Per
Documents
Monday Document Dump
JUDGE PRO TEM

(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
As the court filing embedded at the bottom of this article reflects,Sacramento Family Court clerks file paperwork for
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys which, by law, they are required to reject for
filing. The California Rules of Court specify the format of papers filed with every court in the state. The
requirements are mandatory, not optional. Under rule 2.118, court clerks must reject any papers that do not
comply with court rules. Click here to view the rule. For example, under rule 2.108, line numbers must be placed
in the left margin of papers filed with a court.
ARTS & CULTURE

(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
The declaration filed by judge pro tem

attorney Diane Wasznickywith the
request for order embedded below is
drafted on blank paper without line
numbers. The illegal and unethical
litigation tactic - which also is used by
other judge pro tem lawyers prevents the opposition from filing
written evidentiary objections.
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
Line numbers are required because in

order to make written objectionsto
false or inadmissible evidence
contained in a declaration,the
opposing party must, by law, specify
the line numbers to show exactly
which portions of the declaration
contain false, misleading, or
incomplete facts. If inaccurate
evidence is not objected to it is by law
considered accurate.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
Family court watchdogs assert that Diane Wasznicky and other
judge pro tem attorneys receive preferential treatment, and kickbacks
in the form of "rubber-stamped" court orders in exchange for running
the family court settlement conference program.
To continue reading, and to view the

the unlawful court filing click Read more >> below...
The objections also are critical in any subsequent appeal, according to veteran Sacramento family law attorney
Stephen James Wagner. "The failure to object to false evidence waives the right to challenge the court's ruling
based on such evidence," according to California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, and Civil Trials &
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
Evidence, the legal reference booksused by judges and attorneys. Family courtwatchdogs have documented
that declarations filed by attorneys often contain false or otherwise inadmissible evidence - which becomes
admissible if objections are not lodged. Court records indicate thatdivorce lawyer and temporary judgeDiane
Wasznickyroutinely is allowed by family court clerks to file declarations on blank paper without line numbers in
cases where the opposing party is unrepresented.
Under state law, the failure to comply with court rules constitutes moral turpitude, and a violation of Business &
Professions Code 6106and the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Canon 3D(2) of the Code
of Judicial Ethics - the ethical standards all judges must follow - family court judges are required to take
appropriate corrective action against the attorney, including reporting the misconduct to the State Bar. In addition,
family court reform advocates have documented that pro per drafted pleadings are closely scrutinized and often
rejected for filing by court clerks because of trivial errors. Watchdogs point out that the failure of court employees
to reject the defective filings, and the refusal of judges to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics and hold
attorneys accountable is additional evidence supporting their long-running assertion that a "cartel" of SCBA
Family Law Section attorneys, who also serve as temporary judges, receive preferential treatment from court
employees and judges. They claim that the arrangement deprives the public of the right to honest government
services, a federal crime.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
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:
YOUTUBE
(7)
Diane Wasznicky Divorce Attorney - Unlawful Court Filing Sacramento County Superior Court Bartholomew & W... by Sacramento Family Court News
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
3rd DISTRICT COA

(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Californians Aware
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Share
Posted by
PR Brown
at
10:10 PM
of
Embed
Labels:
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT,
BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY,
COURT EMPLOYEE CODE OF
ETHICS,
DIANE WASZNICKY,
DOCUMENTS,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
STEPHEN WAGNER
Location:
William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
1 comment
LEGAL NEWS &
INFORMATION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

112. Liability of private party, 12 Cal. Jur.

3d Civil Rights 112

12 Cal. Jur. 3d Civil Rights 112

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

112. Liability of private party, 12 Cal. Jur. 3d Civil Rights 112

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

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

1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action..., 1 State and Local...

1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action..., 1 State and Local...

1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action..., 1 State and Local...

(3) Compulsion or Significant Encouragement: Although, as noted, government approval or acquiescence

1:4. DefendantsPrivate individuals and state action..., 1 State and Local...

Cal. Civ. Prac. Civil Rights Litigation 7:8

6) it is entwined with government policies or

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

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

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

About this iReport

Sacramento Superior Court

Not verified by CNN

By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

This iReport is part of an assignment:

More from LegalNews

It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

More iReports you should see

Red Rocks Amphitheater in

Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of

Annual New Year's Day Coney

THE MISSING CHIBOK

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

About this iReport

Sacramento Superior Court

Not verified by CNN

By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

This iReport is part of an assignment:

More from LegalNews

Family Court Judges Continuing Failure To

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

An attorney and Sacramento Family Court News reader provided the

More iReports you should see

Red Rocks Amphitheater in

Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight is

Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Reprinted with permission.

Annual New Year's Day Coney

THE MISSING CHIBOK

What do you think of this story?

More from this assignment - Breaking news

AirAsia emergency landing in

Sony Hack - My Story and

Australians Do Not Fear

See all 16,855 iReports

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

About this iReport

California Appellate Court

Posted December 30, 2014

By LegalNews | Posted December 30, 2014

More from LegalNews

A Sacramento Superior Court watchdog group has posted online court

The goal of the judge-attorney partnership is to significantly reduce the

"The attorneys ostensibly act as volunteers," said Carlsson. "But we have

Walter Scott Rally in North

addition to other perks."

Bangkok Street Food

In order to run the settlement conference program, the attorneys are

A brother, a sister and a