or

GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 8547-8547.15

8547.1. The Legislature finds and declares that state employees

should be free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation
of law, or threat to public health without fear of retribution. The
Legislature further finds and declares that public servants best
serve the citizenry when they can be candid and honest without
reservation in conducting the people's business.

et
w

8547. This article shall be known and may be cited as the

"California Whistleblower Protection Act."

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

8547.2. For the purposes of this article, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(a) "Employee" means an individual appointed by the Governor, or
employed or holding office in a state agency as defined by Section
11000, including, for purposes of Sections 8547.3 to 8547.7,
inclusive, an employee of the California State University, or an
individual appointed by the Legislature to a state board or
commission and who is not a Member or employee of the Legislature. In
addition, "employee" means a person employed by the Supreme Court, a
court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of
the Courts for the purposes of Sections 8547.3 to 8547.7, inclusive,
and Section 8547.13, except for those provisions of Section 8547.4
concerning notice of adverse action and the State Personnel Board.
"Employee" includes a former employee who met the criteria of this
subdivision during his or her employment.
(b) "Illegal order" means a directive to violate or assist in
violating a federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation, or an
order to work or cause others to work in conditions outside of their
line of duty that would unreasonably threaten the health or safety of
employees or the public.
(c) "Improper governmental activity" means an activity by a state
agency or by an employee that is undertaken in the performance of the
employee's duties, undertaken inside a state office, or, if
undertaken outside a state office by the employee, directly relates
to state government, whether or not that activity is within the scope
of his or her employment, and that (1) is in violation of any state
or federal law or regulation, including, but not limited to,
corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property,
fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious
prosecution, misuse of government property, or willful omission to
perform duty, (2) is in violation of an Executive order of the
Governor, a California Rule of Court, or any policy or procedure
mandated by the State Administrative Manual or State Contracting
Manual, or (3) is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct,
incompetency, or inefficiency. For purposes of Sections 8547.4,
8547.5, 8547.7, 8547.10, and 8547.11, "improper governmental activity"
includes any activity by the University of California or by an
employee, including an officer or faculty member, who otherwise meets
the criteria of this subdivision. For purposes of Sections 8547.4,
8547.5, and 8547.13, "improper governmental activity" includes any
activity by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court,
or the Administrative Office of the Courts, or by an employee
thereof, who otherwise meets the criteria of this subdivision.
(d) "Person" means an individual, corporation, trust, association,
a state or local government, or an agency or instrumentality of any
of the foregoing.
(e) "Protected disclosure" means a good faith communication,
including a communication based on, or when carrying out, job duties,
that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information
that may evidence (1) an improper governmental activity, or (2) a
condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of
employees or the public if the disclosure or intention to disclose
was made for the purpose of remedying that condition. Protected
disclosure specifically includes a good faith communication to the
California State Auditor's Office alleging an improper governmental
activity and any evidence delivered to the California State Auditor's
Office in support of the allegation. "Protected disclosure" also
includes, but is not limited to, a complaint made to the Commission

et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

8547.3. (a) An employee may not directly or indirectly use or

attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee
for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding,
or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person
for the purpose of interfering with the rights conferred pursuant to
this article.
(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), "use of official authority
or influence" includes promising to confer, or conferring, any
benefit; effecting, or threatening to effect, any reprisal; or
taking, or directing others to take, or recommending, processing, or
approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to,
appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation,
suspension, or other disciplinary action.
(c) Any employee who violates subdivision (a) may be liable in an
action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended
party.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an
individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by or under
law.

or
k

on Judicial Performance.
(f) "State agency" is defined by Section 11000. "State agency"
includes the University of California for purposes of Sections 8547.5
to 8547.7, inclusive, and the California State University for
purposes of Sections 8547.3 to 8547.7, inclusive. Sections 8547.3 to
8547.7, inclusive, shall apply to the Supreme Court, the courts of
appeal, the superior courts, and the Administrative Office of the
Courts in the same manner as they apply to a state agency.

rn
i

Ju

8547.4. The State Auditor shall administer this article and shall
investigate and report on improper governmental activities. If, after
investigating, the State Auditor finds that an employee may have
engaged or participated in improper governmental activities, the
State Auditor shall prepare an investigative report and send a copy
of the investigative report to the employee's appointing power.
Subject to the limitations of Section 8547.5, the State Auditor may
provide to the employee's appointing power any evidence gathered
during the investigation that, in the judgment of the State Auditor,
is necessary to support an adverse action or an action recommended
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8547.7. Within 60 days after
receiving a copy of the State Auditor's investigative report, the
appointing power shall either serve a notice of adverse action upon
the employee who is the subject of the investigative report or set
forth in writing its reasons for not taking adverse action. The
appointing power shall file a copy of the notice of adverse action
with the State Personnel Board in accordance with Section 19574, and
shall submit a copy to the State Auditor. If the appointing power
does not take adverse action within 60 days of receiving a copy of
the State Auditor's investigative report, it shall submit its written
reasons for not doing so to the State Auditor and the State
Personnel Board, and adverse action may be taken as provided in
Section 19583.5. Any employee who is served with a notice of adverse
action may appeal to the State Personnel Board in accordance with
Section 19575.

al

if
o

8547.5. (a) The State Auditor shall create the means for the
submission of allegations of improper governmental activity both by
transmission via mail or other carrier to a specified mailing address
and electronic submission through an Internet Web site portal. The
State Auditor may request that a person submitting an allegation
provide his or her name and contact information and provide the names
and contact information for any persons who could help to
substantiate the claim. However, the State Auditor shall not require
any person submitting an allegation to provide his or her name or
contact information and shall clearly state on the agency Internet
Web site that this information is not required in order to submit an
allegation.
(b) Upon receiving specific information that any employee or state
agency has engaged in an improper governmental activity, the State
Auditor may conduct an investigation of the matter. The identity of
the person providing the information that initiated the
investigation, or of any person providing information in confidence
to further an investigation, shall not be disclosed without the
express permission of the person providing the information except
that the State Auditor may make the disclosure to a law enforcement
agency that is conducting a criminal investigation.

or
k
et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

8547.6. (a) The State Auditor may request the assistance of any
state department, agency, or employee in evaluating an allegation or
conducting any investigation of an improper governmental activity as
authorized by this article. In response to a request for assistance
from the State Auditor, that state department, agency, or employee
shall provide the assistance, including, but not limited to,
providing access to documents or other information in a timely
manner, as required by Section 8545.2. If an investigation conducted
by the State Auditor involves access to confidential academic peer
review records of University of California academic personnel, these
records shall be provided in a form consistent with university policy
effective on August 1, 1992. No information obtained from the State
Auditor by any department, agency, or employee as a result of the
State Auditor's request for assistance, nor any information obtained
thereafter as a result of further investigation, shall be divulged or
made known to any person without the prior approval of the State
Auditor.
(b) As an alternative to conducting its own investigation, if the
State Auditor determines that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a state agency or employee may have engaged in an improper
governmental activity, the State Auditor, subject to the limitations
of Section 8547.5, may refer the allegation to the involved state
agency, or to another state agency having direct oversight of the
involved state agency, to conduct an investigation of the allegation
under the State Auditor's supervision. If the State Auditor refers an
allegation to the involved state agency or to another state agency
having direct oversight of the involved state agency, that state
agency shall investigate the allegation and report the results of the
investigation to the State Auditor within 60 days of the referral
and monthly thereafter until final action has been taken. In
addition, whenever the State Auditor determines that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a state agency or employee may have
engaged in an improper governmental activity, the State Auditor,
subject to the limitations of Section 8547.5, may refer the
allegation to a criminal or administrative law enforcement agency in
lieu of conducting or supervising an investigation of the matter.

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

8547.7. (a) If, after investigating an allegation, the State

Auditor finds that a state agency or employee may have engaged or
participated in an improper governmental activity, he or she shall
prepare an investigative report and send a copy of that report to the
head of the agency involved and to the head of any other agency that
has direct oversight over that involved agency. The investigative
report may include the State Auditor's recommended actions to prevent
the continuation or recurrence of the activity. If appropriate, the
State Auditor shall report this information to the Attorney General,
the policy committees of the Senate and Assembly having jurisdiction
over the subject involved, and to any other authority that the State
Auditor determines appropriate. Subject to the limitations of Section
8547.5, the State Auditor may provide to the involved agency any
evidence gathered during the investigation that, in the judgment of
the State Auditor, is necessary to support any of the
recommendations. Within 60 days of receiving the State Auditor's
investigative report, the involved agency shall report to the State
Auditor any actions that it has taken or that it intends to take to
implement the recommendations. The agency shall file subsequent
reports on a monthly basis until final action has been taken.
(b) The State Auditor shall not have any enforcement power. In any
case in which the State Auditor finds that a state agency or
employee may have engaged in an improper governmental activity, the
State Auditor may provide the finding, and any evidence supporting
the finding, subject to the limitations of Section 8547.5, to a
criminal law enforcement agency, an administrative law enforcement
agency, or a licensing agency that has authority to investigate the
matter.
(c) The State Auditor shall keep confidential every investigation,
including, but not limited to, all investigative files and work
product, except that the State Auditor, whenever he or she determines
it necessary to serve the interests of the state, and subject to the
limitations of Section 8547.5, may issue a public report of an
investigation that has substantiated an improper governmental
activity, keeping confidential the identity of the employee or
employees involved. In addition, subject to the limitations of
Section 8547.5, the State Auditor may release any findings or
evidence supporting any findings resulting from an investigation

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

8547.8. (a) A state employee or applicant for state employment who

files a written complaint with his or her supervisor, manager, or the
appointing power alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts prohibited
by Section 8547.3, may also file a copy of the written complaint with
the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the
contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the
affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint filed
with the board, shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent
act of reprisal complained about.
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state
employee or applicant for state employment for having made a
protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for a period
not to exceed one year. Pursuant to Section 19683, any state civil
service employee who intentionally engages in that conduct shall be
disciplined by adverse action as provided by Section 19572.
(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for
state employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be
liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the
injured party. Punitive damages may be awarded by the court where the
acts of the offending party are proven to be malicious. Where
liability has been established, the injured party shall also be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as provided by law. However,
any action for damages shall not be available to the injured party
unless the injured party has first filed a complaint with the State
Personnel Board pursuant to subdivision (a), and the board has
issued, or failed to issue, findings pursuant to Section 19683.
(d) This section is not intended to prevent an appointing power,
manager, or supervisor from taking, directing others to take,
recommending, or approving any personnel action or from taking or
failing to take a personnel action with respect to any state employee
or applicant for state employment if the appointing power, manager,
or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is justified
on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact that the
person has made a protected disclosure as defined in subdivision (b)
of Section 8547.2.
(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that an activity
protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged
retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the
burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing
power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent
reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures
or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or
appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse
action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge,
or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a
contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative
defense in the adverse action.
(f) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement.

or
k

conducted pursuant to this article whenever the State Auditor

determines it necessary to serve the interests of the state.
(d) This section does not limit any authority conferred upon the
Attorney General or any other department or agency of government to
investigate any matter.

8547.9. Notwithstanding Section 19572, if the State Personnel Board

determines that there is a reasonable basis for an alleged
violation, or finds an actual violation of Section 8547.3 or 19683,
it shall transmit a copy of the investigative report to the State
Auditor. All working papers pertaining to the investigative report
shall be made available under subpoena in a civil action brought
under Section 19683.

8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an

officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a

rn
i

Ju

or
k
et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any

other university officer designated for that purpose by the regents,
alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected
disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the
written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within
12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University
of California employee, including an officer or faculty member, or
applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure, is
subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and
imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any
university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who
intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject to
discipline by the university.
(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having
made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages
brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages may
be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending party are
proven to be malicious. Where liability has been established, the
injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as
provided by law. However, any action for damages shall not be
available to the injured party unless the injured party has first
filed a complaint with the university officer identified pursuant to
subdivision (a), and the university has failed to reach a decision
regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that
purpose by the regents. Nothing in this section is intended to
prohibit the injured party from seeking a remedy if the university
has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.
(d) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or
approving any personnel action or from taking or failing to take a
personnel action with respect to any university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment if the
manager or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is
justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact
that the person has made a protected disclosure.
(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity
protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged
retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the
burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing
power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent
reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures
or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or
appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse
action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge,
or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a
contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative
defense in the adverse action.
(f) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement.

al

if
o

8547.11. (a) A University of California employee, including an

officer or faculty member, may not directly or indirectly use or
attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee
for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding,
or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person
for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to
disclose to a University of California official, designated for that
purpose by the regents, or the State Auditor matters within the scope
of this article.
(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), "use of official authority
or influence" includes promising to confer, or conferring, any
benefit; effecting, or threatening to effect, any reprisal; or taking
or directing others to take, or recommending, processing, or
approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to,
appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation,
suspension, or other disciplinary action.
(c) Any employee who violates subdivision (a) may be liable in an
action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended
party.

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

8547.12. (a) A California State University employee, including an

officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a
written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any
other university officer designated for that purpose by the trustees,
alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected
disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the
written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within
12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a California
State University employee, including an officer or faculty member, or
applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure, is
subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and
imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any
university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who
intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject to
discipline by the university.
(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having
made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages
brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages may
be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending party are
proven to be malicious. Where liability has been established, the
injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as
provided by law. However, any action for damages shall not be
available to the injured party unless the injured party has first
filed a complaint with the university officer identified pursuant to
subdivision (a), and the university has failed to reach a decision
regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that
purpose by the trustees. Nothing in this section is intended to
prohibit the injured party from seeking a remedy if the university
has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.
(d) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or
approving any personnel action, or from taking or failing to take a
personnel action with respect to any university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment if the
manager or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is
justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact
that the person has made a protected disclosure.
(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity
protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged
retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the
burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing
power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent
reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures
or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or
appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse
action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge,
or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a
contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative
defense in the adverse action.
(f) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement.
(g) If the provisions of this section are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to
Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4 of Title 1,
the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further
legislative action.

or
k

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an

individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by or under
law.

8547.13. (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Agency" means the Supreme Court, the courts of appeal, the
superior courts, or the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(2) "Employee" means a person employed by the Supreme Court, a
court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of
the Courts.
(b) An employee or applicant for employment who files a written

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

or
k
et
w
N

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

complaint with his or her supervisor, manager, or any other agency

officer designated for that purpose by the agency, alleging actual or
attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or
similar improper acts prohibited by Section 8547.3, may also file a
copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board,
together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written
complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under
penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of
the most recent act complained about.
(c) The State Personnel Board shall investigate any complaint
filed, in accordance with the procedures of this chapter, and make a
recommendation to the hiring entity of the agency of the employee or
applicant regarding whether retaliation resulted in an adverse action
regarding the employee and, if so, what steps should be taken to
remedy the situation.
(d) Except to the extent that justices and judges subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Performance are immune
from liability under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a person who
intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against an employee or applicant for
employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a
fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in
a county jail for up to one year. An employee who intentionally
engages in that conduct also shall be subject to discipline by the
agency. This subdivision does not limit any other sanction that may
be applicable by law.
(e) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, except to
the extent that justices and judges subject to the jurisdiction of
the Commission on Judicial Performance are immune from liability
under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a person who intentionally
engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or
similar acts against an employee or applicant for employment for
having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for
damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive
damages may be awarded by the court if the acts of the offending
party are proven to be malicious. If liability is established, the
injured party also shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as
provided by law. It is not a prerequisite for an action for damages
for the injured party to first file a complaint pursuant to
subdivision (b).
(f) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or
approving any personnel action, or from taking or failing to take a
personnel action with respect to an employee or applicant for
employment, if the manager or supervisor reasonably believes any
action or inaction is justified on the basis of evidence separate and
apart from the fact that the person has made a protected disclosure.
(g) In a civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity
protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged
retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the
burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing
power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent
reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures
or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or
appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof against the
employee in an administrative review, challenge, or adjudication in
which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a contributing factor,
the employee shall have a complete affirmative defense on the issue
of retaliation.
(h) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of an employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement.
(i) An employee shall not directly or indirectly use or attempt to
use the official authority or influence of the employee for the
purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or
attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command a person for
the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose
to an agency official, designated for that purpose by the agency, or
the State Auditor matters within the scope of this article. For the
purpose of this subdivision, "use of official authority or influence"
includes all of the following:
(1) Promising to confer, or conferring, any benefit.
(2) Effecting, or threatening to effect, any reprisal.
(3) Taking or directing others to take, or recommending,
processing, or approving, any personnel action, including, but not
limited to, appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance
evaluation, suspension, or other disciplinary action.
(j) Except to the extent that justices and judges subject to the

or
k

jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Performance are immune

from liability under the doctrine of judicial immunity, an employee
who violates subdivision (i) is subject to an action for civil
damages brought against the employee by the injured party.
(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an
individual to disclose any information, the disclosure of which is
otherwise prohibited by law.

al

if
o

rn
i

Ju

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

et
w

8547.15. An action for damages pursuant to this article shall not

be subject to the claims presentation requirements of the Government
Claims Act (Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1).

302

More

Next Blog

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY

TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
ABOUT SFCN

3rd DISTRICT COA CONTROVERSY

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

SOURCE MATERIAL ARCHIVE

Terms & Conditions

RoadDog SATIRE

Privacy Policy

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

TEMPORARY JUDGE CONTROVERSY

Sacramento Superior Court Family Law Division

Operates as RICO Racketeering Enterprise, Charge
Whistleblowers

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(74)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(51)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(38)

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report

This special investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in October, 2015. Hyperlinks throughout this
report link to original source material including whistleblower leaked documents, records obtained under
public records law, public court documents, and our previously published articles with hyperlinks to source

KICKBACKS
(33)
FLEC
(28)

material.

PETER J. McBRIEN
(26)

The family court division of Sacramento Superior

Courtis controlled and operated by an illegal parallel
government structure made up of judges, court
employees, and local divorce attorneys who also
work as temporary judges, according to allegations
and document leaks by court employee
whistleblowers andwatchdog groups.

ARTS & CULTURE

(24)
CHILD CUSTODY
(23)
JAMES M. MIZE
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(22)

The shadow government is without the same

transparency and accountability required of
legitimate Judicial Branch agencies, and meets
thelegal definition of a criminal racketeering
enterprise, whistleblowers charge.

SCBA
(22)
CJP
(21)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(19)

The alleged criminal organization reportedly has

operated for more than 20 years under the direction of
long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a
prior Sacramento Countycriminal conviction and
two misconduct convictions by the state
Commission on Judicial Performancefor violations
of state judicial ethics laws.

McBrien quietlyretired in 2014 and, due to his prior

CJP misconduct convictions, is prohibited from
continuing to work as a retired judge, according to
former CJP prosecutor and current Lake County
Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum.

MATTHEW J. GARY
(36)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(19)
PRO PERS
(19)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CARLSSON CASE
(18)
DIVORCE CORP
(17)
Sacramento Superior Court reform advocates assert that collusion
between judges and local attorneys deprives pro per court users of
their parental rights, community assets, and due process and access
to the court constitutional rights.

DOCUMENTS
(17)
PAULA SALINGER
(15)

But, using a loophole in state law and court administration contacts, after he retired McBrien was immediately
rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert
Hight. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.

ROBERT HIGHT
(15)

The whistleblowers assert that divorce lawyers in the organization receive preferential treatment, "kickbacks,"
and other forms of compensation from judges, court employees and clerks because they volunteer towork as
part-time judgesand run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

RAPTON-KARRES
(12)

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR
COURT
(15)

SATIRE
(12)


The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court ordersissued when the attorneys represent clients in
court. The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.

APPEALS
(11)

As a matter of law, the orders are illegal, according to court reform advocates, "outsider" attorneys, and thelaw
practice reference publicationsused by judges and lawyers.SFCN hasposted examplesof the ordersonline
atScribdand other document publishingsites. Order links are provided throughout this report.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

Scheme Primarily Targets Divorce Cases Where Only One Side Has a Lawyer

WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(11)

Most of the demonstrablyunlawful orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per"
parties without an attorney. Manypro per litigants-who make up over 70 percent of court users -also are
disabled.

In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against
them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged tointentionally, and illegally
mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights. Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to
navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructionserected by court employees andtrial court judges,and most
eventually give up.

COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)

JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
FERRIS CASE
(9)

Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an
opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse ofvexatious
litigant lawand Family Codecase management law,according to whistleblowers andcourt records.The illegal
litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of
federal law.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
ROBERT O'HAIR
(8)

In exchange for acting as sworn temporary judges, operating the settlement program and reducing the caseload
and workload of judges and court employees, the attorneys also receive preferential trial scheduling, an
unlawful "emolument, gratuity or reward" prohibited by Penal Code 94.

3rd DISTRICT COA

(7)

The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include one-sided divisions of community
property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and
spousal support terms.

MATTHEW HERNANDEZ
(7)

Court reform advocates also assert that the racketeering enterprise enables rampant fee churningandunjust
enrichmentby judge pro tem divorce lawyers, results in pro per financial devastation,homelessness, and
imprisonment, and hascaused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.

Years of illegal, pay-to-play child custody orders have resulted in the formation of several Sacramento-based court
reform and oversight organizations, including Fathers 4 Justice, California Protective Parents Association, and
the Family Court Accountability Coalition. The same family court watchdog group phenomenon has not
occurred in any other county in the state.

JULIE SETZER
(7)

YOUTUBE
(7)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
MIKE NEWDOW
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
RACKETEERING
(4)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)
CHILD ABDUCTION
(3)

During three days of sworn testimony at his Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution, Judge Peter McBrien
inadvertently revealed aspects of an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise operating in the Sacramento County family court system.

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

VANCE W. RAYE
(3)
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(3)

WE SUPPORT

Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes aracketeering enterprisewhich also deprives the public of thefederally
protectedright tohonest government services.

The alleged federal crimes also include thetheft, misuse, or conversion of federal fundsreceived by the court,
predicate acts ofmail or wire fraud,andpredicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice,child

Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

abduction, and receipt of an illegal emolument, gratuity, or reward by a judicial officer(Penal Code 94).

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

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

Thurman Arnold Family

Law Blog

The current day Sacramento County Family Court

system and judge pro tem attorney operated
settlement conference program was set up in 1991
by Judge Vance Raye,Judge Peter McBrien and
lawyers from theSacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section, according to the sworn
testimony of McBrienat his 2009Commission on
Judicial Performancemisconduct prosecution.

Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist

Click here to read the transcript of the controversial

judge'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.

LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye
is the co-architect of the current Sacramento County Family
Court system. Click here for details.

Judge Vance Raye is now the Presiding Justice of

the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the
court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court. The appellate court has been embroiled in
a number of controversies surrounding the review of Sacramento family court cases.

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

Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does servethe needs and financial interests of
family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.

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

One objective of the allegedlyillegal public-private

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

At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys

pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't
use the trial court services, including law and motion
hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested
divorce.

In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary

judge - with social and professional ties team up against an
unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement
terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are
common.

In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct

prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance,

Law Professor Blogs

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

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory

Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90

percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so
I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion
mornings," the judge added.

California Coalition for

Families and Children
The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed court
corruption throughout the United States and designated
Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst.

Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for

reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided
reciprocalkickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of
the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civillaws.

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

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

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

Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and

Accountability

California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter

Total Pageviews

197493
201

Google+ Badge

PR Brown

Whistleblowers claim that Sacramento Family Court corruption results in the misuse of federal funds, deprives the public of the federally
protected right to honest government services, and deprives unrepresented, disabled, and financially disadvantaged court users of their
civil rights.

Follow

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

Labels

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

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

Court records leaked by whistleblowers also indicate that the under quid pro quo agreement, judges effectively
shield attorneys from criminal investigation and prosecution for alleged crimes, including witness intimidation,
childabduction,filing counterfeit documents, and violations of state and federal civil rights laws.

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

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

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

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

The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, andpattern and practice misconductby court
clerks, supervisors, and theFamily Law Facilitatoroffice. Court clerks routinelyrefuse to filelegallysufficient
paperworkfor pro per parties, while at the same timefilinglegallyinsufficient, andeven counterfeitpaperwork which they arerequired by lawto reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT

COA
(7)
AB

1102
(1)
AB 590

(1)
ABA JOURNAL
(1)
ABOVE THE
LAW

ADA

(1)

(11)

ADMINISTRATORS

(4)

AGGREGATED NEWS

(16)
AL SALMEN
(1)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(1)

ANALYSIS
(38)

FURILLO

(2)

ANDY

AOC

(1)

APPEALS
(11)

ARCHIBALD

SCOTLAND
(5)

ARTS &
(24)

CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.

CULTURE

ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(38)

ETHICS
(2)

ATTORNEYS
(11)

OBAMA

(1)

ASSOCIATION

BARTHOLOMEW
WASZNICKY
(3)

AWONIYI

(1)

BARACK

BAR
(11)
and

BUNMI

CALIFORNIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)
CALIFORNIA

LAWYER
(1)

CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(1)

CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(8)

CARLSSON CASE
(18)

CECIL

and CIANCI
(2)
CEO

CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(19)
CHILD
ABDUCTION
(3)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(23)
CHILD
(4)

SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA

ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(7)
CIVICS
(1)

CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJE
(2)

In some cases, judges and court clerks

work in tandem toprevent pro per
partiesfrom filing documentsat court
hearingsfor the benefit of judge pro
tems, deliberately creating an
incomplete and inaccurate trial court
record in the event the pro per files an
appeal.
Court records showthat clerks also
deliberately withhold and delay the
filing of time sensitive pro per
documents until after filing deadlines
have expired.

CJEO

CJP
(21)

(1)

ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)

CODE
OF
JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF

SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF

In this case, a court clerk illegally "unfiled" a notice of appeal filed by an indigent,
disabled pro per litigant. Click here for details.

LAW
SERIES

(11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)

CORRUPTION
(3)
COURT

CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT

Family Law Facilitatorstaff provide pro per litigantswith false informationdesigned to concealstate law
violationsby court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys with writtenlegal advice and
"bench tips."When pro pers ask facilitator staff for similar information, they are told that facilitator employees are
prohibited from giving legal advice.

Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence

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.

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

(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG FAMILY LAW

(1)
CRIMINAL CONDUCT

(13)
CRIMINAL LAW
(3)

CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID

KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE
WASZNICKY

(2)

DISQUALIFICATION
(2)

DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE

DENISE

DIVORCE
CORP
(17)
DIVORCE

ATTORNEY
(5)

LAWYER

(5)

DOCUMENTS
(17)

DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA

GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)

EFFICIENCY

IN

GOVERNMENT

ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)

EMILY

GALLUP

(3)

EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS

(4)

EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)

EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)

EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

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

FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT

COURT

AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY

CONDITIONS
(2)

FAMILY COURTHOUSE
(1)
FAMILY

COURT MEDIA COVERAGE

(1)

Divorce Corp, chronicling Sacramento Superior Court corruption,

is available on Netflix.

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.

FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE

(1)
FAMILY
COURT

SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
LAW
(9)
FAMILY LAW

COUNSELOR
(4)
FAMILY
LAW
FACILITATOR
(4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE

(1)

FEDERAL LAW
(2)
FEDERAL

LAWSUITS
(2)
FEE WAIVERS

(2)
FERRIS CASE
(9)
FIRST
AMENDMENT
(2)
FIRST
AMENDMENT COALITION
(2)

FLEC
(28)
FOIA
(2)
FOX

(1)
FREDRICK COHEN
(4)

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

NICHOLSON
(1)
GERALD UELMEN

Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a
California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party
is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were
renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013.Click here for details.
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to
opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest
posts.
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive 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.

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
(2)
JAMES
M. MIZE
(22)
JEFFREY

POSNER
(6)

(1)

JERRY

JERRY BROWN
GUTHRIE

(1)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)

JODY PATEL
(1)
JOE SORGE

(2)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
(1)
JOSEPH

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.

(1)
GREGORY DWYER
(1)
HAL

SORGE
(1)
JOYCE KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JRC
(1)

JUDGE
(1)
JUDGE

PRO

TEM
(51)
JUDGES

(10)
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)

JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK

(1)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
(6)

JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT

(74)
JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER
(1)
JULIE SETZER

(7)
KICKBACKS
(33)

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)
LEON

KOZIOL

(1)
LINCOLN
(1)
LISTS
(4)

LOLLIE ROBERTS
(5)
LOUIS
MAURO
(1)
LUAN CASE
(4)

Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton of
Mel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed
Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.

An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support
order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child 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.Watch the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News video
below:

MALPRACTICE
(4)
MARTIN
HOSHINO
(2)
MARY MOLINARO

(1)
MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ

(7)
MATTHEW J. GARY

(36)
MCGEORGE

MEDIA
(1)
MICHAEL

SOL
(2)
T. GARCIA

(1)
MIKE NEWDOW
(5)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH

(4)
NEWS
(33)
News10
(1)

NEWS EXCLUSIVE

(24)
NEWS YOU CAN USE

(3)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)

NO CONTACT ORDERS

(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT

(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENTAL

ALIENATION
(1)
PAULA
SALINGER
(15)
PERJURY

(1)
PETER J. McBRIEN

(26)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ

(3)
PRESIDING JUDGE
(2)

PRO
PERS
(19)

PROTEST
(9)
PSY
(1)
PUBLIC
RECORDS
(1)
RACKETEERING

(4)
RAOUL M. THORBOURNE
(1)

RAPTON-KARRES
(12)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS
(4)

REVISIONISM SERIES
(2)

RICHARD SOKOL
(12)

RICO
(2)
ROBERT
HIGHT
(15)
ROBERT

ROBERT
SAUNDERS

(22)

O'HAIR
(8)

ROLAND

L. CANDEE
(1)
RONALD

ROBIE
(1)
RON BURGUNDY
(1)

RUSSELL

RUSSELL L.

CARLSON
(4)

HOM
(1)
RYDER

SALMEN
(2)
S. HINMAN
(3)

SACRAMENTO BEE
(4)
COUNTY

SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR

COURT

(2)

SACRAMENTO

FAMILY
COURT

(16)

SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT

(15)
SANCTIONS
(2)
SANTA

CLARA LAW SCHOOL

(1)
SARAH

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
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.

ANN STEPHENS
(1)
SATIRE
SCBA
(22)

(12)

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)

SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS
(5)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO
LAW SCHOOL
(4)
STATE
AUDITOR
(6)
STATE BAR

(5)
STEPHEN WAGNER
(2)

STEUART LEAVENWORTH
(1)

STEVEN GEVERCER
(1)
STEVEN
SPIELBERG
(1)
STEVE WHITE

SUNDAY FUNNIES

(16)
SUNSHINE WEEK
(2)

(2)

SUPERIOR COURT
(2)

SUPREME COURT
(4)
TAMI

BOGERT
(1)
TAXPAYERS
(1)
TERRY FRANCKE
(1)
THADD

BLIZZARD
(5)
THADDEUS

STEVENS
(1)
THE RUTTER GROUP

(1)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)

THOMAS WOODRUFF
(5)

TIMOTHY ZEFF
(6)
TOMMY
LEE JONES
(1)
ULF CARLSSON
(1)

UNITED NATIONS
(1)
UPDATE

(2)
VANCE W. RAYE
(3)

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(3)

VICTORIA HENLEY
(1)
VICTORY
OUTREACH

CHURCH
(1)
VL-

CLASS-ACTION
(1)
WALL STREET
JOURNAL

Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Gary
routinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit oflocal
attorneyswho also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges
have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

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 &

(1)

WASTE

(1)

WATCHDOGS
(19)

WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
ACT
(2)

WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)

WHITE HOUSE
(1)
WOODRUFF
O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
(11)
XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA

(3)

YOLO

COUNTY
(1)
YOUTUBE
(7)

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.
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.
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.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mizetestified as a characterwitness in

support of controversial Judge Peter McBrien when McBrien was facing removal
from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

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
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.

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

Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California

Street,Auburn, CA95603.

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

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

95816.

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