IINNTTEE

RRBB

RRAA

NNCC

HHCC

OO

MMMMII

SSSSIIOONN OONN

JJUUVV

EENN

IILLEE

JJUUSSTTIICCEE

INTERBRANCH COMMISSIONON JUVENILE JUSTICE

MAY 2010

ReportReport

PatCJBNN-Yel

placed on probation for a short time. Aer the adjudication,Mr. K. made extensive eorts to gain his son's freedom."I contacted County Commissioners, state representatives,Governor's Oce, Congressmen, help line, juvenile justiceorganizations, Children and Youth, just to name a few," Mr.K. testied - all to no eect. Worse, he said, Sandra Brulo,chief county probation ocer, recommended that M. bekept in placement much longer: for one year at a ColoradoBoy's Ranch followed by placement at Glen Mills School inPennsylvania until he was 18 or 21 years old.

At that point, Mr. K. said, he went to the media. "[eWilkes-Barre] times leader published a story describingour situation. Five days aer the article appeared M. andI again appeared in courtJudge Ciavarella ordered that M.be released from PA Child Care and placed on probation forapproximately six months."

Mr. K. testied that he ran up heavy expenses to win hisson's release, including $590 in fees for required post-release counseling. He said his son suered depressionwhile in placement and aerward.

"At the present time, M. has no faith or trust in police or thejudicial system," Mr. K. testied. "I've tried unsuccessfullyto explain to him that he was a victim of judicial injustice,and that the judicial system can workI've not beenvery successful."

Ms. J. was in the 11th grade at a suburban high school inLuzerne County when she was arrested in 2006 forpossession of drug paraphernalia - a lighter and a pipewhich, she said, belonged to a friend.

"I had always been a good student," Ms. J. testied to thecommission. "I had never been in trouble at school, letalone in trouble with the law."

She appeared without a lawyer before Ciavarella in January2007. She said no one asked her if she understood that shehad a right to a lawyer.

"e court ocer read the charges and asked me how Iintended to plead," Ms. J. testied. "I thought my onlyoption was to plead guilty, so that is exactly what I did. Noone asked me whether I understood my right to contest thecharges, whether I understood the consequences of myadmission, or whether I had discussed my admission withmy parents or lawyer.

"Ciavarella declared that I would be sent away, but he didn'tsay where or for how long. I was immediately handcuedand escorted out of the courtroom to a small waiting roomby a sheri. I did not even have a chance to say goodbye tomy father."

Ms. J. was sent to the residential facility Camp Adamswhere she remained for three months. She said she tried tokeep up with schoolwork, but found it dicult because thequality of teaching at the facility was poor.

Aer her release, Ms. J. was placed on probation for threemonths. She returned to high school and caught up on herstudies. But she said she lost friends and was frequentlyhumiliated by being summoned from class to be searchedfor drugs. She now is a college student with plans to go tolaw school.

Ms. J. said her encounter with Mark Ciavarella and hissingular style of juvenile justice has le her with "a deepmistrust of the American legal system."

"Zero-tolerance is what allowed this to happen," shetestied. "If a judge applies the same sentence to every casebrought before him, then what is the point of a trial or ajudge at all?"

fear and IntimidationDuring its public hearings, the Interbranch Commission onJuvenile Justice heard repeated testimony in whichwitnesses described a climate of fear and intimidation,reprisal and retribution in the Luzerne County Courthouseduring time when Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarellawere the president judges. It is clear that this atmospherefostered the breakdown of the juvenile justice system. Bothmen were autocratic. ey did not rule by consensus. eydid not take kindly to opposition.

Conahan was president judge for ve years from January2002 through the end of 2006. He retired in 2007 at age 54to become a senior judge. Ciavarella became president judgein January 2007 and held the position until January 2009when he was relieved of his duties aer federal charges wereled against him.

e successor to Ciavarella was chester b. muroski whotook on the role of president judge in Luzerne County onJanuary 30, 2009, at a time when the courthouse seemedalmost in meltdown. It was the height of the scandal createdby the corruption charges against Ciavarella and Conahan.Judge Muroski has been widely praised for his work inbringing order to the chaotic situation he inherited andinstituting reforms.

Judge Muroski is a former Luzerne County district attorneyand was, when he became president judge, the most seniormember of the Common Pleas Court in the county. In thepast he had personally opposed the Conahan-Ciavarellapower structure, and he had paid a price for it.

23

PatRectangle

A judge since 1982, he had presided over the JuvenileCourt, the Orphans Court and the Family Court in LuzerneCounty for many years. Within the juvenile court, there aretwo divisions, the delinquency division, where criminaloenses committed by minors are adjudicated, and thedependency division, where cases of abused and neglectedchildren are supervised.

Judge Muroski testied that he handled both delinquencyand dependency divisions in juvenile court until 1996 whenCiavarella joined the bench. At that point, the delinquencydivision was transferred to Ciavarella.

Judge Muroski said Ciavarella took a hard line on juvenilecrime which was well-received in the community,particularly by school administrators, teachers and police.

"At the beginning of every school year [Ciavarella] spoke atassemblies held in most school districts within LuzerneCounty, and in eect, he promised institutional placementfor school-related infractions. He was true to his word andbecame even more popular when he followed through withplacements, sometimes for minimal oenses."

Judge Murorski read a May 2007 transcript of a case inwhich a 10th grade high school student had been chargedwith harassing a school ocial.

e Court: "How do you plead?'

e Juvenile: "Guilty."

e Court: "Based upon her admission, I'll adjudicate herdelinquent. What makes you think you have a right to dothis kind of crap?"

e Juvenile: "I don't know, sir."

Ciavarella asked if the student recalled him visiting herschool: "You heard me speak?"

e Juvenile: "Yes."

e Court: "Told you what type of conduct I expectedfrom children in that school relative to the juvenile justicesystem?"

e Juvenile: "Yes."

e Court: "Is this acceptable?"

e Juvenile: "No, sir."

e Court: "What did I say would happen if you acted in anunacceptable way toward teachers and/or administrators?"

e Juvenile: "I don't recall, sir."

e Court: "You don't recall? You don't remember mesaying if you did anything to these teachers that I wouldsend you away? You don't remember those words?"

e Juvenile: "No, sir."

e Court: "Were you sleeping?'

e Juvenile: "No, sir."

e Court: "You can't remember that?"

e Juvenile: "No, sir."

e Court: "It's going to come back to you because I didn'tgo to that school, I didn't walk around in that school, and Ididn't speak to that student body just to scare you, just toblow smoke, just to make you think I would do that whenI wouldn't. I'm a man of my word. You're gone. Send herup to FACT. Let her stay there until she gures it out.ank you."

Juvenile's Mother: "No. at's not fair. at's not what theocer said. at's not what he said."

Under Ciavarella's zero-tolerance policy, Luzerne County'sjuvenile placement costs rose to unprecedented heights -notably aer PA Child Care opened in 2003. In 2007, one ofevery four juveniles ruled delinquent in Luzerne County -25.8 percent - were being sent to out-of-home placements.at was more than double the statewide average.

e soaring costs of those placements had a direct andnegative eect on the dependency division of juvenile courtwhere Muroski continued to oversee cases of abused andneglected children. Children in dependency cases oen areremoved from their families by court order and placed intemporary out-of-home settings such as foster homes. eprimary goal in most dependency cases is to reunitechildren with their families aer providing services toparents to alleviate or correct problems that caused abuse orneglect.

"Unfortunately," Judge Muroski testied, "once the juvenilecenter [PA Child Care] opened, slowly but surely thesocial services to these [dependent] children and theirfamilies became dicult to obtain. ere were waitinglists for parenting classes, family assessments, drug andalcohol evaluations and treatment, as well as otherspecialized services.

"Parents had to wait sometimes months to be given theseservices. is resulted in a child being in placement longer

24

than necessary when the child hadn't done anything wrongwhile the parents waited to complete services and theCounty had to pay to keep the children in placement.

"When I complained I was told o the record DependencyCourt got less funding because Delinquency Courtplacements had consumed much of the entire JuvenileCourt delinquency and dependency budget."

Judge Muroski testied that aer making unsuccessfulattempts to obtain funds for the dependency division hewrote a letter to the Luzerne County Commissioners onJune 15, 2005, threatening to use his contempt powers toensure that services were made available to dependentchildren and their families. at provoked a quick responsebut not the one he was looking for:

"A few days later [President Judge] Conahan issued anorder transferring me eective the rst week in September,2005, to Criminal Courtere was very little doubt in mymind that Conahan expected me to retire because I had nothandled a criminal jury trial since 1981 when I was theDistrict Attorney."

Luzerne County Commissioner maryanne Petrilladescribed a run-in with Conahan, then a senior judge,around the New Year's holiday of 2008. Petrilla, a formercounty controller, had been elected a commissionerand was planning to institute a program of reforms incounty government.

As she prepared to take oce, Petrilla made it known thatshe intended to re a high-level county employee, the chiefclerk-county manager.

"And I - I recall New Year's weekend of 2008 when I wasinundated with probably anywhere from 40 to 60 phonecalls from friendsand they had received calls from JudgeConahan and told me that, you know, Judge Conahan hadreally wanted me to reconsider my replacing the chief clerk,county manager. And I - I told everyone that I just felt thatthat was something that I could not do."

Petrilla testied that Conahan eventually telephoned herdirectly.

"And the conversation was not what I would call a friendlyphone call. He said that I could not replace [the chief clerk-county manager]And his nal words to me were,Maryanne, if you do this, you will be nished. And I said,well, with all due respect, Judge, I - you know, I'm not goingto tell you how to run your courts, and I would really askthat you respect this decision because I think it's the bestdecision going forward for our administration."

Aer taking oce, Petrilla proceeded to dismiss theemployee. She said the same individual then was rehired bythe court, specically by county court administrator's oceto be "specialty court administrator." e Luzerne Countycourt administrator at the time was Conahan's cousin,William Sharkey.

Petrilla testied that the Luzerne County courts underConahan and Ciavarella spent money, let contracts andhired personnel without regard to county rules or policies.In the process, she said, the courts ran up huge decits forthe county.

She cited as an example the contract of Dr. Frank Vita,Conahan's brother-in-law. Vita held a non-competitivecourt contract to conduct psychological evaluations onyouths charged with criminal oenses. Ciavarella referredjuvenile defendants to Vita for the evaluations. e youthsoen were placed in detention while the evaluationswere conducted.

Petrilla said a county policy that required advertising foran "RFP" or a request for proposals was not followed onVita's contract.

"ey just issued the contract, and there was no RFP putoutAnd it's just indicative of the philosophy that they hadthat they did not have to abide by the other county policiesthat other departments had to abide bythey just did theirown things and sent the bills to the county to be paid."

In 2008, the county faced a nancial crisis. e countycommissioners decided to impose a major spending cutacross all departments of government, including the courts.

"[President] Judge Ciavarella came to the budget hearings,and it was what I would call a pretty tumultuous encounterwith Judge Ciavarella," Petrilla testied. "He said that heneeds the money to run his courts. I can't tell him how torun his courts. And he will do his budget, and we will fundhis budget.

"And I said, well, quite frankly, Judge, we can't. We don'thave the resources to fund your budget. And he said, well,then I'll sue you. And I said, well, Judge, if that's what youhave to do, that's what you have to do. And that's whathe did."

Even richard J. gold, deputy secretary of the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Welfare, found himself reprimandedfor questioning Judge Mark Ciavarella's inordinately highjuvenile placement rates - and the high costs that wentwith them.

25

Gold heads the Welfare Department's Oce of Children,Youth and Families which administers the child welfaresystem throughout Pennsylvania. e oce also providesapproximately 80 percent of funding for the child welfaresystem, using state and federal revenues.

Among its functions, the Oce of Children, Youth andFamilies licenses and inspects juvenile detention facilities,and arranges audits to ensure their costs of those facilitiesare reasonable.

In testimony before the Interbranch Commission onJuvenile Justice, Gold outlined a struggle that went on foryears between his oce and Luzerne County over juveniledetention matters.

"Specically dealing with Luzerne County, in October, 2002,Judge Conahan publicly announced that Luzerne Countyjudges would stop sending youth to the Luzerne Countydetention center, which was known as the River StreetCenter, at the end of the year because the building was,quote, too run down, end of quote," Gold testied.

"At that time [Oce of Children, Youth and Families]had fully licensed the facility as we determined that itmet all state requirements for the operation of a safe andsecure facility."

Gold said his oce conducted a review of the 22-bed RiverStreet Center and found it "safe and satisfactory to housejuveniles." As a result, the department announced it wouldrenew the facility's license. Gold said that Ciavarella sharplycriticized the license renewal decision. en Conahanoverrode the state's decision.

"In December, 2002, Judge Ciavarella's criticism wasfollowed by Judge Conahan's ocial action to remove allfunding from the county budget for the River Street Centerand his stated intention of closing the facility," Goldtestied. "ereaer, the court returned the River StreetCenter's license to the Department closing the facility."e state accepted the license. When the new 48-bed PAChild Care facility opened in February 2003, the WelfareDepartment granted it a license.

Gold testied that the department expected PA Child Careto be a temporary facility, used for two to four years whileLuzerne County built a new detention center on county-owned land.

Within a year, however, it became clear that county ocialswere thinking of issuing a long term lease to PA Child Care.It also became clear through a Welfare Department auditthat PA Child Care was making unusually large prots -

28 percent, equal to $1.2 million - in its rst 10 monthsof operation.

Gold said those discoveries raised such concern that thedepartment listed PA Child Care as an immediate priorityfor further audit, and the department asked the LuzerneCounty commissioners to delay a vote on the long termlease until the audit was completed. e request for delaywas disregarded.

"e county proceeded with a vote prior to the auditconclusion, and in November, 2004, the county approved a20 year lease with Pennsylvania Child Care," Gold testied.e aggregate cost of the lease was $58 million."In December, 2004 Pennsylvania Child Care led a courtaction against the Department and then Luzerne Countycontroller, Steve Flood contending that pursuant to asubpoena issued by Controller Flood the Department wasgoing to release, quote, trade secrets, end of quote, ofPennsylvania Child Care.

"As part of the lawsuit Pennsylvania Child Care sought anemergency injunction barring the release by theDepartment of any of the alleged trade secrets and alsosought to seal the lawsuit.

"Judge Conahan granted Pennsylvania Child Care'smotions. e immediate impact of Judge Conahan's rulingswas that the Department had to place the audit of thePennsylvania Child Care facility in abeyance because thepotential ruling signicantly limited the audit scope andalso precluded the Department from discussing thereport ndings and recommendations with LuzerneCounty ocials."

Gold testied that Conahan's order was reversed by thePennsylvania Superior Court in November 2005. atallowed the audit of PA Child Care to proceed.

e nal audit was not released until January 2008. Itshowed that Luzerne County payments to PA Child Careexceeded reimbursable costs by approximately $2 millionper year.

e audit found the costs to be so excessive, Gold testied,"that the county could have built three juvenile detentioncenters for the cost of what it paid to lease PennsylvaniaChild Care facility." [Luzerne County eventuallyrenegotiated its contract with PA Child Care.]

Gold said a separate audit of Western PA Child Care alsofound patterns of unreasonable and unallowable costs.

A third audit of payments to Dr. Frank Vita for court-

26

ordered psychological evaluations of juvenile defendants,"found questionable costs in the amount of $836,636."

Gold testied that an indication that something was "out ofsync" in Luzerne County was the fact that the juveniledetention numbers were exceptionally high - far abovestatewide averages.

In a visit to Luzerne County in the summer of 2007 wherehe met with county ocials, Gold commented on the highnumbers, telling those in the group, "there's somethingwrong here in your numbers."

Ciavarella was at that meeting. Gold said the judge "wasn'tpleased at all with being questioned as to the practices ofthe jurisdiction."

Aer the meeting, Gold testied, "a complaint was madeabout me" and he received "a formal reprimand forquestioning how out of sync this county was to all the othercounties of Pennsylvania."

stephen urban is a Luzerne County commissioner whowas in oce when the River Street Center closed and PAChild Care opened.

In testimony before the commission, Urban said heopposed closing the county-owned center and also opposedthe immense costs of leasing PA Child Care. He saidrepairs and improvements were needed at the River StreetCenter, but the work could have been done for $2 millionto $4 million.

e $58 million lease for PA Child Care was approved byformer Luzerne County Commissioners Todd Vonderheidand Greg Skrepenak on October 20, 2004. Urban was theonly No vote on the three-member commission. [Skrepenakresigned his position as a commissioner in December 2009shortly before the U.S. Attorney's Oce charged him withaccepting $5,000 to assist a developer gain tax incentivenancing for a project. Skrepenak pleaded guilty on January26, 2010, and is cooperating with investigators in theLuzerne County corruption probe.]

Although the county commissioners were generallycompliant in granting the nancial requests of Conahanand Ciavarella, Urban testied that the courts assumed andco-opted powers that properly belonged to the countycommissioners.

As an example, Urban cited the fact that employees of theRiver Street detention facility were court employees, underthe control of the president judge, when, in his view, theyshould have been county employees. e River Street

Center was a county facility, not a court facility, Urban said,and its employees thus should have been answerable to thecounty commissioners.

Urban also questioned the authority of the Luzerne Countycourts to turn in the license of the county detention centerto the state.

"I believe since the Commissioners under the County Codehave the authority to operate the detention center we shouldhave been the one that turned in the license and not the --not the courts," he testied. "Also I think that the Oce ofChildren and Youth and Families, which is a state runagency, should not have accepted that license from thecourts, that they should have referred that license back tothe County Commissioners. And only aer a formal vote ofthe County Commissioners to close the detention centershould that detention center have been closed.

"And that is not the way things ran in the county. e judgesaid, we're not sending anybody there. e other twoCommissioners then voted for a budget that defundedpositions of the childcare workersAnd then they closedthe facility, and the county was then forced to use thedetention center that Mr. Powell and Zappala had built atthe cost of about $100 per day -- extra per day per bed thatwas costing us in our own facility."

e role of the Judicial conduct boardOn September 28, 2006, an unsigned eight-page letter ofcomplaint arrived at the oce of the Pennsylvania JudicialConduct Board in Harrisburg listing 33 accusations ofpurported "glaring violations of ethics which are occurringin the Luzerne County Courthouse."

e subject of the complaint was President Judge MichaelT. Conahan. Mark A. Ciavarella, Conahan's friend andcolleague, was named at several points in the complaintas well.

e anonymous complaint was addressed to Joseph a.massa, Jr., chief counsel of the Judicial Conduct Board.e document was organized in three sections, bearingthese headings:

"Judge Conahan has used his judicial authority andpower of appointment to benet his family andfriends and to contain and destroy his detractors."

"Judge Conahan also falsely creates new titles forCourthouse employees in order to appear to complywith Supreme Court Directives, even though theEmployee's functions remain the same. He alsoengages in political activities."

27

July 2013

Whistleblower confidentiality protects the public from judicial misconduct

By Janice M. Brickley

As part of the fallout from the kids for cash scandal in Pennsylvania, in

2009 the convictions of over 4,000 juvenile offenders were expunged.

They were determined to have been entered as part of a scheme involving

the Pennsylvania juvenile court judge who routinely sentenced juveniles

to a private juvenile detention facility for minor offenses in exchange for

a secret finders fee from the owner of the facility. In an article published in the May

2011 Bar Journal, I discussed the role of attorneys in failing to expose the actions of this

judge. While attorneys who appeared regularly in the judges court were not privy to the

financial scheme, between 2003 and 2008 they routinely witnessed the judge

unlawfully sentencing minors to the detention facility without counsel, without waivers

of the right to counsel and without an individual assessment of the juveniles offense or

circumstances. During the subsequent investigation, attorneys and others who

appeared frequently in the judges court explained that they closed their eyes and ears

to these apparent abuses out of fear of retaliation from the judge. The resulting silence

occurred notwithstanding the requirement in Pennsylvania Professional Conduct Rule

8.3 that a lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules

of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judges fitness for office

shall inform the appropriate authority.

The reluctance to report judicial misconduct is evidenced most by those who are most

vulnerable to retribution or retaliation attorneys, court employees, and other judges.

These are the individuals in the best position to recognize judicial misconduct and the

most likely to be a witness to it. In California in 2012, only five percent of the

complaints received by the Commission on Judicial Performance came from attorneys,

court employees and judges; yet, complaints from those sources resulted in 37 percent

of the discipline imposed.

In order to fulfill the commissions mandate to protect the public, to ensure that

information about unethical judicial conduct reaches the commission, the disciplinary

process must safeguard the filing of complaints and the cooperation of witnesses during

investigations. The primary way that this is accomplished is by affording confidentiality

to those who come forward and provide information about judicial misconduct. Under

the commissions rules, disclosure of witness statements is only made to the judge if

formal charges are filed, which occurs in approximately one to four cases a year.

This year, during the commissions biennial review of its rules, the California Judges

Association (CJA) asked the commission to adopt a rule that would have required the

commission to provide full discovery to the judge before the commission has completed

its investigation, including disclosing the identity of the complainant and all witnesses,

and turning over witness statements. After careful consideration, the commission

decided not to adopt CJAs proposed rule because eliminating confidentiality of

complainants and witnesses when no formal charges are brought would severely

Top Headlines

OpinionFrom the PresidentJanice M. BrickleyLetters to the Editor

MCLE Self-Study

CLE Calendar

Attorney Discipline

You Need to Know

Trials Digest

Public Comment

Ethics Byte

Contact Us

Marketplace

Archived Issues

Share

compromise the commissions investigation of complaints of judicial misconduct and

jeopardize protection of the public. Instead, the commission adopted rules, consistent

with its long-standing practice and the practice of the State Bar and other professional

oversight agencies, which guarantee that judges receive sufficient information to

respond effectively to the allegations of misconduct during the investigation, without

divulging the identity of the whistleblower complainant or witnesses. These rules

balance the commissions responsibility to ensure that the disciplinary process complies

with due process and is fair to the judges who are under investigation with the

commissions mandate to protect the public through an effective investigation

process.

Only one state, Alabama, provides full discovery before formal charges are filed in

judicial disciplinary proceedings. Complaints dropped almost by half when Alabama

amended its rules in 2001 to require disclosure of the complaint and all supporting

materials. An American Bar Association report concluded that Alabamas procedures

conflict with national practice and are not protective of the public. They unduly burden

the system, deter the filing of valid complaints, and compromise the ability of the

commission to effectively conduct a proper investigation. (American Bar Association

Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, Alabama: Report on the Judicial

Discipline System (March 2009) (ABA Report), p. 14.)

Regardless of whether a judge would actually retaliate against a complainant, the mere

possibility of retaliation is sufficient to deter the reporting of judicial misconduct. If

confidentiality were not guaranteed during the commissions investigation, lawyers who

appear regularly before a judge would naturally be concerned that reporting judicial

misconduct and cooperating with the commissions investigation will have negative

ramifications not only for themselves, but also for present and future clients. Court

employees and others whose livelihood depends on their association with the court

(interpreters, probation officers, etc.) would be equally, if not more, reluctant to file a

complaint or cooperate with the commissions investigation knowing their identity

would be disclosed to the judge. The ABA report on Alabamas judicial disciplinary

system concluded with respect to Alabamas disclosure rules, This practice,

particularly the revelation of the complainants identity, has a chilling effect on those

who may want to file a complaint against a judge. Specific instances were described to

the team by a range of interviewees, including but not limited to potential

complainants, actual complainants, lawyers and judges. (ABA Report, p. 19.)

The Pennsylvania kids for cash scandal illustrates the potentially devastating

consequences when attorneys and those associated with the court are reluctant to

report misconduct. Whistleblowers filing complaints regarding improper governmental

activity are guaranteed protection, including confidentiality, under Californias

Whistleblower Protection Act. (Gov. Code, 8547.5, 8547.6, 8547.7, subd. (c).) Those

in the best position to provide accurate and verifiable information about serious judicial

misconduct deserve no less.

Janice M. Brickley is Legal Advisor to Commissioners at the California Commission

on Judicial Performance.

Copyright 2015 The State Bar of California Contact Us | Archived Issues | Notices | Privacy Policy Site Design by Duuplex

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

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

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

Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING

Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in June, 2015.

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

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

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

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

The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due

Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program Controversy

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

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

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (69)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

PETER J. McBRIEN (24)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

CJP (20)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (17)

JAMES M. MIZE (17)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

CARLSSON CASE (11)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

235 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children.

Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice and child abduction.

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

The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's testimony.

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

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

At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce. In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.

Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil, laws.

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

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

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

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.

Settlement Conference Program Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

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

Racketeering Scheme Insulates Members from Government Oversight and Accountability

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included four cases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.

Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.

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

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

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

Alleged RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence

The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed courtcorruption throughout the United States and designated

Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst.

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

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

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

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

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

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

An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.

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

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

Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton ofMel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed

Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 6 8 2 2 1

171

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14)

ANALYSIS (36) APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23) ATTORNEY

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

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

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2)AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4)ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4)

ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of

Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Garyroutinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit of local attorneys who also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges

have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (11)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

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

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (12)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

FAMILY COURT (9)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN

(1) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

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

(4)

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

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

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

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

Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize testified as a character witness insupport of controversial Judge Peter McBrien when McBrien was facing removal

from the bench by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

FAMILY LAW (9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

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

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (69)

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

LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)

LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)

MATTHEW

HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

OPINION (12)

COURTHOUSE (1) FAMILY LAW

COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL

LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION (2) FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)

GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2) GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN (1) GINGER SYLVESTER (1)

GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.

STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)

JAMES

BROSNAHAN (1)

JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)

JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)

JRC (1) JUDGE (1)

JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT

HANDBOOK (1)

JUDY HOLZER

HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)

LAW LIBRARY (1)

LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of

CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LINCOLN (1)

LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)

MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)

MCGEORGE SOL (2)MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA

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

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL

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

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

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

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

Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator, 206 5th Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)

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

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

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

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

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

SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (5)

ULF CARLSSON (6)

ALIENATION (1)

PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)

PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1)

RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)

ROLAND L. CANDEE (1)RON BURGUNDY (1) RONALD

ROBIE (1) RUSSELL CARLSON (4) RUSSELL L. HOM (1) RYDER SALMEN (2) S. HINMAN (3)

SACRAMENTO BEE (4)SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS (1)

SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT

KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)

SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4)

STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2) STEVEN BURLINGHAM (1) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN

SPIELBERG (1)

SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)

SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)

TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS

STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)

TOMMY LEE JONES (1)

UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)

VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (2)

VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

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

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

Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO

This ongoing investigative project was updated in April, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Third District Court of Appeal:

Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest

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

An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (69)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

PETER J. McBRIEN (24)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

CJP (20)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (17)

JAMES M. MIZE (17)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

CARLSSON CASE (11)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

2 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friends in Low Places

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

First Amendment Coalition

Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT

Family Law Professor Blog

Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs

Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog

Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family Court System

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

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

California Courts Homepage

California Courts YouTube Page

Judicial Council

Commission on Judicial Performance

Sacramento County Family Court

3rd District Court of Appeal

State Bar of California

State Bar Court

Sacramento County Bar Association

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH

ABA Family Law Blawg Directory

California Coalition for Families and Children

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop

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

Holiday Luncheon.

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

JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 6 8 2 2 1

171

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14)

ANALYSIS (36) APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)

Labels

2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)

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

ADMINISTRATORS (4)

AL SALMEN (1) AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION (1)

ANDY FURILLO (2)AOC (1)

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)

ATTORNEY (4)ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4)

ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)

One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family Court system was the 2008 decision In re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate Justices M. Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims. The opinion criticized explicitly the conduct of controversial Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. None of the three 3rd District justices who decided the appeal had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County.

A fourth outsider jurist, Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing subsequently characterized McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror." In addition to ordering a full reversal and new trial, the 3rd District decision subjected McBrien to a second disciplinary action by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

The judge's first go-round with the CJP stemmed from McBrien's 2000 arrest for felony vandalism under Penal Code 594 in connection with the destruction of public-owned trees - valued at more than $20,000 - at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park, Carmichael, California. McBrien had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park. Click here for the 2001 Sacramento News and Review coverage of the case. Click here to view the original summons charging McBrien with felony vandalism. Click here to view the report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing the complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.

Less than 48 hours after the judge was charged with the felony, McBrien negotiated a plea bargain, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 384a, paying restitution of $20,000, and a fine of $500. The improved view increased the value of the judge's home by at least $100,000, according to a local real estate agent, and the sweetheart deal outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park personnel who originally discovered the butchered trees and conducted the initial investigation. McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?

Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease. Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (11)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

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

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (12)

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

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (19)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (4)

CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)

CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN

(1) CODE OF

SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)

COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)

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

(4)

In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using

misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland

effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland delivered in a big way.

Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.

Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. A critical self-policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1) requires judges who have reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.

While under oath before the CJP, Scotland verified that he was aware of McBrien's misconduct in the Carlsson case. Scotland essentially defied the self-policing Canon and, in effect, the published Carlsson opinion authored by his co-workers Butz, B