16

FLEC Collusion Compilation: Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee Collusion with Sacramento Superior Court Judges - Court Policy & Procedure Influence - Alleged

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Whistleblower compiled 16-page document catalog establishing Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section collusion with Sacramento Superior Court judges and administrators. Includes whistleblower leaked minutes from Family Law Executive Committee Meeting with family court judges and administrators. Court watchdogs allege that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court operates as a RICO racketeering enterprise. In 1991 Judge Peter McBrien and Judge Vance Raye, now an appellate court judge, entered into a secretive agreement with divorce lawyers from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. The judges and attorneys restructured the family court system into a public-private sector organized criminal enterprise, according to court whistleblowers.The judges delegated to the lawyers the task of running the family court settlement conference program, requiring the attorneys to be designated as part-time judges, or ”judge pro tems.” The primary objective of the attorney run settlement program 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 program.At the settlement conferences, the judge pro tem lawyers coerce divorcing couples to settle cases so they won’t use the trial court services, including court hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce. Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff the attorneys are provided various kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court, including “rubber-stamped” court orders and rulings, according to court reform advocates. Court watchdogs have documented that the lawyers obtain a statistically impossible level of favorable outcomes at court hearings, especially in cases where the opposing party is an unrepresented “pro per” without a lawyer. Many pro per litigants – who make up over 70 percent of family court parties - are indigent, financially disadvantaged, or disabled. The quid pro quo arrangement also insulates judge and attorney members of the organization from oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible oversight and discipline of judges, and the State Bar, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline. Judge pro tem lawyers who regularly violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules are rarely, if ever assessed penalties, fines or “sanctions” by full-time judges as required by law. The blind-eye, preferential treatment from full-time judges provides the attorneys with virtual immunity from State Bar scrutiny. Pro per litigants, however, are routinely punished with fines and draconian financial sanctions to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing attorney and part-time judge-attorneys who run the settlement conference program.To conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, when full-time judges face investigation by the CJP, members of the enterprise provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge to reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP. For the complete investigative report by Sacramento Family Court News, visit this URL: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/temporary-judges.html

Citation preview

  • 1

    FLEC LIASION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2012 1. Roll Call and Attendance. FLEC a. Judith Winn, Chair b. Russell Carlson, Vice-Chair c. Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer d. Fredrick S. (Rick) Cohen, Secretary e. Michael Jonsson, Immediate Past Chair Judicial Officers a. Hon. Matthew Gary b. Hon. James Mize c. Hon. Sharon Lueras d. Commr. Scott Harman e. Commr. Danny Haukedalen Administration a. Julie Setzer b. Lollie Roberts 2. Minors Counsel Compensation by the Court. The funds to pay minors counsel on court pay cases are dwindling rapidly, but are not yet at zero dollars. The pace and method by which minors counsel cases are being converted to pro bono or withdrawal of counsel is being handled on an individual department basis. In general, cases that are dormant (no motions and little to no billings) are receiving notices that minors counsel will be relieved unless minors counsel requests to stay on the case. Although there are questions about the survival of various panel lists, the list that is most likely to survive will be the Minors Counsel Panel.

    PatRectangle

  • 2

    3. Pro Bono Mediation Panel. The court remains concerned about how to ensure that the pro bono mediators are legally qualified to provide this service, as both recommending and non-recommending mediators must meet the statutory and Rule of Court requirements. There was discussion about using the umbrella of pro tem judges or working through the Family Law Facilitators office. But, these options have logistical and legal problems as well. The court will continue to look at this issue, but the sense is that it is unlikely that the pro bono mediation panel will be able to be resurrected in light of the legal qualifications. 4. Settlement Department Issues. The court is concerned that settlement rates are continuing to decline. The court may look at ways to bring back some of the experienced pro tem judges who were known for fostering successful settlements but resisted taking the time and effort to qualify as pro tem judges under the current rules. The court may consider finding ways to have these people serve unofficially where they are not judge pro tems (may not take the bench or sign stipulations). The court will look at training for the existing pro tem judges in order to help develop their skills and increase their settlement rates. This includes better clarifying how assertive the court wants the settlement judges to be when assisting with settlement conferences (coercive as compared to simply being available to make it legal). If there are problems with attorneys refusing to stay beyond a certain time (prior to 4:00 p.m.), then the settlement judges should direct the attorneys to the supervising family law judge for a resolution of the issue.

    One concern discussed was that attorneys refuse to stay beyond a certain time (prior to 4:00 p.m.) due to conflicts, such as hearings in other courts. The court agreed that pro tems should not release attorneys until their case is either settled or confirmed for trial. As always, the Supervising Judge may offer assistance to pro tems as needed. With respect to counsel who are double set with a law & motion matter in one case and a settlement conference in another case, that should not be happening. But, if it does, counsel should notify the law & motion department in order to either be heard early or to be notified when their case is ready to be called in order to avoid disrupting the settlement department process.

  • 3

    5. Case Management Conference. We discussed ways that pro tem judges could help with this function. The problem is that there is significant work to support such a function and there are a lack of resources available in Department 128. 6. Hearing Continuances. The potential for attorneys to continue a court hearing on an earlier date when that attorney happens to be in court anyway on another matter will be a department by department decision. Most likely, at a minimum, the continuance request would need to be close in time to the hearing in order to ensure that the file is already up in the department. 7. Private Judges. The court is looking at this issue. Historically, the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court (going all the way back to the late Judge James Ford) has strongly resisted private judge stipulations. The concern is the potential for a two-tier justice system for those who have resources and those who do not. At this point, counsel should expect that private judge stipulations will rarely, if ever, be approved. The court does support and approve referrals to binding arbitration pursuant to the California Arbitration Act, JAMS, and other organizations. The key distinction is the loss of appellate review and the fact that the case is permanently out of the judicial system, rather than out of the system for trial, but back in the system for appellate review. 8. Custody Sub-Committee At the present time, no new applications are being accepted for admission to any of the courts panels (minors counsel, special master, private mediator, and custody evaluator). Thus, the court is not reviewing drafts of new applications or procedural guidelines. Julie will, however, review and follow-up on the procedural guidelines for private mediators and custody evaluators because of the upcoming training program. The Mediator and Evaluator Training Program will be on October 19, 2012 at the Natoma Inn in Folsom.

  • PatCJBNN-Yel

  • MINUTES

    EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE OREGON STATE BAR FAMILY LAW SECTION

    February 16, 2012

    Present: Laura Rufolo - ChairAnthony Wilson - Past ChairMarcia Buckley - TreasurerLauren Saucy - Secretary

    Members at large: Sean Armstrong, Jacy Arnold, Debra Dority, Andrew Ivers, ScottLeibenguth, Christopher Eggert, , Laura Graser, Theresa Kohohoff,

    Also participating: Ryan Carty - Legislative Subcommittee Co-ChairSusan Grabe - Bar Liaison

    * * * * *

    The meeting took place by teleconference.

    Call to Order. The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. A quorum was present.

    Business: The following items of business came before the committee:

    1. Approval of Minutes. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, itwas:

    RESOLVED: The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting heldJanuary 19, 2012, are approved as written.

    2. Treasurers Report. No report.

    3. Salishan Conference 2012, Committee Report. Planning for the conference is movingforward. Discussions have begun with Salishan for contracting the 2014 and 2015conferences. For the 2012 conference, some speakers have been acquired, including asecond out of state speaker. The committees main work at present is focused on pursuingadditional topics and presenters. Suggestions from FLEC are welcome.

    5. Legislation, Committee Report. No legislation that is currently outstanding should impactthe Family Law Section for the 2012 session. The committee is meeting February 22 todiscuss proposals for the 2013 legislative session. The committees recommendations willbe presented to the FLEC before the March 15 meeting so that a vote on proposals may beheld. The 2013 deadline to have legislative proposals to the Oregon State Bar for approval

    PatLine

    PatRectangle

  • is April 2, 2012.

    6. Child Support Calculator, Committee Report. The state workgroup is making progress.The work groups recommendations will soon be finalized and presented to the Departmentof Child Support to determine which recommendations should be put into effect in the newguidelines and how various issues should be incorporated into the formula. Ultimately theDCS has control over which recommendations are incorporated, however, it seems likely thatthe majority of issues will be addressed by DCS. The new guidelines should be implementednear the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013.

    7. Family Law Section Web Page, Committee Report. The web page is not yet up andrunning. Contact has been made with the programmer to try to determine what other stepsneed to be taken to get the web page going and that connection should be made soon. Thecommittee solicited additional members from the family law list-serve to join the committeeand no response was received.

    8. Professionalism Award, Committee Report. The committee has created a brief outlineof how to solicit nominations (list serve and perhaps bar journal) and a process for voting onfuture awards. More work will focus on creating guidelines for the award. The committeeintends to have a working model in place by June 2012.

    9. Donation Request. Follow up discussion was held on the request that the section contributeto the Campaign for Equal Justice.

    Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, it was:

    RESOLVED: The FLEC will periodically review and considerdonations to charitable organizations within the framework allowedby the Oregon State Bar. This includes, but is not limited to, theCampaign for Equal Justice. Donations will be made in an amount setby the FLEC. The source of donated funds will be conferencerevenue rather than member dues.

    10 Section Newsletter, Editors Report. The Editor submitted a written report as follows:Article submissions and requests are in line with previous years. A few particular out of stateattorneys have volunteered to write articles relating to military pensions. They do researchOregon law to include in their materials and it was recommended that the articles continueto be included on the FLS newsletter so long as the quality level continues. Articlesubmissions by section membership are always welcome.

    There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:32p.m.

  • These minutes were prepared by Lauren Saucy, 2012 Secretary to the Oregon State Bar Family LawSection Executive Committee.

    Lauren Saucy* * * * * * * * * *

    The schedule of future meetings is:

    Thursday March 15, 2012 3:00 p.m.Thursday April 19 , 2012 3:00 p.m.Thursday May 17, 2012 3:00 p.m.Thursday June 21, 2012 5:00 p.m. in SalemSaturday October 20, 2012 7:00 a.m. in Salishan

    IMG_8426IMG_8427IMG_84282010-04-FLEC-MeetingReport.pdfIMG_8346IMG_8349

    2010-06-FLC-Newsletter-ListServReference.pdfIMG_8354IMG_8356

    2010-04-FLEC-MeetingReport.pdfIMG_8346IMG_8349

    2012 02 16 - FLEC Minutes-OREGON.pdfPage 1Page 2Page 3