May-16-2008 10:25am To-1916443311' From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISCAARD & 'H LLP T-046 P.006/008 F-748

l Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH tLP

3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104

4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

s Facsimile: ( 415) 434-0882

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

7

8

9

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff; ) DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN ) SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY

13 v. ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

14 BACKSCRA TCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

18 I, Gordon Fine, declare as follows:

) ) ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: ). Trial date:

�

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

19 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of

20 California and am a partner with the law fum of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of

21 record for Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna (hereinafter

22 "defendants") in this matter.

23 2. I believe that the Honorable Shellyanne W.L. Chang the judge, the judge to whom

24 Plaintiff Nick Kalanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, scheduled to be heard on

25 July 29, 2008, has been assigned, is prejudiced against the interests of defendants or the interests

26 of its anomeys, or both, so that defendants cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before

27 Judge Chang.

28

4827-0l08-68SO. I -1-DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FJNE IN SUPPORT OF PEit£MPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May·16·2009 10:26am To-19164433111 From•LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & . 'H LLP T·046 P.007/008 F·749

.. ... ..

E as � � ""�5� �ii!�� � -fi?lil

t;5-0 � ; � ti -i;j" IXI w8::z: II) ::;.,o � 0;:; if "'�w - � .. � D: "' ti ma., Ill

� Ill _,

1 I declare under penalty of perjUtY pursuant t6 the laws of the State of California that this

2 declaration is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this fifteenth day of May,

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008 in San Francisco, California.

4827-0308-6850. I ·2· DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:26am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & ... 'TH LLP T-046 P.008/008 F-748

l

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite I 400, San

5 Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, I served the following document described as

7 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed

9 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

**Attorney for Plaintif/NICK KALANGES

[X] (BY MESSENGER SER.VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[XJ (STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

a, .. � on Ingram

4827-0308.0UO.J -3-l>ECLARATJON OF GORl>ON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Uay·16•2009 10:25am Ta-19164433111

1 Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 ZDUBl'M Y 16 PM 2: 08

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 5

.:i'\;, '·,:,11.:. i;C COURTS DEPT 1153 #54

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALJFORNJA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

13 v.

14 BACKSCRATCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

) } ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: � Trial date:

) )

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

18 Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna respectfully request

19 reassignment of Plaintiff Nick K.alanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication ofissues, scheduled

20 to be heard on July 29, 2008, pursuant to Code of C ivil Procedure section 170.6. This challenge is

21 based upon the Declaration of Gordon J. Fine in Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judge.

22

23

24

25 Dated: May L£" 2008

26

27

28

4826-023S-80!8.l

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By�; c=LK:: ordonJ. Fme

Attorneys for Backscratchers, Inc., Jack Megna and Michael Megna

-1-

BY FAX NO'fICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:25am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & • •H LLP T-046 P.005/008 F-748

1

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07 AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San

S Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, 1 served the following docwnent described as

7 NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ) the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller **Attorney for Plaintiff NICK KALANGES Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

[XJ

[X]

(BY MESSENGER SER VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

(STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

4826.0235-$018.1 -2-NOTICE OF A.N'D PEREMPTOQY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE

MINUTE ORDER

Date: 05/16/2008 Time: 03:05:44 PM Judicial Officer Presiding: Judge Shelleyanne W L Chang Clerk: E. Higginbotham

Bailiff/Court Attendant: None ERM: None

Dept: 54

Case lnit. Date: 04/13/2007

Case No: 07AS00238 Case Title: NICK KALANGES VS BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS. INC ET AL

Case Category: Civil - Unlimited

Date Filed: 01/15/2008

Appearances:

Nature of Proceeding: Disqualification of Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang Pursuant to CCP Section 170.6

Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang having been disqualified pursuant to CCP Section 170.6, the matter is ordered transferred to Department 53 for the hearing of all future law and motion matters. A Motion for Summary Adjudication is currently scheduled on July 29, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 53.

Declaration of Mailing

I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and that I deposited a copy of this document in sealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attorney of record in the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California. Dated: May 19, 2008

E. Higginbotham, Deputy Clerk _______________ _

Gordon Fine Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP One Sansome Street, Ste. 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104

Donald H. Heller L.O. Donald H. Heller 655 University Ave., Ste. 215 Sacramento, CA 95825

Date: 05/16/2008

Dept: 54 MINUTE ORDER Page: 1

Calendar No.:

May-16-2008 10:25am To-1916443311' From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISCAARD & 'H LLP T-046 P.006/008 F-748

l Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH tLP

3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104

4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

s Facsimile: ( 415) 434-0882

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

7

8

9

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff; ) DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN ) SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY

13 v. ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

14 BACKSCRA TCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

18 I, Gordon Fine, declare as follows:

) ) ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: ). Trial date:

�

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

19 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of

20 California and am a partner with the law fum of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of

21 record for Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna (hereinafter

22 "defendants") in this matter.

23 2. I believe that the Honorable Shellyanne W.L. Chang the judge, the judge to whom

24 Plaintiff Nick Kalanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, scheduled to be heard on

25 July 29, 2008, has been assigned, is prejudiced against the interests of defendants or the interests

26 of its anomeys, or both, so that defendants cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before

27 Judge Chang.

28

4827-0l08-68SO. I -1-DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FJNE IN SUPPORT OF PEit£MPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May·16·2009 10:26am To-19164433111 From•LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & . 'H LLP T·046 P.007/008 F·749

.. ... ..

E as � � ""�5� �ii!�� � -fi?lil

t;5-0 � ; � ti -i;j" IXI w8::z: II) ::;.,o � 0;:; if "'�w - � .. � D: "' ti ma., Ill

� Ill _,

1 I declare under penalty of perjUtY pursuant t6 the laws of the State of California that this

2 declaration is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this fifteenth day of May,

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008 in San Francisco, California.

4827-0308-6850. I ·2· DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:26am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & ... 'TH LLP T-046 P.008/008 F-748

l

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite I 400, San

5 Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, I served the following document described as

7 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed

9 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

**Attorney for Plaintif/NICK KALANGES

[X] (BY MESSENGER SER.VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[XJ (STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

a, .. � on Ingram

4827-0308.0UO.J -3-l>ECLARATJON OF GORl>ON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Uay·16•2009 10:25am Ta-19164433111

1 Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841

2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 ZDUBl'M Y 16 PM 2: 08

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580

Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 5

.:i'\;, '·,:,11.:. i;C COURTS DEPT 1153 #54

Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC., JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALJFORNJA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )

12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

13 v.

14 BACKSCRATCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES 1-25,

15

16

17

Defendant.

) } ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: � Trial date:

) )

January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set

18 Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna respectfully request

19 reassignment of Plaintiff Nick K.alanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication ofissues, scheduled

20 to be heard on July 29, 2008, pursuant to Code of C ivil Procedure section 170.6. This challenge is

21 based upon the Declaration of Gordon J. Fine in Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judge.

22

23

24

25 Dated: May L£" 2008

26

27

28

4826-023S-80!8.l

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By�; c=LK:: ordonJ. Fme

Attorneys for Backscratchers, Inc., Jack Megna and Michael Megna

-1-

BY FAX NO'fICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

May-16-2008 10:25am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & • •H LLP T-046 P.005/008 F-748

1

2

PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07 AS00238

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San

S Francisco, California 94104.

6 On May 16, 2008, 1 served the following docwnent described as

7 NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ) the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donald H. Heller **Attorney for Plaintiff NICK KALANGES Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009

[XJ

[X]

(BY MESSENGER SER VICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)

(STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

4826.0235-$018.1 -2-NOTICE OF A.N'D PEREMPTOQY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

16 February 2015

Sacramento Superior Court Criminal Activity Alleged At Judicial Council Meeting Protest & Public Comment

Evidence of alleged criminal activity by Sacramento Superior Court judges, employees, and part-time judges who also work as for-profit divorce lawyers will be presented by court watchdogs and whistleblowers at a Judicial Council meeting in Sacramento on Thursday, February 19. The presentation is a component of the "Stop Court Crimes" campaign sponsored by the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin-based family court reform organization.

The statewide CJE "Year of Action to Stop Court Crimes" campaign kicked-off in September with a rally at the Judicial Council in San Francisco, and is slated to run throughout 2015. Family court watchdogs from 16 California counties attended, including a strong Sacramento County contingent. The event generated press coverage by the San Francisco Examiner. In addition to the rally, the group made a formal, written request for an audience with the Chair of the Judicial Council to present evidence and discuss alleged criminal activity and other misconduct by family court judges and employees throughout the state. The request was denied, and the group was directed to express their concerns at the public comment segment provided at regularly scheduled Judicial Council meetings.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below:The group held their second event at a Judicial Council meeting in October. Courthouse News Service writer Maria Dinzeo reported on the testimony provided by the court reform whistleblowers during the public comment segment of the meeting, which took place after the customary mutual admiration accolades that characterize routine Judicial Council get-togethers.

The celebratory formalities took place in an unusually crowded chamber, and were followed by a tumultuous round of public comment on family court policies in California that included

Family Court Judge-Attorney Collusion, RICO Racketeering and Other Crimes To Be Submitted at Judicial Council Meeting

The Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin-based family court reform organization, has initiated a "Year of Action to Stop Court Crimes" campaign throughout California.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

7 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

roughly 30 litigants, attorneys and private citizens urging a separate hearing to address allegations of abuse in the state's family courts.

The public viewing area of the council's meeting chambers was packed with people in red t-shirts, representing by far the largest crowd since the council expanded its public comment period in 2011.

Nearly every speaker who stepped up to the podium remarked that the one minute each of them had been allotted was not nearly adequate. The speakers came from all over the state, from San Diego to Placer county.

Most complained of family law judges' custody decisions, saying the judges were not listening children's allegations of physical and sexual abuse and awarding custody to their abusers.

"Children are being killed in California. And many times, the courts are missing what's going on," Kathleen Russell, executive director of the non-profit Center for Judicial Excellence told the council. "We graciously request a public hearing on this issue. The family courts are forcing children into custody with abusers."

Family law attorney Barbara Kauffman complained that Marin County Superior Court, under the direction of Court Executive Officer Kim Turner, had destroyed child custody case files and had backdated court records in 2009 when the court was facing an investigation by the Bureau of State Audits.

Courts routinely purge documents to free up storage space, and the court said Turner had received permission from the Administrative Office of the Courts to destroy the documents. An internal investigation by the AOC cleared Turner of any legal wrongdoing.

Several attorneys publicly defended the family courts, but their remarks drew criticism from some of the other speakers. Barbara Monsey, a Marin attorney, said, "I can say without reservation, that there is absolutely no systemic problem with the Marin County bench."

Her comments were interrupted by an outburst from one speaker, an emotional mother who cried "Liar," at Monsey, then said "her nose is growing," as Monsey stepped down from the podium.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye threatened to have the woman removed. "If there are any further disruptions for the speakers, I'm going to ask CHP to remove the speaker and explain our protocol out in the hall," she said.

The Stop Court Crimes initiative seeks to expose corruption and improve court accountability and transparency through an education campaign targeting the Judicial Council, Legislature, State Bar, Commission on Judicial Performance and other agencies responsible for Judicial Branch oversight.

Event details from the Center for Judicial Excellence:

Join Us This Thursday In Sacramento! (Center for Judicial Excellence)

"As part of our ongoing 2015 Year of Action, CJE will return to the Judicial Council next Thursday, February 19th in Sacramento. CJE and our allies need your help once again to ensure another powerful presence. Whether you’ve been with us recently or this is your first time, we encourage everyone who can possibly make it to please join us on Thursday, Feb. 19th in Sacramento to help grow our movement and deliver our court reform message.

The Judicial Council continues to change their format for public comment, so we do not know how many people will get to testify, but you will be allowed 1-3 minutes to speak. If you want to attend but do not want to speak, bring a friend, relative or neighbor, and help show our strength in numbers by sitting quietly in the meeting wearing a red Stop Court Crimes T Shirt. Please email CJE to let us know that you are coming so that we can keep in touch!

Meet us at Starbucks beforehand! The public portion of the meeting begins at 10:20am, but we will be at the Starbucks down the road from 9am to 10am to grab coffee and visit. The Starbucks is located at 2620 Gateway Oaks Drive - Sacramento, CA 95833.

Meeting Agenda

What: Judicial Council of California Meeting When: 10:20am – 2:15pm, Thursday, Feb. 19th. Public comment is scheduled to take place from 10:55am to 11:25am, but everyone is advised to please arrive before the meeting starts at 10:20am. Where: 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95833

Who: Anyone concerned about or affected by the failures of the California court system. If you have already

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

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 &

Older PostHome

3 comments

Top comments

PR Brown via Google+ 2 weeks ago - Shared publicly

Sacramento Superior Court Criminal Activity Alleged At Judicial Council Meeting Protest & Public CommentFamily Court Judge-Attorney Collusion, RICO Racketeering and Other Crimes To Be Submitted at Upcoming Judicial Council Meeting The Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin-based family court reform organization, has initiated a "Year of Action to Stop Court ...

+1 ·

1 Reply

joshua wealth and health healer 5 days ago - Shared publicly

Need a financial breakthrough, need help with relationship, need herbal cure for any ailments, we can solve problems of all kind CONTACT 1(876) 360-1168 emails joshuawealthandhealthhealer @gmail.com

·

1 Reply

Barry angle shared this via Google+ 2 weeks ago - Shared publicly

·

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 9:44 AM

Labels: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CJE, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, JAMES M. MIZE, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL COUNCIL, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MARTIN HOSHINO, PROTEST, RACKETEERING, RICO, ROBERT HIGHT, WATCHDOGS, WHISTLEBLOWERS Location: 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833, USA

testified, then please join us again, but we ask that you consider submitting written comments and allowing others to speak during our limited public comment session. So many people have been harmed by the broken California courts, and the Judicial Council needs to hear from as broad of a group as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. We will videotape all testimony once again, as we did last time.

How:

If you did not speak at the last meetings and would like to address the Judicial Council next Thursday, then please send a brief email to judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov. stating your name (first and last), and the topic you would like to speak about (Judicial Accountability) in your email.

For those who spoke at one of the last meetings, we ask you to please join us again in your red t-shirt and submit written comments for this meeting. Comments should be submitted to judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov.

Anyone who cares about judicial integrity and the crisis in our state's courts is welcome to join us in the gallery in a show of support for the many people being harmed by our broken court system. You do not need to be a victim of a corrupt court proceeding in order to attend. Just bring $15 for a CJE membership and we will give you a red t-shirt that you can wear to show your support for our growing movement. It is going to take a statewide movement to expose what is going wrong in our courts, and we thank each and every one of you who is willing to participate."

+7 Recommend this on Google

California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service

Metropolitan News Enterprise

California Official Case Law

Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law

California Statutes

INFORMATION

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)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

10 January 2014

Sacramento Judge & Attorney Misconduct: New York Times Reviews Divorce Corp Documentary Featuring Four Sacramento Court CasesNew York Times Calls Family Court "A Land of Diabolical Lawyers" in Divorce Corp Review

Divorce Corp, a documentary film featuring four Sacramento Family Court cases opens nationwide in select cities today. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States," and is expected to follow the release trajectory typical for a documentary: A short theatrical run in major cities followed by DVD release, Redbox, Netflix, and screenings on network and cable TV. The production's nationwide search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion resulted in Sacramento court cases dominating the film. Local litigants Ulf Carlsson, Andrew Karres, Robert Saunders, Mike Newdow - and the nearby Nevada County Elena Haskins case - are featured in the film, with a special emphasis on the notorious Carlsson case. Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing described Sacramento Judge Peter McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson divorce as a "judicial reign of terror."

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

All four Sacramento cases profiled in the film involve allegedly egregious misconduct by Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section attorneys who also serve as sworn temporary judges of the court, including Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer. The non-fiction movie, narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky has received mixed reviews from the New York Times, Village Voice, Minneapolis Star Tribune, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orange County Register and RogerEbert.com. Minneapolis Star Tribune movie critic Colin Colvert gave the film three-out-of-four stars:

"[Director Joe] Sorge somewhat overplays his hand as he presents sordid examples of misconduct by judges, attorneys and custody evaluators. Shocking as those episodes are, the problem isn't the most flagrant outliers, but the day-to-day machinations of a flawed, adversarial system. Any divorce survivor will see rueful reminders of a destructive process. Any engaged couple should see it, period," Colvert said.

In a review of Divorce Corp, the New York Times observed that "Protracted divorces sap couples' resources even in amicable separations and, as in other areas of legal practice, the lawyers seem to have an incentive to draw out the conflict." Four family court cases from

Sacramento County are featured in the movie.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

4 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

3 comments

Top comments

PR Brown 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Sacramento Judge & Attorney Misconduct: New York Times Reviews Documentary Featuring Four Sacramento Court CasesNew York Times Calls Family Court "A Land of Diabolical Lawyers" In a review of Divorce Corp , the New York Times observed that "Protracted divorces sap couples' resources even in amicable separations and, as in other areas of legal practice, the lawyers se...

·

1 Reply

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Cases involving SCBA Family Law Section attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren included in Divorce Corp documentary now playing in major U.S. cities. The movie "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States." In its review of the film, New York Times calls family court "a land of diabolical lawyers." Aggregated reviews, links to full reviews, and more information at the link below:

+1 ·

1 Reply

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Sacramento Family Court Ground Zero in corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the United States, according to Divorce Corp, a documentary now playing in major U.S. cities.

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 1:10 PM

Labels: ARTS & CULTURE, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CARLSSON CASE, CHARLOTTE KEELEY, DIVORCE CORP, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS, PETER J. McBRIEN, RAPTON-KARRES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS Location: Sacramento County Superior Court 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse

Reviewer Matt Zoller Seitz at RogerEbert.com awarded the film two stars:

"Adding incompetence to corruption, the family court system is a steaming mess. Its various sections aren't governed by constitutional edicts that other institutions must follow. Power-tripping judges can indulge God complexes by lashing out against plaintiffs who protest their decisions. At one point, the film tells of a man who wrote about his experiences in family court online and was ordered to delete his blog by the judge overseeing his divorce. This is but one of many examples the film gives of judges behaving like old-time ward bosses or petty gangsters," Seitz wrote.

To view trailers and excerpts of the film at the official Divorce Corp YouTube Channel, click here.

To visit the official Divorce Corp web page, click here.

To view the list of theaters where the film will be shown this week, click here.

Correction: This post has been updated to reflect that Elena Haskins' family court case is in Nevada County.

For additional SFCN reporting on the issues and people in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

+4 Recommend this on Google

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

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

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

15 September 2013

Sworn Temporary Judge Divorce Attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren Engage in Historical Revisionism - Part 1

The Historical Revisionism of Sworn Temporary Judges Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren - Part 1A Special News and Analysis Series by Pelican Briefed

One form of historical revisionism is the “illigitmate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light,” according to Wikipedia. The distortion of history to deny historical crimes is sometimes called negationism. Historical revisionism is often associated with after-the-fact justifications for, or denial of war crimes, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Some countries have laws making it a crime to disseminate revisionist material, such as Holocaust denial propaganda. Revisionist tactics include deception, denial and trivialization.

A court reporter transcript obtained by Sacramento Family Court News shows that the same tactics have recently been used in Sacramento Family Court by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren. Van Beveren currently also is an officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee. The transcript records Sokol and Van Beveren disseminating subtle and overt falsehoods, deceptions, denials and trivializations about the unlawful 2009 assault and arrest of indigent, disabled litigant and family court watchdog Robert Saunders, in the courtroom of Judge Matthew Gary. Both Sokol and Van Beveren were eyewitnesses to the incident. In April, 2012 SFCN published an in-depth, investigative report on the debacle and subsequent events, including the vindication of Saunders by two outside, independent judges. Click here to read our report.

To continue reading, click Read more >> below...

The vindication, however, implicated both Van Beveren and Sokol for failing to report or otherwise take corrective action for Gary's misconduct. As sworn temporary judges, the two attorneys are bound by Canon 3D(1) of the

Judge Pro Tem Divorce Lawyer Richard Sokol Caught on Transcript Making Demonstrably False Claim About Illegal Arrest of Indigent, Disabled Litigant

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (58)

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (31)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28)

FLEC (26)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

SCBA (20)

CHILD CUSTODY (19)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (17)

DOCUMENTS (16)

CJP (15)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

SATIRE (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical rules for judges - which requires them to "take or initiate appropriate corrective action" when they know of misconduct by another judge. The rule is a critical, self-policing component of the Code, intended to keep judge misconduct in check. Both Van Beveren and Sokol witnessed Gary's misconduct, and both got away with doing nothing, a violation of Canon 3D(1). Now, four years later, recent proceedings in the case suggest that the judge pro tem attorneys are attempting to cover up their own prior misconduct and discredit the victim of Gary's actions by rewriting the history of the case. Their strategy involves influencing the current judge assigned to the case through the use of false statements and omissions of material facts about the original incident, and other unethical tactics. The case was, and continues to be a definitive example of rampant family court corruption and the cronyism between private sector attorneys who also hold the office of temporary judge and are contracted to run the court's settlement conference program, and full-time Sacramento County Superior Court judges, according to family court reform advocates.

In the first installment of this series, SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Richard Sokol is caught on transcript making the demonstrably false claim that Gary “didn’t have [Saunders] arrested; he had him taken from court.” Sokol’s claim is contradicted by court records, including the arrest report of Gary’s courtroom bailiff and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Deputy J. Strong.

“J. Strong #423 was ordered by Judge Matthew J. Gary…to take Robert Saunders into custody for contempt of court. Deputy Strong advised [Saunders] that he was under arrest,” reads the police report.

The court reporter transcript with Sokol’s falsehood, along with the report of Deputy Strong are posted below. Under state attorney ethics law, including Business & Professions Code section 6106, Sokol’s affirmative misrepresentation is an act of moral turpitude and “constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension” from the practice of law. Virtually any form of attorney dishonesty or deception, including a half-truth, or the omission of material facts, is the equivalent of an outright lie, according to the State Bar. For other State Bar references defining and prescribing the punishment for Sokol's misleading statement, visit the SFCN Attorney Misconduct page. Click here. Sokol made several additional demonstrably false statements at the same court hearing. Click here to view other articles in this series.

For additional reporting about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.

J. Richard Sokol Moral Turpitude False Statement in Court - Sokol by Sacramento Family Court News

Richard Sokol of the family law firm Sokol & Bristow LLP was recorded on transcript making a number of demonstrably false statements, including this one, about the 2009 assault and arrest of Robert Saunders by Judge Matthew Gary and courtroom bailiff J. Strong. Judge

Thadd Blizzard has yet to report Sokol's misconduct as required by Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

FERRIS CASE (7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CIVIL RIGHTS (4)

CONTEMPT (4)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

THADD BLIZZARD (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

The Divorce Artist

Above the Law

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

California Lawyer Magazine

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

1 comment

Top comments

Shelby Livingston 5 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly

A determination of child support depends on a variety of factors including: the income of each spouse and the amount of time the children spend with each parent. We always need to work to ensure that we receive a fair and accurate result.Adelman Legal Divorce Attorneys - http://adelmanlegal.com/family-law

·

1 Reply

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 5:47 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS,

REVISIONISM SERIES, RICHARD SOKOL, ROBERT SAUNDERS, SCBA, THADD BLIZZARD

Location: William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

1 SUPERIOR COURT O F CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAME

3 - - - ooo - - -

SHOW ME MORE LIKE DIVORCE ATTORNEY J. RICHARD SOKOL MORAL

Share Embed of 4

+1 Recommend this on Google

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 & 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

Fathers 4 Justice

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

News Video TV Opinions More...

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

SIGN UP | LOG IN

Posted December 30, 2014 byLegalNews Follow

676VIEWS

5COMMENTS

459SHARES

About this iReportNot verified by CNN

Location Sacramento, California

More from LegalNews

Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt in U.S. by Documentary FilmSacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest Disclosure Violations ContinueSacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" AppealCalifornia Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security Service

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme By LegalNews | Posted December 30, 2014 | Sacramento, California

A Sacramento Superior Court watchdog group has posted online court records and other documents which they allege detail a racketeering enterprise operating in the local court system. Using court filings, court reporter transcripts, public records and other documentary evidence, members of the group say they have reverse engineered the structure and players of the scheme.

448

Walter Scott Rally in North CharlestonBy JStidham22

Bangkok Street FoodBy MarieSager

A brother, a sister and a dinosaurBy EtanHorowitz

Walker Scott Protest, North Charleston City HallBy jwopd

Walker Scott Protest North Charleston, SCBy jwopd

More iReports you should see

"This package of evidence was compiled over four years, and includes records dating back ten years," said Ulf Carlsson, the spokesperson for the group. "Judges, court employees and lawyers involved in this criminal enterprise have been able to conceal it for a long time."

The group asserts that the documents show the scheme began in 1991 when two judges, Peter McBrien and Vance Raye, restructured the family court system with attorneys from the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. The conspiracy has expanded and been ongoing since that time, according to the whistleblowers. Judge Vance Raye has since been elevated to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, and continues to assist the organization when cases involving the enterprise reach the appellate court level.

The goal of the judge-attorney partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload and administrative duties of full-time judges by effectively privatizing the Sacramento Family Court settlement conference program, according to the whistleblowers. The attorneys agreed to take over and run the program in exchange for kickbacks in the form of preferential treatment from judges when they appear in court representing clients.

"The attorneys ostensibly act as volunteers," said Carlsson. "But we have documented that the lawyers are in fact compensated with illegal kickbacks in the form of 'rubber-stamped' rulings and court orders for their clients, in addition to other perks."

In order to run the settlement conference program, the attorneys are designated as "judge pro tems," or temporary judges. In operating the settlement program, the lawyers reportedly use heavy-handed, unethical tactics to coerce couples going through a divorce to reach a settlement. When they do, the case is terminated and no further court hearings are required, significantly reducing the workload of full-time, state employed judges.

"The coerced settlements often result in an unequal division of community property, one-sided child custody arrangements, and unfair child and spousal support payment terms that don't comply with state law," Carlsson explained.

"In many cases, only one side has an attorney - who is a member of what we refer to as the 'cartel' - while the other side can't afford a lawyer and is self-represented. These cases are where the one-sided outcomes are the most severe," Carlsson said. "You have someone going through a traumatic divorce without a lawyer facing off against a spouse represented by a veteran family law attorney. On top of that, the party without a lawyer is forced into a

garyonthenet January 8, 2015

Comments (5) Log in to comment

TAGS: vance_raye, breaking_news, sacramento_superior_court, rico_racketeering, 3rd_district_court_of_appeal, california_supreme_court, honest_services_fraud

What do you think of this story?

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

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

settlement conference run by a judge pro tem lawyer who often is a personal friend of the other attorney. As we've now documented, the outcome of these rigged settlement conferences is not fair, ethical, or legal. The conflicts of interest are required by state law to be disclosed, but never are."

The alleged criminal enterprise deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, a crime under 18 USC 1346, includes predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, and thereby constitutes a RICO racketeering enterprise under federal criminal law (18 USC 1962), according to the watchdog group.

Carlsson said the judge-attorney collusion also violates a number of state laws as well. "The scheme results in unjust enrichment for the judge pro tem attorneys, constitutes unfair business practices, and implicates antitrust laws," Carlsson asserted. "Due to their consistent, virtually perfect success rate in obtaining favorable outcomes in court proceedings, the temporary judge lawyers have achieved a significant monopoly on the family law and divorce business in the greater-Sacramento area."

The 43-page set of documents compiled by the group is posted online at Scribd, and can be viewed at this URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/251282897/Justice-Vance-W-Raye-Charged-in-Color-of-Law-Conspiracy-RICO-Racketeering-Scheme-in-3rd-District-Court-of-Appeal-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Sacramen

As bkain222 says, this happens all over the country, it only when they get to cocky with their power and get sloppy in covering their tracks, as in this

Listen To RadioListen to Free Streaming Internet Radio Now with the Radio Toolbar

Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Partner Criminal Conduct Alleged by Pro Per LitigantAfter a $1 million legal malpractice case against the firm, partner Paula Salinger is now facing allegations of criminal conduct and other ethical lapses in Sacramento Family Court.

By Cathy Cohen (Open Post) July 15, 2014 at 10:09pm

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family

Rosemont Find Your Patch 44° Partly Cloudy Home All Topics Small Business Voices

Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.

Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge.

Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge Matthew Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not

report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set also is embedded with this article at SFCN.

Obstruction of Justice

The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes.

The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger and Judge Matthew Gary. As reflected by page one of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Salinger then used the unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:

"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters

have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings. SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

As page one of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd shows, Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

As the page two legal reference details, under California law the response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer the contempt charge, or move to discharge the contempt on appropriate grounds. Requesting "affirmative relief," including attorney fee sanctions, in response to a contempt allegation is prohibited by law. As page five of the document set indicates, Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the contempt matter.

Witness Tampering Law

As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding.

Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. The report will be published in the near future.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees.

The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs

P U B L I C A R R E S T R E C O R D S

1) Search a Name/State for Free. 2) Access Arrest Reco…

AROUND THE WEB WHAT'S THIS?

When To Buy A New Car Calculator

Allstate

Will Your Dog Turn on You? 25 Breeds That Bite Owners

Dog Notebook

charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For complete coverage of the movie at SFCN, click here.

Sacramento Family Court News is a nonprofit, online journalism organization publishing investigative reporting, news, analysis, opinion and satire about family court. Click here for the SFCN "About" page.

Share

Comment Now

News Video TV Opinions More...

Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

SIGN UP | LOG IN

Posted July 27, 2014 byLegalNews Follow

49VIEWS

0COMMENTS

9SHARES

About this iReportNot verified by CNN

Location Sacramento, California

Assignment

This iReport is part of an assignment: Breaking news

More from LegalNews

Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest Disclosure Violations Continue By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014 | Sacramento, California

Family Court Judges Continuing Failure To Disclose Judge Pro Tem Conflicts Violates Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions Directive

2

Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on CNNgo.

Red Rocks Amphitheater in winterBy Rasarag

Cesky KrumlovBy RocioZ

SoCal SnowBy happyholly

Annual New Year's Day Coney Island Polar Bear…By BQueen1

THE MISSING CHIBOK SCHOOLGIRLSBy Alashock

California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering SchemeSacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt in U.S. by Documentary FilmSacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" AppealCalifornia Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security Service

More iReports you should see

TAGS: courts, law, sacramento, judges, corruption, breaking_news, family, conflict GROUPS: CNN International, News

What do you think of this story?

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

More from this assignment - Breaking news

See all 16,855 iReports

An attorney and Sacramento Family Court News reader provided the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions Formal Opinion at this link. The opinion provides yet another legal reference specifying that family court judges must disclose potential conflicts of interest on the record. At court hearings where no court reporter is present, the disclosure must be in writing, according to the CJEO.

In our original May, 2013 investigative report, we provided the legal authority, including Judicial Ethics Updates and Ethics Opinions from the California Judges Association requiring judges to disclose to opposing parties and attorneys when a judge pro tem attorney represents a client in court. As we reported at that time, in violation of state law family court judges were failing to make the required disclosure.

The violations remain ongoing, and hundreds of cases are tainted by the error. Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight is responsible for the oversight of temporary judges, according to the CJA, the Code of Judicial Ethics and other authority. Click here to view our 2013 report.

Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Reprinted with permission.

Family Court Judge Pro Tem Conflict of Interest Disclosure Law - California Supreme Court Committee on Judi... by Sacramento Family Court News

AirAsia emergency landing in Philippines

Sony Hack - My Story and Advice

Australians Do Not Fear Cowards

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

14 January 2013

Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per AppealsA Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1.This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013

A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked to Sacramento Family Court News court records indicating that countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork required by state law. After any family court hearing which results in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, spousal support, or any other judgment subject to immediate appeal, California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to enter, file and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court rule 8.104(e) defines "judgment" as any appealable order. By law, the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide the notice of entry to all parties. The notice provides an important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the destruction of exhibits on file with the court. In addition, two other components of the FL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time frame for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. In a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of the mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the notice were drafted specifically to eliminate miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click here and scroll down to the highlighted text to view the relevant sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case.

For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings, Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards have directed

Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower Charges

Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer and Manager Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees to disregard state laws mandating entry of judgment procedure, charges a family court whistleblower.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

2 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

court employees to simply ignore the law, according to the source, who provided the information on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.

To continue reading Part 1 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

"This has been going on for years and judges, attorneys, the family law facilitator, the court of appeal, everyone is in on this. One objective is to reduce or eliminate appeals by the indigent and self-represented," the source explained. "The FL-190 is the first notification they get that they even have appeal rights. Without the notice, most pro per parties are completely unaware that they can appeal child custody, visitation, support and many other rulings from OSC and motion hearings."

The mandatory Judicial Council form contains a notification about the right to appeal a court order, and a warning that exhibits may be destroyed or disposed of after 60 days from the expiration of the appeal time.

In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.

"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.

Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.

Omission of FL-190 Reduces Appeals by Family Court Parties Without Lawyers

Indigent and self-represented Sacramento Family Court parties do not receive this notice about their right to appeal child custody/visitation, support and other orders.

California Supreme Court Confirms FL-190 Mandatory

The clerks certificate of mailing at the bottom of the FL-190 form contains information critical to filing a timely appeal.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

Posted by PR Brown at 11:15 PM

Labels: ADMINISTRATORS, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CEO, CIVIL LIABILITY, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE

CODE OF ETHICS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, JULIE SETZER, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, STATE AUDITOR, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court - Family Relations Courthouse

Using the family law legal references used by judges and attorneys, Sacramento Family Court News verified that the FL-190 must be served and filed by a court clerk for all appealable orders. To view the FL-190 procedure reference in California Practice Guide: Family Law, written by judges for judges and attorneys, and published by The Rutter Group, click here. To view a similar reference in the companion California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, click here. In addition to the gold standard family law references, California Practice Guide: Family Law and Civil Appeals and Writs, the same procedure also is specified in Witkin California Procedure. Click here to view the Witkin instructions.

The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants which confirms that, by law, appealable orders are the same as judgments, and therefore require service of the FL-190 form. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:

"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.

The whistleblower pointed out that superior court and Court of Appeal judges, the family law facilitator and court employees are all paid by taxpayers to know and comply with the law. "There are thousands of court files without FL-190's. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that they all have never noticed that the files do not contain this mandatory Judicial Council form where required after law and motion hearings." According to public records, Julie Setzer is paid $4,460 every two weeks, Colleen McDonagh earns $3,460 every two weeks, and Denise Richards earns $36 per hour. Family court judges are paid $169,000 per year.

Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.

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

Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

Related posts:

Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.

Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.

Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

Click here for family court whistleblower articles.

Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.

Judge-Attorney Legal References Confirm FL-190 Procedure

3rd District Court of Appeal Verifies Appealable Orders Require FL-190

+2 Recommend this on Google

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)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

16 January 2013

Sacramento Family Law Facilitator Misconduct: Lollie Roberts Violates State Law - Mirrors Unlawful Court Administrator Policy, Whistleblower Alleges

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals

A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 2

This story is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September, 2013.

In a scheme allegedly coordinated with family court administrators, Sacramento Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts has directed her staff to dispense false information to unrepresented family court litigants. Roberts' objective is to help conceal systemic violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and state court rules by family court employees, according to court records and other information leaked by a family court whistleblower to Sacramento Family Court News. Another objective of the alleged plan is to obstruct pro per appeals by concealing a critical, state law mandated appeal rights notification from unrepresented, indigent or financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to the whistleblower, who provided the information on the

Family Law Facilitator Office Gives False Info To Pro Per Per Parties - Parrots Illegal Court Administrator Policy

Lollie Roberts, the Sacramento County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator has directed her staff to dispense false information about the state law mandated Notice of Entry of Judgment FL-190 form, a whistleblower charges.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

0 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure.

The appeal notice is part of a mandatory Judicial Council form, FL-190, which under state law court clerks are required to file and serve after a family court judge issues an appealable order. As SFCN previously reported, court administrators have instructed court clerks not to issue the FL-190 paperwork for appealable orders issued at law and motion hearings. Roberts and her staff are conveying the same inaccurate information by instructing pro per parties that the FL-190 is only issued when a divorce is finalized, and that appealable law and motion orders are not judgments requiring issuance of the form. The falsity of the information has been verified by both the California Supreme Court and Third District Court of Appeal.

To continue reading Part 2 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

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

The function and duties of the Family Law Facilitator for each county in California are specified in the Family Law Facilitator Act, Family Code Section 10000-100015. Facilitator duties include assisting "unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigants in gaining meaningful access to family court."

California Rules of Court rule 5.430 sets out the minimum standards for the Office of the Family Law Facilitator. The minimum standards include knowledge of family law procedures and child support law. In addition, Appendix C of California Rules of Court provides guidelines for operation of the facilitator's office. The guidelines include providing competent legal information, including procedural information and education so that litigants will have increased access to the court.

As we reported in Part 1 of our Color of Law series, a family court whistleblower alleges that Sacramento Family

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

Court records provided by the whistleblower indicate that Family Court Facilitator Lollie Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, in pro per family court litigants seeking help that the Notice of Entry of Judgment is only required for a final judgment, issued at the conclusion of a divorce, separation or nullity. The information is demonstrably false and can ultimately result in a waiver of critical appeal rights of orders involving child custody, support, and other appealable orders. When the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form is not served on unrepresented and financially disadvantaged pro per litigants, most are unaware that they have a right to appeal the order, and after 180-days the right to appeal the order is lost forever. In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, additional court documents leaked by a family court whistleblower indicate that family court

The Plan to End Pro Per Appeals

The Family Law Facilitator

Family Law Facilitator Dispenses False Information

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

administrators have implemented an unlawful policy that condenses the 180-day appeal time frame to just 60-days.

Facilitator records provided to SFCN about the entry of judgment issue indicate unlawful conduct by the Family Law Facilitator's Office. Using the facilitator e-Correspondence System, in writing an indigent, unrepresented pro per family court party asked facilitator staff why they had not received a Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form after court orders for child custody and support were issued in the case. To read the original written question submitted by the pro per to the Family Law Facilitator, click here.

In response, staff of the Facilitator's Office falsely claimed that the FL-190 "is only issued when a judgment of dissolution, legal separation, nullity (or some other judgment such as paternity) is entered on the record." The response also falsely asserted that a Notice of Entry of Judgment is not issued when "a formal Findings and Order After Hearing is

entered." Click here to read the response. The answer is calculated to confuse an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged in pro per litigant who would have little or no knowledge of family law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. The FL-340 findings and order after hearing form is usually prepared by the opposing attorney and the form does not contain the FL-190 appeal rights notification, nor the critical clerk's certificate of mailing which establishes the lawful appeal time frame. Under state law, a neutral court clerk - not an opposing attorney - is responsible for filing and service of the FL-190. As explained by the source,

"The facilitator response says 'It appears that many times in your case Findings and Orders After Hearing were entered but since these were not judgments, no Notice of Entry of Judgment was issued.' That answer is untrue. Almost any court employee knows, or should know that the findings and order after hearing paperwork simply memorializes a court order. It is unrelated to a Notice of Entry of Judgment, which in cases with child custody, support and other appealable orders, is by law required to be filed after the findings and order after hearing paperwork is filed," the whistleblower said. "Just look at California Rules of Court rule 8.104(e), it defines 'judgment' as any appealable order."

The leading family law legal reference book used by judges, attorneys, and appellate courts reviewing trial court mistakes is California Practice Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide verifies that for purposes of appeal, the terms judgment and order are synonymous, and the book refers to the same court rule as the whistleblower, 8.104(e). "An appealable order is a judgment - the facilitator staff response is not accurate and could lead an unrepresented, financially disadvantaged party to believe they could not appeal an order that was, in fact, appealable," the source added. Other legal references parrot the Practice Guide. For example, Witkin California Procedure specifies that "Some determinations, although characterized as 'orders' are in effect final judgments..." and that "the chief test is appealability." Witkin also verifies that in family court cases, the term "judgment" includes any appealable order, and that the FL-190 must be served and filed on all parties by a court clerk. Click here to view the Witkin excerpt. The California Supreme Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento provide similar information.

In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, one critical function of the form is to establish the time

In assessing whistleblower claims, Sacramento Family Court News relies on the gold standard reference for family law, California Practice

Guide: Family Law. The Practice Guide is used by family court judges and family law attorneys. Using the Practice Guide, Sacramento Family Court

Judge Matthew J. Gary provides monthly "Bench Tips" to family law attorneys.

This notice of appeal specifically notified Sacramento Family Court appeals unit staff that a notice of entry of judgment was never filed in the case as required by law. The clerk unlawfully applied a 60-day appeal time frame and rejected the appeal as untimely. The notice was

filed well within the correct 180-day time frame. For the full story, see Part 3 of our Color of Law series. Click here.

California Supreme Court Confirms Facilitator Error

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)

frame within which an appeal of law and motion orders can be filed.

"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.

Sacramento Family Court clerks not only do not file and serve the FL-190 form as required by law, they permit Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers to file a counterfeit version of the form which omits both the appeal rights notification and the clerk's certificate of mailing.The fictitious form also is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk as required by both the Code of Civil Procedure and the state court rules. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law also raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception. Click here for our complete report on the counterfeit form issue.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal publishes a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants that confirms the same information regarding appealable orders. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual reads:

"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.

Filing and service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. As of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.

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

If, as the whistleblower alleges, the non-compliance with rule 5.134 is part of a larger scheme or conspiracy that ultimately deprives unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights, court

The "Clerk's Certificate of Mailing" at the bottom of the FL-190 form is a critical part of the form because it establishes the time frame during which an appeal can be filed, according to the California Supreme Court.

Third District Court of Appeal Verifies Facilitator Dispensing False Information

Court Rule Violations Are By Law Government Misconduct

Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws

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 3 8 8 1 9

136

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)

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

employees and taxpayers could be exposed to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law.

In Part 3 of our Color of Law report, a Sacramento County Family Court clerk unlawfully refuses to file an appeal for an unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigant. Click here to read Part 3.

Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the tip that resulted in this article. We appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.

Related articles and posts:

A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.Click here.

Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and attorneys. Click here.

Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge. Click here.

Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual battery against clients. Click here.

Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges. Click here.

Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards. Click here.

Failure to adequately train family court judges. Click here.

Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents. Click here.

The staff of attorney Lollie Roberts, Sacramento County Superior Court Supervising Family Law Facilitator, provided incorrect legal information to this indigent, self-represented family court party. The opposing party is represented by a veteran family law attorney.

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

CARLSSON CASE (9)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

ELAINE VAN

BEVEREN (13)

EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT (18)

FAMILY COURT (9)

FAMILY LAW

ETHICS (2)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (3)

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 COURTHOUSE (1)

Newer Post Older PostHome

2 comments

Top comments

1 year ago

Most Family Law Facilitator's are also Attorneys who are currently part of the county bar association. Unlike the facilitator in Sacramento, Attorney Kevin. J, Mendrick, he had once represented my ex in a child support case. I called him on it, and told him that he worked on my case back in 2001, in the facilitators office he stated, " I don't remember you" I just laughed. He immediately got off the case. I am a strong believer in researching your

Cole Day Rain 1 year ago

I've been able to talk to the Family Law Facilitator's Office once. They basically took notes and promised to call me later. Later I was contacted and basically accused of lying. Why hadn't I signed the property settlement in the case I had agreed to sign on record? (Under duress I might add.) My answer was that the so-called agreement, when I finally received it for signature, was DIFFERENT than what I had been led to believe I was agreeing to. See, I

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 10:17 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, DENISE RICHARDS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY LAW

FACILITATOR, JULIE SETZER, LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: Family Court Sacramento - Sacramento County Superior Court: Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway

Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and employees. Click here.

Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold theOffice of Temporary Judge which may violate state unfair competition laws. Click here.

Judges cherry-picking state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to benefit judge pro tem attorneys. Click here.

The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other court proceedings. Click here and here.

Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to remain in family court. Click here.

Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges. Click here.

Failing to enforce the Code of Judicial Ethics provisions applicable to temporary judges. Click here.

Allowing court clerks to commit perjury without apparent consequences. Click here.

For additional coverage of the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.

Recommend this on Google

(9)

FERRIS CASE (8)

FLEC (28)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

JAMES M. MIZE (12) JEFFREY POSNER (6)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49) JUDGES (10)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

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)

PAULA

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) JUDICIAL COUNCIL (3)

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

NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)

OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL

ALIENATION (1)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

06 February 2013

Sacramento County Superior Court Misconduct: Family Court Appeals Unit Unlawfully Refusing Appeals by Indigent, Pro Per Litigants

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals

A Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 3

Sacramento County Family Court clerks are unlawfully refusing to file appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged family court litigants, according to a family court whistleblower. The policy constitutes an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings under California Rules of Court rule 8.23. The rejection occurs when a pro per party attempts to file a notice of appeal for child custody, support and other immediately appealable orders more than 60-days after order after hearing paperwork is filed. By law, the time frame to take an appeal from the orders is 180-days.The longer time frame applies because in family court cases, the court clerk must give the parties notice of entry of judgment using the Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form. As policy, Sacramento Family Court does not issue the FL-190 form for appealable orders from motion and OSC hearings. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. When the form is issued, the appeal time frame is 60-days. In Sacramento Family Court, all appealable motion and OSC orders are appealable for 180-days, yet court clerks are illegally rejecting the appeals after 60-days.

To continue reading Part 3 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

Family Court Appeals Unit Illegally Rejecting Appeals By Unrepresented, Financially Disadvantaged Litigants

This actual notice of appeal was filed by an unrepresented, indigent family court litigant and then unlawfully unfiled by a family court clerk. The clerk's conduct violates state law and constitutes unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings. Click here to view the

full image.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

As Sacramento Family Court News documented in parts one and two of our Color of Law series, court administrators - including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts - have directed subordinate employees to ignore state law requiring the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form be filed and served for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to read part one and here to read part two. The FL-190 form notifies the parties of appeal rights and contains an important clerk's certificate of mailing which determines the time frame for an appeal, according to state law, including a 2007 California Supreme Court decision.

When the FL-190 form is correctly issued, the 60-day appeal time frame applies and begins to run when the clerk's certificate of mailing is completed and the form is served by the court on all parties. When the form is not issued, the appeal time frame is 180-days. Sacramento Family Court clerks both do not issue the FL-190 form, and still apply the shorter 60-day notice of appeal filing window using the filing date of order after hearing paperwork filed by attorneys. Court records leaked by a whistleblower include a letter from a court clerk "unfiling" a valid notice of appeal. In the letter, under penalty of perjury the clerk misstates the law, and notifies the unrepresented party that the previously filed appeal has been "unfiled." Attached to the letter is the litigants original filed notice of appeal with a red "X" scrawled over the original filing stamp, along with the notation "unfiled" and "SH," the initials of the clerk. SFCN has verified the authenticity of the documents by inspecting the original court file. The documents leaked to SFCN are identical to those in the file. Click here to view the original filed, and then unfiled notice of appeal. Click here to view the letter from the court clerk.

Unrepresented Sacramento Family Court litigants report that the second floor "appeals unit" at the Family Relations Courthouse is an unfriendly place. Sacramento Family Court News audits of several pro per appeals reveal that appeals unit employees routinely do not

follow state laws governing appeals.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

To justify the 60-day time frame used to reject the appeal, the letter from the court clerk refers to "a Judgment (sic)...filed and signed on May 18, 2012," and that the litigant was "noticed via mail with said judgment on May 25, 2012." The original court file from the case shows that the May 18 "judgment" referred to by the clerk was not a judgment. The May 18 document is a "findings and order after hearing" filed by the opposing attorney. Click here to view the complete May 18 document. The May 25 notice referred to by the clerk is a proof of service filed by the opposing attorney for the findings and order after hearing document.

The clerks rejection of the appeal is based on applying a 60-day appeal window using the May 25 date, making July 25, 2012 the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on August 8, 2012, beyond the incorrect date used by the clerk, but well within the 180-day lawful time frame. The 60-day time frame is only applicable when an FL-190 is filed and served by the court clerk. The court file does not contain an FL-190. A findings and order after hearing filed and served by an opposing attorney is not a substitute for an FL-190, and does not result in a 60-day appeal time frame, according to state law and the family law references used by family court judges and attorneys, including California Practice Guide: Family Law, published by The Rutter Group. Click here to view the legal authority that applies to the connection between the FL-190 and the 180-day time frame. And in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the state Supreme Court pointed out that the title of the FL-190 and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom of the form are specifically designed to eliminate disputes about the time frame for an appeal in family law cases. The alleged motive of the clerk's letter is to deceive a self-represented litigant with limited knowledge of family law, according to the whistleblower.

"The letter from the clerk is designed to confuse the unrepresented party, and make them believe the appeal was untimely," the whistleblower explained. "A typical pro per unfamiliar with the law would fall for this deception. But it is exactly that - a deception - and a deception that is demonstrably false, and illegal under [California Rules of Court] rule 8.23. It is an unlawful interference with court of appeal proceedings."

The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento also confirms that any appealable order is considered a

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

"A Deception That Is Demonstrably False"

The clerk's certificate of mailing is a critical part of the mandatory FL-190 form because it determines the time fame within which a family case appeal can be taken, according to the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.

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

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

judgment, and therefore requires filing and service of the FL-190 form. Without the form, the 180-day appeal time frame applies. The information is provided in a Self-Help Manual [pdf] for self-represented litigants published by the appellate court. Page 10 of the Self-Help Manual includes:

"Note that the same rules about an appeal from a judgment apply to an appeal from an appealable order, as the rules of court dealing with appeals define 'judgment' as including an order that may be appealed. (CRC 8.10(4).)" Click here to view this excerpt from the Self-Help Manual.

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. More than five months after the egregious error by Deputy Clerk Stephanie Hinman in rejecting a valid notice of appeal, the error remains uncorrected and, it is self-evident, no discipline has taken place. The refusal to file a lawful appeal constitutes unlawful interference with appellate court proceedings - a violation of California Rules of Court rule 8.23. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct."

As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. At the local level, Sacramento County Superior Court policies and administrative procedures provide a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's discipline policy.

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

Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.

Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who fail to provide honest services may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. The constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and access to the courts apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth.

The notice of appeal filed by the pro per specifically notified the Sacramento Family Court appeals unit clerk that no entry of judgment was filed for the orders being appealed. Under state law, the time frame for the appeal was 180 days. Click here to view the complete

notice.

Oversight and Accountability

Taxpayer Liability Exposure and Criminal Laws

California Protective Parents Association

Center for Judicial Excellence

Courageous Kids Network

Divorce & Family Law News

Divorce Corp

Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from FindLaw

Family Law Courts.com

Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News

Fathers 4 Justice

HuffPost Divorce

Leon Koziol.Com

Moving Past Divorce

News and Views Riverside Superior Court

Weightier Matter

Cathy Cohen

ST Thomas

PR Brown

PelicanBriefed

FCAC News

RoadDog

CONTRIBUTORS

Total Pageviews

1 3 8 8 1 9

136

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

3 comments

Top comments

Thomas R 1 year ago - Shared publicly

Can anyone explain to me how the court clerk can set a hearing date that that makes it completely impossible to abide by California civil code of procedure 1005 where it makes

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 11:00 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT RULES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO,

FERRIS CASE, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PRO PERS, S. HINMAN, WHISTLEBLOWERS

Location: County of Sacramento: Superior Court-William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,

Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

In Part 4 of our report Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per Appeals, a court clerk files for a judge pro tem attorney a faux notice of entry of judgment designed to unlawfully invoke a 60-day appeal time frame.

Click here to read all published articles in the Color of Law series.

Sacramento Family Court News acknowledges the confidential source who provided us with the information and documentation for this article. We

appreciate the tip. To send us your anonymous tip by email, use our Contact Page. All communications are protected by the reporter's privilege and

the California Shield Law. For further details about our confidentiality policy, see our About Page and our Terms & Conditions Page.

Related posts:

Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.

Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.

Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

Click here for family court whistleblower articles.

Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below.

+1 Recommend this on Google

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)

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

CARLSSON CASE (9)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

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)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (3)

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)

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

20 February 2013

Sacramento Divorce Attorney Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court Alleged: SCBA Family Law Section Officer and Judge Pro Tem Files Fake Notices with Court

Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per AppealsA Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 4.

Sacramento Family Court News has obtained court records indicating that family court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file counterfeit "Notice of Entry" paperwork in place of the Notice of Entry of Judgment that court clerks are by law required to file and serve on all parties. The sham notice conceals a critical appeal rights notification from indigent, unrepresented family court litigants, and at the same time ostensibly constricts the time frame for filing an appeal from 180-days to just 60-days, according to a family court whistleblower. The fake form also omits an important clerk's certificate of mailing, which the California Supreme Court has said is designed to avoid ambiguity in appeal time frames.

"This is a component of the collaboration between court administrators, judges and judge pro tem attorneys to eliminate pro per appeals," the source said. "The fake 'Notice of Entry' contains none of the mandatory notifications about appeal rights, and appeals unit clerks use the notice to unlawfully reject appeals after 60-days - as if it were the same as the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment form," explained the whistleblower, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they could be subject to retaliation for the disclosure. Instead of rejecting for filing the self-serving, homemade form, court clerks file it and then appeal unit clerks use it to impose an illegal, condensed appeal time frame on unwary pro pers, according to the source.

Family Court Clerks Let Judge Pro Tem Attorneys File Counterfeit Entry of Judgment Paperwork, Whistleblower Charges

Paula Salinger, a family law attorney who also holds the Office of Temporary Judge, uses this fake "Notice of Entry" document to reduce the chance that an unrepresented opposing party will be able to take an appeal, claims a family court whistleblower. Click here to read

the complete notice.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

3 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

To continue reading Part 4 of our series Color of Law, click Read more >> below.

As Sacramento Family Court News reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of our Color of Law series, court administrators, including Supervising Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts have directed court clerks to ignore state law requiring court staff to file and serve the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment for all appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Roberts has instructed her staff to notify unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants that the FL-190 is not required for appealable orders issued at motion and OSC hearings. Click here to view the inaccurate information about the FL-190 requirement that Office of the Family Law Facilitator staff dispense to unrepresented litigants. Click here to read all of Part 1 of the Color of Law series and click here for Part 2.

Family court supervisors also have directed court employees to permit judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" as a substitute for the FL-190, according to the source. SFCN obtained three filed examples of the fake notice.

The three samples were filed by attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger. Salinger also acts as secretary on the Family Law Executive Committee of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section. Click here to view the notices, which were filed in 2011 and 2012. As SFCN reported, in 2011 Salinger was granted a waiver by then-Presiding Judge Steve White of the minimum State Bar membership requirement for temporary judges. The attorney is a partner at Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger Inc., a prominent family law firm where all four attorneys also hold the Office of Temporary Judge. One of the deceptive forms was signed on Salinger's behalf by firm partner and Judge Pro Tem Jeffrey J. Posner. From 2006-2009, Posner held each officer post on the Family Law Executive Committee.

Judge pro tem attorneys use the fictitious notice of entry against self-represented litigants who have little knowledge of family law and procedure, according to the whistleblower. "The attorneys use the fake notice in cases where the opposing party doesn't have a lawyer and doesn't know any better. If a pro per does somehow figure out that they can appeal an order

from a motion or OSC hearing, and then tries to file a notice of appeal, the appeals unit will use the spurious Notice of Entry to claim the appeal is untimely after 60-days," the source explained. "Without the filing and service of the mandatory FL-190 Judicial Council form by a court clerk, the appeal time frame is, by law, 180-days. The pseudo notice isn't used by judge pro tem attorneys in cases where both sides have a lawyer because most attorneys know there is no such thing as a quote Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing, unquote," the whistleblower said.

"Court clerks also know the fake notices are fake, and that they should not even be filing them. But they do file them because they are following orders. It also should be troubling that court filings by pro pers are routinely rejected by filing clerks because of minor technicalities, yet here you have a judge pro tem filing completely sham paperwork without any problem. It's all part of the plan by court administrators, full-time judges, and temporary judges to eliminate appeals by the indigent and unrepresented," the source added.

SFCN has confirmed the allegation as substantially accurate. There is no reference to a "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in multiple family and civil law references searched by SFCN. The leading family law treatise written by and for judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law, provides detailed instructions for order after hearing procedure and there is no reference to the notice filed by Salinger.

To prevent indigent, unrepresented family court litigants from getting this notice regarding appeal rights, Sacramento Family Court clerks allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a sham "Notice of Entry" form instead of the FL-190 form required under state law, according to a

court whistleblower.

Paula Salinger is a family law attorney, temporary judge,and secretary of the Sacramento Bar Association

Family Law Executive Committee.

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

In a 2007 decision, Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the mandatory Judicial Council FL-190 form, and that the requirement is unique and specific to family law proceedings.

"The clerk is required to give notice only in designated family law matters (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a); rule 5.134)...In those family law proceedings in which the clerk must always give notice, rule 5.134 requires the clerk to use a Judicial Council form (FL-190) specifically drafted to ensure compliance with rule 8.104(a)(1). Obviously, problems are more likely to occur when no approved form of notice is available...The Judicial Council form (FL-190) that clerks must use in family law proceedings...avoids ambiguity...by bearing the title, "Notice of Entry of Judgement," and by including at the bottom of its single page a form for the clerk's certificate of mailing." Click here to view Alan v. American Honda Motor Co.

The fictitious form filed by family court clerks for temporary judge attorneys does not contain a clerk's certificate of mailing, and is served by a private sector lawyer - not a neutral public court clerk - also raising ethical issues. Using in place of the state mandated form an unauthorized, self-serving form that omits appeal rights and other important notifications required by law raises moral turpitude and other ethical implications against attorneys who engage in the deception.

In a related situation, SFCN recently documented in Part 3 of the Color of Law series that an appeals unit clerk unlawfully rejected the appeal of an indigent, unrepresented litigant. Falsely claiming under penalty of perjury that the filing and service by the opposing attorney of a Findings and Order After Hearing form constituted a "judgment" and triggered a 60-day appeal time frame, the clerk rejected the appeal as untimely. Click here to read Part 3.

As we reported previously, filing and service of the FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment is required by California Rules of Court rule 5.134. Sacramento Superior Court internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.

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

introduction.

California Supreme Court Confirms Judge Pro Tem Notice Counterfeit

The deceptive, homemade "Notice of Entry" form filed by family law attorney, judge pro tem, and Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section officer Paula Salinger omits this Clerk's Certificate of Mailing component of the mandatory FL-190 form.

Family Court Oversight and Accountability

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)

In addition, as of 2011, the failure by government employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance,

bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. In addition, court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. The lack of oversight and accountability indicates that the deceptive, unlawful court filings are condoned by court administrators. According to a criminal law attorney, the elements of a violation of Penal Code § 182 - conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws - specify that an agreement or conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of those accused of the crime. Other criminal statutes that may apply include Penal Code § 470(c), altering, corrupting or falsifying a legal document, and Penal Code § 470(d), altering a document with the intent to cause damage to a legal, financial or property right. The facts and circumstances surrounding the fake notice of entry filings imply an intent to effectively alter the valid FL-190 form and replace it with a corrupt or altered document intended to impede the lawful appeal rights of the opposing party.

Depriving unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants of civil or constitutional rights also may expose court employees, supervisors, and taxpayers to financial liability in a civil lawsuit. Federal criminal statutes may also apply. Federal criminal law prohibits conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. Sacramento Family Court receives federal funding, and court users have a federally protected right to honest services. Court employees, managers and administrators who collude with private sector lawyers and fail to provide honest services to the public may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal law. To a view a federal criminal indictment for honest services fraud involving collusion between government and court employees and private sector attorneys click here. In Part 5 of our Color of Law report: the unlawful fee waiver gauntlet used by court clerks and judges to frustrate appeals by indigent, unrepresented family court parties.

Click here to read all articles in the Color of Law series.

Related posts:

Click here for articles about family court employee misconduct.

Click here for reporting on judicial misconduct.

Click here for posts about the Family Law Facilitator.

Click here for family court whistleblower articles.

Click here for family court watchdog coverage.

Click here for articles about judge pro tem attorney Paula D. Salinger.

Click here for coverage of Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner and Salinger, Inc.

If you found this article useful or informative please share it on Facebook, Twitter or recommend it on Google+ and other social networking sites.If you have additional information about this subject, or any news tip about Sacramento Family Court send us an email or use our Contact Page.

The Supreme Court of California confirms that court clerks mustserve and file the FL-190 form in applicable proceedings.

Federal Civil and Criminal Liability

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 3 8 8 1 9

136

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge

Newer Post Older PostHome

1 comment

Top comments

Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Watchdog & Whistleblower News via Google+ 8 months ago (edited) - Shared publicly

SCBA Family Law Section attorney and judge pro tem Paula Salinger files counterfeit "notice of entry" paperwork with court.

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

+2 ·

1 Reply

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 10:20 PM

Labels: ANALYSIS, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FLEC, JEFFREY POSNER, JUDGE PRO TEM, JULIE SETZER,

LOLLIE ROBERTS, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PAULA SALINGER, PRO PERS, WHISTLEBLOWERS, WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and

SALINGER

Location: County of Sacramento Superior Court - FRC -William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse, 3341 Power Inn Road,

Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click on the corresponding Labels below.

+3 Recommend this on Google 3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)

APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.

SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (21)

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

CARLSSON CASE (9)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (21) CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18) CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (9)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (13) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

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)

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

CAMILLE HEMMER (3)CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)

CHILD SUPPORT (3)

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

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire

Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY

27 January 2014

Attorney Misconduct: Diane Wasznicky Illegal Court Filing Not In Compliance With State Law - Ignored by Court Filing Clerks

Monday Document Dump

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

The declaration filed by judge pro tem attorney Diane Wasznicky with the request for order embedded below is drafted on blank paper without line numbers. The illegal and unethical litigation tactic - which also is used by other judge pro tem lawyers - prevents the opposition from filing written evidentiary objections.

Line numbers are required because in order to make written objections to false or inadmissible evidence contained in a declaration, the opposing party must, by law, specify the line numbers to show exactly which portions of the declaration contain false, misleading, or incomplete facts. If inaccurate evidence is not objected to it is by law considered accurate.

To continue reading, and to view the the unlawful court filing click Read more >> below...

The objections also are critical in any subsequent appeal, according to veteran Sacramento family law attorney Stephen James Wagner. "The failure to object to false evidence waives the right to challenge the court's ruling based on such evidence," according to California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, and Civil Trials &

Family Court Clerks File Non-Compliant Documents for Judge Pro Tem Attorneys - Reject Pro Per Documents

Family court watchdogs assert that Diane Wasznicky and otherjudge pro tem attorneys receive preferential treatment, and kickbacksin the form of "rubber-stamped" court orders in exchange for running

the family court settlement conference program.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

5 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

1 comment

Posted by PR Brown at 10:10 PM

Labels: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, COURT EMPLOYEE CODE OF

ETHICS, DIANE WASZNICKY, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, JUDGE PRO TEM, STEPHEN WAGNER

Location: William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

Evidence, the legal reference books used by judges and attorneys. Family court watchdogs have documented that declarations filed by attorneys often contain false or otherwise inadmissible evidence - which becomes admissible if objections are not lodged. Court records indicate that divorce lawyer and temporary judge Diane Wasznicky routinely is allowed by family court clerks to file declarations on blank paper without line numbers in cases where the opposing party is unrepresented.

Under state law, the failure to comply with court rules constitutes moral turpitude, and a violation of Business & Professions Code § 6106 and the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics - the ethical standards all judges must follow - family court judges are required to take appropriate corrective action against the attorney, including reporting the misconduct to the State Bar. In addition, family court reform advocates have documented that pro per drafted pleadings are closely scrutinized and often rejected for filing by court clerks because of trivial errors. Watchdogs point out that the failure of court employees to reject the defective filings, and the refusal of judges to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics and hold attorneys accountable is additional evidence supporting their long-running assertion that a "cartel" of SCBA Family Law Section attorneys, who also serve as temporary judges, receive preferential treatment from court employees and judges. They claim that the arrangement deprives the public of the right to honest government services, a federal crime.

Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document:

Diane Wasznicky Divorce Attorney - Unlawful Court Filing Sacramento County Superior Court - Bartholomew & W... by Sacramento Family Court News

Share Embed of 5

+5 Recommend this on Google

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

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 April, 2015.

As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento Family Law 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 because the lawyers are members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.

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. For a detailed overview of the alleged collusion between judge pro tem attorneys and family court employees and judges, we recommend our special Color of Law series of investigative reports.

The Color of Law series reports catalog some of the preferential treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our reports about family court temporary judges and controversies, click here.

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,

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 (67)

JUDGE PRO TEM (50)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)

PETER J. McBRIEN (22)

SCBA (22)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)

WATCHDOGS (20)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

217 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

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.

Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.

Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar - through the Family Law 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.

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

(11)

CARLSSON CASE (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)

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

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.

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.

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)

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 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.

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

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 5 5 1 2 1

163

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)

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.

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

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP (18)

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)

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

CONTEMPT (5)

CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)

DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)

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

Judge James Mize Misconduct: Criminal Acts by Judge Pro Tem Condoned by Supervising Family Court JudgeFamily Court Whistleblowers Charge Oversight and Accountability of Attorney Misconduct Nonexistent Under Leadership of Judge James Mize

By Cathy Cohen (Open Post) July 11, 2014 at 2:10pm

Sacramento Family Court Supervising Judge James Mize Fails to Effectively Train, Supervise and Discipline Temporary

Elk Grove Find Your Patch 38° Partly Cloudy Home All Topics Opinion

Judges, according to an Unsettling New Report from Sacramento Family Court News

Whistleblower leaked records from a Sacramento Family Court case indicate that criminal acts were committed by family law attorney and temporary judge Paula Salinger against an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family court party. The pro per was a victim and witness in a family court criminal contempt case filed against a Salinger client, and the pro per also is a domestic violence victim, according to court records.

Family court reform advocates say the case is another example of the complete lack of oversight and accountability of attorneys who engage in egregious misconduct against disadvantaged, pro per litigants who can't afford legal representation.

As Sacramento Family Court News previously reported, Salinger has been caught in several scandals including filing counterfeit documents in court, violating state laws and court rules, illegally attempting to obtain a final divorce judgment while an appeal in the same case was pending, and obtaining a questionable waiver of the requirements to become a temporary judge.

Attorney Collusion with Judge Matthew J. Gary Documented by Court Records

Salinger also obtained from controversial Judge Matthew

Gary an illegal order for more than $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the same contempt and domestic violence victim. To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use fee waiver law to obstruct an appeal of several orders he issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., previously was sued for legal malpractice in a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.

The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, where several posts linked to supporting documents posted at Docstoc and Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the claims, SFCN did not report on the assertions pending authentication of the records. SFCN has now verified the accuracy of the documents and posted the complete set at our Scribd account. The Scribd document set also is embedded with the original articleat Sacramento Family Court News.

Obstruction of Justice Crimes

The records indicate that Paula Salinger, a Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee violated California Penal Code sections prohibiting witness intimidation and deceit of a witness. Under California law, both offenses are designated as obstruction of justice crimes.

The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger andJudge Matthew Gary. As reflected by page one of the document set posted at Scribd and SFCN, at an unrelated court hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the

contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that he would deny the contempt claims, even though Salinger had yet to file a response to the contempt pleading. Salinger then used the unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to the unrepresented opposing party:

"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010, your Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain sufficient factual basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing on November 17, 2010, I intend to request the court dismiss the matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271 for proceeding with the contempt...

...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. that the above matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw my requests for sanctions pursuant to FC § 271," Salinger wrote in a letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the document set posted at Sacramento Family Court News is an authenticated copy of the threatening letter.

Contempt Filing Against Salinger Client Triggers Criminal Acts

The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent, unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court allegation against a Salinger client. The contempt filing charged several violations of the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings.SFLRO's are automatically ordered against both parties when a dissolution of marriage is initiated in family court.

As page one of the document set posted at SFCN reflects,

Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial harm in the form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop the criminal contempt case. As page three and four reflect, Salinger concurrently filed an illegal responsive declaration in the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.

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

Witness Intimidation - Influencing a Witness by Fraud

As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN and Scribd, Penal Code §133 makes it a crime to use fraud or deceit to affect the testimony of a victim or witness. Penal Code §§136.1(a) & (b) make it a crime to maliciously prevent or discourage a witness or victim from giving testimony at a judicial proceeding.

Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by the State Bar, Supreme Court or Judicial Council, or otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per advocates call the absence of accountability more proof that attorneys are effectively immune from punishment for egregious misconduct against unrepresented pro pers who can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court

litigants.

Civil law statutes, including wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process may also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking acts. SFCN is completing an in-depth investigative report on the criminal contempt incident and other troubling proceedings and documents from the same case. The report will be published by SFCN in the near future.

Family court reform advocates say the latest revelations are additional proof that the court operates effectively as a racketeering enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services. Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro tem attorneys receive kickbacks in the form of rubber-stamped orders and other preferential treatment from family court judges and employees.

The divorce lawyers who also hold the Office of Temporary Judge operate the family court settlement conference program in exchange for the kickbacks and emoluments, watchdogs charge. California Penal Code § 94 makes receipt of an emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several federal criminal statutes prohibit similar conduct. The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp designates Sacramento Family Court as the most corrupt in the United States. For our complete coverage of the movie, click here.

Click here to view the original article at Sacramento Family Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism organization publishing investigative reporting, news analysis, opinion and satire about the local family court system.