A Judicial Council News Special Report
California court watchdog groups and court employee whistleblowers charge that Judicial Council Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye has failed or refused to investigate allegations of criminal activity in the state court system.
The alleged lawbreaking is so pervasive that the Center for Judicial Excellence has initiated a statewide "Stop Court Crimes" campaign to compel the Judicial Council to investigate allegations that judges, clerks and court employees routinely violate state law.
In the 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, court employee whistleblower Emily Gallup explained the problem:
Tani Cantil-Sakauye Linked to Cover Up of Racketeering by Former Sacramento County Colleagues
 |
| State and federal courts, oversight agencies, and law enforcement have ignored an alleged racketeering organization operating in the family law division of Sacramento County Superior Court. |
Divorce Corp documented family court corruption throughout the United States and designated Sacramento County as one of the most corrupt family courts in the nation.
Judicial Council chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Canti-Sakauye served as a judge in Sacramento County for 15 years from 1990-2005.
From 2005-2010 Cantil-Sakauye served as an associate justice at the controversial 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court.
Sacramento Superior Court whistleblowers assert that Cantil-Sakauye has used her positions of authority at the state Judicial Council and Supreme Court to discourage and obstruct investigation of criminal conduct by her former coworkers at both Sacramento County Superior County, and the 3rd District Court of Appeal.
The family court division of Sacramento Superior Court is controlled and operated by an illegal parallel government structure made up of local divorce lawyers who also work as part-time judges, court employees and clerks, and full-time judges, according to whistleblower leaked documents and court watchdogs.
The shadow government is without the same transparency and accountability required of legitimate Judicial Branch agencies, and meets the legal definition of a criminal racketeering enterprise, whistleblowers charge.
The alleged criminal organization reportedly has operated for more than 20 years under the direction of long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a prior Sacramento County criminal conviction and two misconduct convictions by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for violations of state judicial ethics laws.
Both McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye worked in the Deukmejian administration, and both were appointed to the Sacramento County bench by the former governor. McBrien was appointed in 1987 and Cantil-Sakauye was appointed in 1990.
Court watchdogs assert that many current and former Sacramento County judges have direct or indirect ties to the corruption, including James Mize, Matthew Gary, Jaime Roman, Thadd Blizzard, Vance Raye, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Thomas Cecil and Dave Sterling.
Some judges were active participants or effectively facilitated the racketeering as accessories, while others - including virtually every judge assigned to the family law division over the last 20 years - knew or should have known that systemic lawbreaking, institutionalized socioeconomic bias, and criminal activity were occurring, yet turned a blind eye and failed to report the misconduct to oversight authorities, whistleblowers charge.
Judge Peter McBrien quietly retired in 2014 and, due to his prior CJP misconduct convictions, is prohibited from continuing to work as a retired judge, according to former CJP prosecutor and current Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum.
But, using a loophole in state law and his local court administration contacts, before he retired McBrien arranged to be immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight, according to a court employee whistleblower. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.
The whistleblowers assert that divorce lawyers in the organization receive preferential treatment, "kickbacks," and other forms of compensation from judges, court employees and clerks because they volunteer to work as part-time judges and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders issued when the attorneys file motions while representing clients in court. Court records show that the reciprocal quid pro quo agreement also includes the rubber-stamped denial, and even summary denial of motions filed by opposing parties, and especially unrepresented opposing parties who are indigent or disabled, or both.
The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings go far beyond the boundaries of, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. The orders themselves often are deliberately structured without facts, law, or findings, effectively making any potential appeal futile under two legal principles called the "doctrine of implied findings," and the "presumption of correctness."
The orders clearly are illegal as a matter of law, according to court reform advocates, "outsider" attorneys, and the law practice reference publications used by judges and lawyers. SFCN has posted examples of the orders online at Scribd and other document publishing sites. Order links are provided throughout this report.
Court case files also indicate that in some cases, judges simply ignore the requests in motions filed by pro pers, or even collude with judge pro tem attorneys to block the motions from being heard.
Statistical case sampling data compiled by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that, when compared to other counties, Sacramento County has a significantly higher proportion of family court divorce cases where only one side has an attorney, despite state laws mandating a "level playing field" - meaning both sides have a lawyer - where the marital community income and assets make legal representation economically feasible.
An important component of the alleged racketeering scheme is keeping pro per parties disadvantaged by preventing them from obtaining counsel. Oral and written requests for attorney fee funds are one of the most often denied, or ignored, motions made by pro pers.
Whistleblowers emphasize that it is hard to overstate the significance of this specific benefit provided under the reciprocal agreement between judges and judge pro tem attorneys. Divorce lawyers liken winning cases against pro per parties to shooting fish in a barrel. Both state and federal courts have long mocked and derided attorneys who represent themselves in court as having a "fool for a client," especially in emotionally charged divorce cases.
Published decisional law makes clear that if lawyers - who have formal education and training in the law - are fools for attempting to represent themselves in court, indigent and disabled family court pro pers with no education or training in the law have virtually no chance of prevailing against an experienced family law attorney.
Yet this manifestly unfair power imbalance goes unacknowledged, and is in fact facilitated by many Sacramento Family Court judges, according to whistleblower leaked court records and court reform advocates.
Most of the demonstrably unlawful orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many pro per litigants - who make up over 70 percent of court users - also are disabled.
In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged to intentionally, and illegally mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights. Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructions erected by court employees and trial court judges, and most eventually give up.
Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse of vexatious litigant law and Family Code case management law, according to whistleblowers and court records. The illegal litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of federal law.
In exchange for acting as sworn temporary judges, operating the settlement program and reducing the caseload and workload of judges and court employees, the attorneys also receive preferential trial scheduling, an unlawful "emolument, gratuity or reward" prohibited by Penal Code § 94.
The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include one-sided divisions of community property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and spousal support terms.
Court reform advocates also assert that the racketeering enterprise enables rampant fee churning and unjust enrichment by judge pro tem divorce lawyers, results in pro per financial devastation, homelessness, and imprisonment, and has caused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.
Years of illegal, pay-to-play child custody orders have resulted in the formation of several Sacramento-based court reform and oversight organizations, including Fathers 4 Justice, California Protective Parents Association, and the Family Court Accountability Coalition. The same family court watchdog group phenomenon has not occurred in any other county in the state.
Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.
The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice, child abduction, and receipt of an illegal emolument, gratuity, or reward by a judicial officer (Penal Code § 94).
With the help of court employee whistleblowers, the California Judicial Branch News Network has partially reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals the Kids for Cash court scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently exposed by the FBI.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and judge pro tem attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by Judge Vance Raye, Judge Peter McBrien and lawyers from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution.
Click here to read the transcript of the controversial judge's testimony.
Like McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye, Raye also served in the Deukmejian administration. The Republican governor appointed Raye to the Sacramento County bench in 1989, and elevated Raye to the court of appeal just two years later.
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.
Judge Vance Raye is now the Presiding Justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court. The appellate court has been embroiled in a number of controversies surrounding the review of Sacramento family court cases.
In 2012, troubled Sacramento County Judge James Mize, - a personal friend of McBrien - further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called "One Day Divorce Program."
Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does serve the needs and financial interests of family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.
One objective of the allegedly illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.
At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.
In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.
In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90 percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion mornings," the judge added.
Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil laws.
Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.
In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.
The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws, including the California Unfair Business Practices Act.
The alleged criminal organization reportedly has operated for more than 20 years under the direction of long-controversial Judge Peter McBrien, who has a prior Sacramento County criminal conviction and two misconduct convictions by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for violations of state judicial ethics laws.
Both McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye worked in the Deukmejian administration, and both were appointed to the Sacramento County bench by the former governor. McBrien was appointed in 1987 and Cantil-Sakauye was appointed in 1990.
Court watchdogs assert that many current and former Sacramento County judges have direct or indirect ties to the corruption, including James Mize, Matthew Gary, Jaime Roman, Thadd Blizzard, Vance Raye, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Thomas Cecil and Dave Sterling.
Some judges were active participants or effectively facilitated the racketeering as accessories, while others - including virtually every judge assigned to the family law division over the last 20 years - knew or should have known that systemic lawbreaking, institutionalized socioeconomic bias, and criminal activity were occurring, yet turned a blind eye and failed to report the misconduct to oversight authorities, whistleblowers charge.
Judge Peter McBrien quietly retired in 2014 and, due to his prior CJP misconduct convictions, is prohibited from continuing to work as a retired judge, according to former CJP prosecutor and current Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum.
But, using a loophole in state law and his local court administration contacts, before he retired McBrien arranged to be immediately rehired as a court commissioner by personal friend and Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight, according to a court employee whistleblower. Currently, McBrien remains on the bench in virtually the same role he maintained as a judge.
Preferential Treatment & Kickbacks
The whistleblowers assert that divorce lawyers in the organization receive preferential treatment, "kickbacks," and other forms of compensation from judges, court employees and clerks because they volunteer to work as part-time judges and run the family court settlement conference program on behalf of the court.
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders issued when the attorneys file motions while representing clients in court. Court records show that the reciprocal quid pro quo agreement also includes the rubber-stamped denial, and even summary denial of motions filed by opposing parties, and especially unrepresented opposing parties who are indigent or disabled, or both.
The orders consistently are contrary to established law, and the rulings go far beyond the boundaries of, and cannot be attributed to the exercise of judicial discretion. The orders themselves often are deliberately structured without facts, law, or findings, effectively making any potential appeal futile under two legal principles called the "doctrine of implied findings," and the "presumption of correctness."
The orders clearly are illegal as a matter of law, according to court reform advocates, "outsider" attorneys, and the law practice reference publications used by judges and lawyers. SFCN has posted examples of the orders online at Scribd and other document publishing sites. Order links are provided throughout this report.
Court case files also indicate that in some cases, judges simply ignore the requests in motions filed by pro pers, or even collude with judge pro tem attorneys to block the motions from being heard.
Fool for a Client
Statistical case sampling data compiled by Sacramento Family Court News reveals that, when compared to other counties, Sacramento County has a significantly higher proportion of family court divorce cases where only one side has an attorney, despite state laws mandating a "level playing field" - meaning both sides have a lawyer - where the marital community income and assets make legal representation economically feasible.
An important component of the alleged racketeering scheme is keeping pro per parties disadvantaged by preventing them from obtaining counsel. Oral and written requests for attorney fee funds are one of the most often denied, or ignored, motions made by pro pers.
Whistleblowers emphasize that it is hard to overstate the significance of this specific benefit provided under the reciprocal agreement between judges and judge pro tem attorneys. Divorce lawyers liken winning cases against pro per parties to shooting fish in a barrel. Both state and federal courts have long mocked and derided attorneys who represent themselves in court as having a "fool for a client," especially in emotionally charged divorce cases.
Published decisional law makes clear that if lawyers - who have formal education and training in the law - are fools for attempting to represent themselves in court, indigent and disabled family court pro pers with no education or training in the law have virtually no chance of prevailing against an experienced family law attorney.
Yet this manifestly unfair power imbalance goes unacknowledged, and is in fact facilitated by many Sacramento Family Court judges, according to whistleblower leaked court records and court reform advocates.
Institutionalized Socioeconomic Bias
Most of the demonstrably unlawful orders are issued against indigent, or financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties without an attorney. Many pro per litigants - who make up over 70 percent of court users - also are disabled.
In most cases, pro pers - who have little or no knowledge of family law - are unaware that the orders issued against them are illegal. In addition, court clerks and employees are trained or encouraged to intentionally, and illegally mislead unrepresented parties about their appeal rights. Pro pers who do attempt to file an appeal are forced to navigate a gauntlet of unlawful obstructions erected by court employees and trial court judges, and most eventually give up.
Further handicapping pro pers, when representing clients in court judge pro tem lawyers are allowed to obstruct an opposing parties' court access and ability to file documents through the court-sanctioned misuse of vexatious litigant law and Family Code case management law, according to whistleblowers and court records. The illegal litigation tactic effectively deprives pro per litigants of their constitutional right of access to the courts, a violation of federal law.
In exchange for acting as sworn temporary judges, operating the settlement program and reducing the caseload and workload of judges and court employees, the attorneys also receive preferential trial scheduling, an unlawful "emolument, gratuity or reward" prohibited by Penal Code § 94.
The ultimate consequences of the systemic divorce court corruption include one-sided divisions of community property, illegal child custody arrangements and the deprivation of parental rights, and unlawful child and spousal support terms.
Court reform advocates also assert that the racketeering enterprise enables rampant fee churning and unjust enrichment by judge pro tem divorce lawyers, results in pro per financial devastation, homelessness, and imprisonment, and has caused, or contributed to at least two child deaths.
Years of illegal, pay-to-play child custody orders have resulted in the formation of several Sacramento-based court reform and oversight organizations, including Fathers 4 Justice, California Protective Parents Association, and the Family Court Accountability Coalition. The same family court watchdog group phenomenon has not occurred in any other county in the state.
 |
| During three days of sworn testimony at his Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution, Judge Peter McBrien inadvertently revealed aspects of an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise operating in the Sacramento County family court system. |
RICO Racketeering, Honest Services Fraud, and Predicate Acts
The alleged criminal conduct also deprives victims of their state and federal constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection of law, access to the courts, and the fundamental liberty interest in the care, management and companionship of their own children, according to several "outsider" attorneys.
Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which also deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.
The alleged federal crimes also include the theft, misuse, or conversion of federal funds received by the court, predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, and predicate state law crimes, including obstruction of justice, child abduction, and receipt of an illegal emolument, gratuity, or reward by a judicial officer (Penal Code § 94).
With the help of court employee whistleblowers, the California Judicial Branch News Network has partially reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals the Kids for Cash court scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently exposed by the FBI.
Sworn Testimony Verifies Family Court Private Sector Partnership
 |
| 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vance Raye is the co-architect of the current Sacramento County Family Court system. Click here for details. |
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and judge pro tem attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991 by Judge Vance Raye, Judge Peter McBrien and lawyers from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to the sworn testimony of McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial Performance misconduct prosecution.
Click here to read the transcript of the controversial judge's testimony.
Like McBrien and Cantil-Sakauye, Raye also served in the Deukmejian administration. The Republican governor appointed Raye to the Sacramento County bench in 1989, and elevated Raye to the court of appeal just two years later.
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.
Judge Vance Raye is now the Presiding Justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the court responsible for hearing appeals from Sacramento Superior Court. The appellate court has been embroiled in a number of controversies surrounding the review of Sacramento family court cases.
In 2012, troubled Sacramento County Judge James Mize, - a personal friend of McBrien - further privatized family court services and expanded the ability of ostensibly "volunteer" temporary judge lawyers to earn kickbacks and other preferential treatment with his so-called "One Day Divorce Program."
Court watchdogs charge that the system was designed to, and does serve the needs and financial interests of family law lawyers at the expense of the 70 percent of family court users who cannot afford representation.
Quid Pro Quo Kickbacks and Emoluments
 |
| The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp exposed court corruption throughout the United States and designated Sacramento County as the worst-of-the-worst. |
One objective of the allegedly illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of full-time judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program, according to watchdogs.
At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce.
In many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are common.
In sworn testimony during his judicial misconduct prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge McBrien inadvertently revealed that an incredible 90 percent of cases assigned to his courtroom settled. "And so I, frankly, have a very light calendar on law and motion mornings," the judge added.
Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocal kickbacks, gratuities, or emoluments when representing clients in court. The issuance and receipt of the reciprocal benefits violates several state and federal criminal, and civil laws.
Reciprocal benefits include the issuance of demonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.
In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge and lying about the arrest and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.
The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided them prominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates consumer protection and antitrust laws, including the California Unfair Business Practices Act.
Racketeering Enterprise Members Immunized from Government Oversight and Accountability
 |
| Whistleblowers claim that Sacramento Family Court corruption results in the misuse of federal funds, deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services, and deprives unrepresented, disabled, and financially disadvantaged court users of their civil rights. |
The quid pro quo arrangement also involves what whistleblowers assert is a reciprocal protection racket that conceals the organization from discovery by law enforcement agencies and state oversight authorities, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, responsible for judge misconduct, and the State Bar Association, responsible for attorney accountability and discipline.
Case audits conducted by SFCN show that judge pro tem attorneys routinely violate state law, court rules, and attorney ethics rules, but are never reported to the State Bar, or assessed fines, penalties or "sanctions" by full-time judges as required by state law.
Pro pers who attempt to report judge pro tem attorney misconduct to the State Bar are told they need a court order from a judge before a disciplinary investigation against an opposing attorney can take place. There are no known instances where a judge issued such an order.
Court records leaked by whistleblowers also indicate that the under quid pro quo agreement, judges effectively shield attorneys from criminal investigation and prosecution for alleged crimes, including witness intimidation, child abduction, filing counterfeit documents, and violations of state and federal civil rights laws.
On the other hand, at the request of cartel attorneys, pro per litigants are routinely punished by judges with illegal fines, draconian financial sanctions, and other types of punishment to discourage them from returning to court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing judge pro tem lawyers.
Attorneys provide judges reciprocal protection by not reporting the judicial misconduct, Code of Judicial Ethics violations, and criminal conduct committed by full-time judge cartel members. And the lawyers do more.
To help conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, on the rare occasion when full-time judges do face investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance, members of the cartel provide false, misleading, or otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge. The testimony and support is designed to, and does reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP, ensuring judge members remain on the bench.
Court Clerks, Supervisors and Family Law Facilitator Racketeering Role
The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, and pattern and practice misconduct by court clerks, supervisors, and the Family Law Facilitator office. Court clerks routinely refuse to file legally sufficient paperwork for pro per parties, while at the same time filing legally insufficient, and even counterfeit paperwork - which they are required by law to reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.
 |
| In this case, a court clerk illegally "unfiled" a notice of appeal filed by an indigent, disabled pro per litigant. Click here for details. |
In some cases, judges and court clerks work in tandem to prevent pro per parties from filing documents at court hearings for the benefit of judge pro tems, deliberately creating an incomplete and inaccurate trial court record in the event the pro per files an appeal.
Court records show that clerks also deliberately withhold and delay the filing of time sensitive pro per documents until after filing deadlines have expired. Family Law Facilitator staff provide pro per litigants with false information designed to conceal state law violations by court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys with written legal advice and "bench tips." When pro pers ask facilitator staff for similar information, they are told that facilitator employees are prohibited from giving legal advice.
RICO Racketeering Enterprise Evidence Catalog
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, chronicling Sacramento Superior Court corruption, is now available on Netflix. |
- 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.
Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton of
Mel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed
Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute. - In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums. Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
- Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for our investigative report.
- An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.
- Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee. Click here for our exclusive report...
- ...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click here for details. Watch the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News video below:
- 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.
Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Gary
routinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit of local
attorneys who also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges
have been reassigned out of the family courthouse. - Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive investigative report.
- In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities.
- Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of 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.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize testified as a character
witness in support of controversial Judge Peter McBrien when McBrien
was facing removal from the bench by the state Commission on
Judicial Performance. - 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 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.
 |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment