Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:02 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
Stephen James
Independent Investigative Journalism & Photography
www.stephenjames.us
2
Stephen James
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:11 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
Stephen James
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:47 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
Stephen James
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:56 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
Stephen James
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:51 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
Stephen James
Stephen James
@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:06 PM
or
k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
On March 5 I wrote to the court to ask for help with a January request for judicial administrative records, and a February
follow-up request. The next day I received a response from Frederick Ohlrich. On March 9, from Mr. Ohlrich I received
the requested records. Based on what the records show, I am now writing to convey several concerns about
irregularities in the courts handling of a petition for review I filed in October, 2010.
I mailed the petition for review to the court at midnight on October 18, 2010, the last day of the 10-day window in which
the petition could be filed. The petition was mailed at that hour because in the process of printing the required 14
petition copies, my computer printer broke down earlier that day. The postal receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition reflects a date of Oct. 18, and a time of 11:58 p.m. Under Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), the
petition therefore was timely. However, the actual postage sticker affixed to the envelope reflects a date of Oct. 19,
2010.
To clarify any confusion over the conflicting dates, the next day I sent a letter to the court explaining why the postage
sticker on the envelope reflected a date of Oct. 19. A copy of my letter to the court is attached to this email as the pdf
file 2011-10-19-LetterRePostage. The letter included a copy of the post office receipt for the priority mail postage used
to mail the petition (rule 825(b)(3)(A)). As a precaution, at the end of the letter, I requested relief from default under
rule 8.500(e)(2) if for any reason the petition is deemed untimely. This letter was mailed Oct. 20.
Ju
On Oct. 21 I received a form letter from the court regarding the timeliness of the petition. I called the court to explain
the letter I had sent the day before, and also to ask if I should revise and resend my letter pursuant to the instructions in
the courts form letter, which said a request for relief should include a sworn verification. On the phone, I was told that
based on the postage date mix-up I didnt need to revise and resend my letter, and it was inferred that my petition
would be considered timely. The phone record for this six minute call is attached as the pdf file PhoneCallRecords. The
first concern I am writing to convey is that this phone call is not reflected in the case docket.
if
o
rn
i
During this same time period, I sent out a number of emails seeking amicus curiae support for my petition. David
Ettinger, the president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers reviewed my petition and approved it for
submission to the Academys amicus curiae committee. I also received responses from law school professors at
Stanford, Hastings, USC, UCLA, University of San Diego, and two Bay Area Legal Aid attorneys indicating that my petition
had merit and raised an important issue. Copies of these emails are attached as the pdf file AmicusRequestReplies.
al
On Oct. 25 I received an email from Mr. Ettinger withdrawing consideration of the petition by the Academy because that
day the Supreme Court docket reflected that the case had been closed based on denial of an application for relief from
default. Assuming a mistake had been made, that afternoon I called the court and was informed that the chief justice
had denied my request for relief from default. During this call, I recounted what I had previously been told by court staff
and that it was my understanding that, based on my Oct. 20 letter and post office receipt, my petition had never been in
default. Although the clerk I talked to seemed as baffled about the dismissal as I was, she said the decision was made by
the chief justice and was final. This five minute phone call is reflected in the attached phone records. This call also was
not memorialized in the court docket.
1
et
w
or
k
I researched the procedure for reconsideration of the order, and finding nothing in the Rutter Group publication
California Practice Guide-Civil Appeals and Writs (which I used in drafting my petition) I called the court two days later to
ask if there was a court rule or other reference providing for reconsideration of the order. I was told the order was final
and no reconsideration process was available. The attached phone records reflect four phone calls on Oct. 27: three
outgoing calls from me, and one incoming call from the court. The court docket does not reflect this communication.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
My petition for review is attached to this email. The petition raised several issues that are unique to the Third District
Court of Appeal, and to Sacramento County Superior Court. A component of the issues is an unusual and unusually harsh
standard of review which the Third District currently applies to all appeals without a reporters transcript (RT), regardless
of whether the appeal was deliberately and voluntarily taken without a RT. The 3rd District gets a disproportionate
number of appeals of this type because Sacramento County family court does not provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials. I explain this situation in the Why Review Should Be Granted portion of the petition.
I find myself in an awkward position because at the time I submitted the petition, I assumed that the chief justice would
not participate in the case because she is the author or co-author of several of the more than 25 unpublished 3rd District
opinions which reflect the standard of review policy I contend violates the due process, equal protection and access to
the courts constitutional rights of mostly indigent and self-represented family court parties like myself.
The chief justice is a co-author of two of the opinions (Alvarez and Nesbitt) I cite at footnote 2 on page six of the
petition, and the primary author of InreMarriageofNewby (No. C062596), filed December 27, 2010 - one of her last
opinions before taking the helm at the Supreme Court. In Newby, the chief justice used the standard of review which I
contend is unconstitutional as it is applied under the circumstances in Newby, the 25+ other cases, and my own case.
I have great respect for the judicial branch, and with all due respect to the chief justice and to the court, the chief
justices failure to recuse, and summary dismissal of my petition for review nonetheless conveyed the appearance that
she wanted to prevent consideration of the petition by the full court.
rn
i
Ju
In January 2012 I made a request for judicial administrative records to the court. I requested statistical and case data
regarding the number of untimely petitions for review which the court receives. I didnt receive a response to the
request, and sent a follow-up letter in February. Both letters are attached to this email as the file
Jan&FebRequestLetters. On March 5, I sent an email to Justices Werdegar, Liu and Baxter asking for help with the
request. On March 6, I received a response from Mr. Ohlrich acknowledging my letters from January and February were
properly addressed, but that the letters may have been improperly routed. Mr. Olrichs email is attached as the file
2012-03-06-OhlrichEmail. I received the requested records on March 9, 2012.
al
if
o
The records show that in 2011 the court granted relief from default for 43 civil appeal petitions for review filed late.
Most were filed late by a week or more, and several were months late. The court denied relief from default in 16 civil
appeal cases. These cases were late by days, weeks or months. As I have found no reference for the criteria the court
uses in assessing a request for relief from default, I cannot make any firm conclusions from this data. But if my petition
for review was somehow construed as being untimely, it stands alone as being dismissed for being less than one day
late.
I am writing to convey this information to the full court, and to express that I find the totality of these circumstances to
be troublesome.
Sincerely,
Stephen James
or
n
if
al
C
ia
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
or
k
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
.................................................................................... 12
I.
II.
Ju
A.
rn
i
B.
al
if
o
C.
III.
CONCLUSION
.................................................................................... 20
i
or
k
PROOF OF SERVICE
al
if
o
rn
i
Ju
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
et
w
ii
or
k
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
et
w
Published Cases
Pages
Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 .......................................... 18
Garcia v. Santana (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 464 ............................................. 18
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
Unpublished Cases
Pages
Ballard v. Tuimavave
(3d Dist. 2008) No. C055067 .................................................................... 6
County of Colusa v. Crawshaw
(3d Dist. 2008) No. C054929 .................................................................... 6
In re Marriage of Alvarez .............................................................................. 6
(3d Dist. 2010) No. C063155
iii
............................................................. 20
or
k
In re Marriage of Carvalho
(2d Dist. 2010) No. B214701
et
w
In re Marriage of Nesbitt
(3d Dist. 2008) No. C058175 .................................................................... 6
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
Other Authorities
Elkins Family Law Task Force Final Report and Recommendations ...... 12
iv
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
et
w
1.
or
k
ISSUES PRESENTED
reporter policies whereby some jurisdictions provide court reporters for all
hearings and trials, while other jurisdictions do not. In an appeal from a
family court jurisdiction which does not provide court reporters for all
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
al
if
o
rn
i
Ju
or
k
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
among the Courts of Appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b)(1).) This
case presents issues of first impression, public policy and the
Ju
same three appellate court districts, court reporter services are not
rn
i
al
if
o
et
w
are provided through the office of the family law facilitator erroneous self-
or
k
help information indicating that court reporters are provided for all
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
the historical body of decisional law that applies to judgment roll appeals
rn
i
al
if
o
roll, the Third District apparently applies the designation to all family court
appeals that do not include a reporters transcript. Contrary to controlling
precedent, the court does not appear to distinguish cases where an
indigent pro per party does not voluntarily and deliberately take an appeal
et
w
rarely, if ever, does not result in affirmance. The judgment roll standard
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
decisions from all districts, which show that the Third District applies the
rn
i
judgment roll designation and standard of review far more often than any
al
if
o
or
k
et
w
infer that few, if any, self-represented family court parties are. The Third
or
k
the policy. The policy can only be found in unpublished Third District
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
After the first trial court hearing in this case, which addressed
several issues including pendente lite attorney fees and support, petitioner
took this appeal. Prior to the trial court hearing, petitioner relied on the
self-help material provided through the office of the family law facilitator
and believed that court reporters were provided for all family court
proceedings.3 The lack of a reporters transcript in this appeal therefore is
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
proceedings.
rn
i
al
if
o
process, equal protection of the laws, and access to the courts. The courts
or
k
et
w
complete record for review, and the ability to seek a fair and appropriate
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
standard of review.
Ju
proceedings. The minute orders issued by the trial court did not include
rn
i
the legal and factual basis for most rulings, and omitted other rulings
al
if
o
or
k
omissions to the attention of the court several times. The court declined
to respond to petitioners written requests to correct the record. The trial
court also rejected petitioners proposed orders after hearing (OAH),
et
w
minute orders. Ultimately, the trial court judge declined four opportunities
to put into the record the legal and factual basis for the orders that were
memorialized, and to memorialize the omitted orders.
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
At the end of the trial court hearing, petitioner asked the judge how
to obtain the record of the hearing, and was told there was no transcript
because neither party had requested a court reporter prior to the hearing.
As a result, Petitioner took this appeal on the clerks transcript alone.
Because both the trial court and opposing counsel vigorously and
successfully thwarted petitioners attempts to correct the defective
minute orders and OAH so that they accurately reflected the trial court
proceedings, it would have been a manifestly futile act for petitioner to
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
or
k
which corrected most of the errors and omissions, and instead endorsed
et
w
or
k
sponte constructive orders issued in open court by the trial court judge,
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
the hearing, but denied by the judge. The documents are included with the
appellate court order attached to this petition. Among other things, the
documents memorialize important, non-cumulative material facts which
were omitted from the minute orders, and omitted from the OAH drafted
by opposing counsel and adopted by the trial court. And under the Third
Districts judgment roll standard of review, the records reveal error on the
face of the minute order and OAH records.
Ju
Appeal that he would file a reply to the opposition. Petitioner received the
rn
i
al
if
o
opposition to the court on Sept. 9. Before receiving the reply, the court
issued a ruling denying the motion on Sept. 8. The one sentence ruling,
which also returned to petitioner the rejected documentary evidence, is
attached to this petition.
10
attorney who court records show has since 2007 been associated with
et
w
or
k
assume that the attorney is aware of the judgment roll appeal policy of the
court. In the opposition pleading, the attorney did not dispute the
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
This petition seeks review of the courts order denying the motion
to take evidence. In doing so, it also challenges the circumstances which
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
11
et
w
I.
IN AN APPEAL NOT VOLUNTARILY TAKEN WITHOUT A REPORTERS
TRANSCRIPT THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE CRITICAL TO
RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS UNREASONABLY
IMPEDES THE RIGHT TO A MEANINGFUL APPEAL
or
k
ARGUMENT
In its final report, the Elkins Family Law Task Force emphasized the
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
and trial court orders containing material errors and omissions. Code of
Civil Procedure 909 provides that a reviewing court may take additional
evidence of or concerning facts occurring at any time prior to the decision
of the appeal for any purpose in the interests of justice. The principle that
12
judgment, not lead to reversal, does not apply under the circumstances
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
al
if
o
rn
i
Ju
and memorandum detailed the purpose and justification for the motion:
or
k
new evidence on appeal must enable the appellate court to affirm the
13
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
or
k
et
w
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
14
et
w
similarly situated family court litigants throughout the state are subject to
this difficult situation, and this court should grant review to ensure
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
II.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL
PROTECTION, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS REQUIRE PROVIDING
APPELLANTS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF RECONSTRUCTING THE TRIAL
COURT PROCEEDINGS IN JURISDICTIONS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE COURT
REPORTERS
A. In the Absence of a Compelling State Interest, the
Unequal Treatment of Family Court Litigants Based On Geography
is Prohibited by Equal Protection Principles.
Family courts in Santa Clara, Contra Costa, El Dorado and other
counties provide court reporters for all family court proceedings.
Sacramento County provides court reporters only on advance request of a
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
parties in contested cases indicating court reporters are provided for all
proceedings. Depending on where they reside, family court litigants
throughout California may or may not be provided a reporters transcript
on appeal. The concept of the equal protection of the laws compels
recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated with respect
15
or
k
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
King (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 226, 232.) In a voluntary parentage case, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal held that sections of the family code violated
rn
i
al
if
o
16
or
k
to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment. (In re Eric J.
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
rn
i
al
if
o
17
or
k
or
k
et
w
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
III.
THE COURTS ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND
JUDGMENT ROLL APPEAL POLICY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT TO A
MEANINGFUL APPEAL
rn
i
the single most critical prerequisite to an appeal. Without it, neither the
al
if
o
court nor the parties can ascertain what occurred and what errors, if any,
were committed. The governing principle of appellate review is that [a]
judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal
(In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133), and error
must be affirmatively shown (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d
557, 564). Because the burden is on the appellant to overcome the
18
et
w
1281, 1295-1296.)
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
or
k
any error appears on the face of the record. The court states that it must
conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support
the trial courts findings. The standard is indisputably harsher on
appellants than the substantial evidence, abuse of discretion, or
19
et
w
or
k
independent review standards. Pro per parties taking an appeal from trial
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
CONCLUSION
Ju
similarly situated, indigent pro per family court litigants in the jurisdiction
al
if
o
rn
i
justification for the judgment roll appeal policy of the Third District
4
See, e.g., Hearn v. Howard (2009) 117 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Second District)
[applying abuse of discretion standard]; In re Marriage of Carvalho (2010)
No. B214701 (Unpublished Second District) [designating judgment roll
appeal but applying substantial evidence and abuse of discretion
standards]; Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90 (Second District)
[designating as judgment roll appeal then applying independent review
standard and reversing] In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412 (Fifth
District) [applying abuse of discretion standard].
20
or
n
if
al
C
ia
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
or
n
if
al
C
ia
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
COURT OF APPEAL
ORDER
N
et
w
or
k
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
or
k
et
w
N
s
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
or
k
et
w
N
s
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
al
if
o
rn
i
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
if
o
al
C
a
rn
i
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
PROOF OF SERVICE
N
et
w
or
k
or
n
if
al
C
ia
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
or
n
if
al
C
ia
di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew
Ju
et
w
or
k
Change
court
Change court
Supreme Court
Welcome
Search
Case Summary
Disposition
Calendar
Help
Briefs
Lower Court
Opinions
Docket
Parties and Attorneys
JAMES, MARRIAGE OF
Case Number S197327
Date
Description
Notes
10/20/2011
Received untimely
petition for review
10/20/2011
10/20/2011
10/25/2011
Careers
| Contact Us
| Accessibility
| Public Access to Records
| Terms of Use
| Privacy
2014 Judicial Council of California / Administrative Office of the Courts
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(69)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(24)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
CJP
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(17)
JAMES M. MIZE
(17)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
CARLSSON CASE
(11)
California Judicial Branch watchdogs allege that Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is responsible for a court corruption
epidemic sweeping the state.
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
Sacramento Family Court News has published
an exhaustive, investigative report alleging that a criminal
organization
involving judges and local attorneys operates within the Sacramento County
family law court system.
The report is the latest allegation that corruption
has reached epidemic levels in California courts.
Court whistleblowersand watchdogs charge that California Judicial Council
Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye has
used her position to quash investigations into
the alleged criminal conduct of her former coworkers in
Sacramento Superior
Court, and the adjacent, and troubled 3rd District Court of Appeal.
Under the leadership of Cantil-Sakauye, the Judicial Council
has been besieged by controversy, including a
scathing state audit showing
financial and operational mismanagement, and allegations by the Center
forJudicial Excellence that the agency ignores criminal conduct by court clerks
and judges throughout the
state.
Mismanagement of the agency by Cantil-Sakauye - a former
Sacramento County criminal prosecutor with no
formal education in public policy and administration - is so consistently inept that a dedicated website,
Judicial
Council Watcher, tracks and reports the seemingly endless stream of
problems and scandals.
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
epidemic.
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)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
Kafkaesq
Shortly after she was promoted from the 3rd District to the
Supreme Court, Cantil-Sakauye personally blocked a
Supreme Court petition for review that challenged as unconstitutional several irregular appeal policies
unique to
the 3rd District. Despite a conflict of interest that, by law,
required her to disqualify herself from the case, CantilSakauye summarily
dismissed the petition, preventing the rest of the court from considering the
claims.
The lawyers receive anassortmentof illegal kickbacks because they are members of
theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,work as part-time judges,and
run the family courtsettlement conference programon behalf of the court.
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
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.
Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public
court and private sector attorneys constitutes aracketeering enterprisewhich also deprives the
public of thefederally protectedright tohonest government services.
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
The alleged federal crimes also include thetheft, misuse, or conversion of federal fundsreceived
by the court, predicate acts ofmail or wire fraud,andpredicate state law crimes,
includingobstruction of justiceandchildabduction.
With the help of court employeewhistleblowers, Sacramento Family Court News has partially
reconstructed the framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals
theKids for Cashcourtscandalin Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior
Courtcase-fixing corruption schemerecentlyexposed by the FBI..."
Divorce Corp
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(69)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(24)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
CJP
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
A Sacramento Family Court News investigation indicates that ideology and undisclosed conflicts of interest play a significant role in the
outcome of appeals in the Third District Court of Appeal.
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
Sacramento Family Court Newsis conducting an ongoing investigationof published and unpublished 3rd District
Court of Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family courts. This page is regularly updated with
our latest news, analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an unsettling link between how an appeal is
decided and the political ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of appeal judges assigned to
the appeal.
Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw
and the undisclosed connections between the trial court judge whose order is appealed, the trial and appellate
court attorneys, and the judges assigned to resolve the appeal.
The collusive atmosphere falls hardest on unrepresented or "pro per" appeal parties who can't afford to hire a
local appellate attorney. 3rd District appeal outcome statistical data reveals a virtually perfect record of success for
attorneys in cases where the opposing party is a pro per. Appeals taken by pro per litigants rarely, if ever,
succeed.
In addition, a separateSFCN investigation has uncovered evidence that both trial and appellate court judges,
DOCUMENTS
(17)
JAMES M. MIZE
(17)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
CARLSSON CASE
(11)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
part-time judges, and court employees deliberately obstruct appeals by indigent, unrepresented parties. Appeal
data from the Third District reveals that most pro per appeals are never decided on the merits and are instead
dismissed on legal technicalities, which are often caused by the deliberate acts of government employees.
Court whistleblowers assert and have documented that the family law division of Sacramento Superior Court and
the 3rd District Court of Appeal effectively operate as a RICO racketeering enterprise that deprives the public
of the federally protected right to honest government services, and includes predicate acts of mail and wire
fraud. Click here to read our full report on the allegations.
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, designated Sacramento County as the most corrupt family court in
the United States. Court watchdogs contend that the scale and scope of the corruption rivals the Kids for Cash
scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which also became a documentary film.
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of ten judges. The background of each appears to be
a critical factor in how an appeal is decided.
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal
outcomesare inconsistent, and in large part determined by
the work history,and social or professional connections
ofthe three judges assignedtodecide an appeal.
Each have personal, social, or professional ties to family court judges and attorney members of the Sacramento
County Bar Association Family Law Section.After his retirement in 2011, 3rd District Presiding Justice
Arthur Scotland described the professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys during his career on
the bench.
"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do that for two reasons. One, I think
it's a responsibility of a judge to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it.
But I really like the people. I really like going to these events. I enjoy friendships and that sort
of thing." Click here to view Scotland's statement.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
Sacramento Lawyer, the monthly magazine of the Sacramento County Bar Association each month publishes
accounts of recent social, educational and charitable events sponsored by the association, its 17 specialty law
sections - including the family law section - and its eight local affiliates, including the Asian/Pacific Bar
Association, and Women Lawyers of Sacramento. Most are well attended by a mix of state and federal judges,
court administrators, supervisors and employees, and lawyers.
To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family Law Court, we recommend reading our special
Color of Law series of investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment provided by family court
employees and judges to SCBA Family Law Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the Color
of Law series.Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA
attorneys assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in the appellate court.
Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull
and Nicholson should disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating fromSacramento Family
Law Court. Advocates argue that the same conflict of interest principles apply to family court appeals that resulted
in the self-recusal, or removal, of Vance Raye from participating in the 2002 Commission on Judicial
Performance prosecution of family courtJudge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002 Raye recusal andCJP decision
against McBrien, click here.The CJP has disciplined judges for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics rules
requiring judges to disclose conflicts. Click here for examples of CJP conflict of interest disciplinary decisions.
It is a basic principle of law that state appellate justices and federal judges with personal or professional
relationships with trial court judges connected to an appeal or federal court action should disqualify themselves to
avoid the appearance of partiality. Click here to view a recent order issued by a federal judge disqualifying the
entire bench of the Fresno Division of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Californiadue to personal
and professional relationships with local state court judges.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
The conflict disclosure problem infects the Superior Court as well. To the benefit of local family law attorneys who
also hold the office of temporary judge in the same court, Sacramento Family Law Court judges effectively have
institutionalized noncompliance with state conflict of interest disclosure laws.Click here. For an example of a
Sacramento County civil court trial judge who fully complied with conflict laws, click here.Without oversight or
accountability, family court judges routinely - and in violation of state law - ignore the same disclosure
requirements.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
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
said.
According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible for oversight and
accountability of California judges - the structure is known as a "two-track system of justice."
"In this case, we again confront the vice inherent in a two-track system of justice, where
favored treatment is afforded friends and other favored few, and which is easily recognized as
'corruption at the core of our system of impartial equal justice, and...intolerable," the CJP said
in a 2005 judicial discipline decision involving a Santa Clara County judge.To view a list of
similar CJP decisions, click here.
According to the gold standard reference on judicial ethics, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook [pdf],
published by the California Judges Association, providing preferential treatment to local, connected attorneys
also is known as "hometowning," and is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics.To view this section of the
Handbook, click here.
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
171837
176
Google+ Badge
Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the
Holiday Luncheon.
Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge pro tem attorney favoritism, and
flagrantbias against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys. Click here for a list of watchdog claims.
Published and unpublished 3rd District opinions indicate that Court of Appeal justices without direct ties to the
same superior court are more likely to follow the law, and less likely to whitewash trial court mistakes.
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
ABA
1102
(1)
AB 590
JOURNAL
(1)
ADMINISTRATORS
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
ANDY FURILLO
(2)
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND
(5)
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(11)
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?
Third District Court of Appeal Justices Ronald B. Robie, Harry E. Hull Jr., George Nicholson and Cole Blease.
Only Blease (R) has no past connection to Sacramento County Superior Court.
One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family
Court system was the 2008 decisionIn re Marriage of Carlsson, authored by Associate JusticesM. Kathleen
Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims.The opinion criticized explicitly the conduct of controversial Sacramento
County Family Court Judge Peter J. McBrien. None of the three 3rd District justices who decided the appeal
had ever worked as a judge in Sacramento County.
A fourth outsider jurist,Sixth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing subsequently
characterized McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror."In addition to ordering a full
reversal and new trial, the 3rd Districtdecision subjected McBriento a second disciplinary action by the state
Commission on Judicial Performance.
The judge's first go-round with the CJPstemmed from McBrien's 2000 arrest for felony vandalism under Penal
Code 594 in connection with the destruction of public-owned trees - valued at more than $20,000 - at the Effie
Yeaw Nature Center in Ancil Hoffman Park, Carmichael, California. McBrien had the trees cut to improve the
view from his home on a bluff above the park. Click here for the 2001Sacramento News and Review coverage
of the case.Click here to view the original summons charging McBrien with felony vandalism. Click here to view
the report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing the
complete investigation of McBrien's crime, posted online for the first time exclusively by SFCN.
Less than 48 hours after the judge was charged with the felony, McBrien negotiated a plea bargain, pleading no
contest to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 384a,paying restitution of $20,000, and a fine of $500.The
improved view increased thevalue of the judge's home by at least $100,000, according to a local real estate
agent, and the sweetheart deal outraged the Ancil Hoffman Park personnel who originally discovered the
butchered trees and conducted the initial investigation. McBrien's subsequent 2009 sworn testimony before the
CJP recounting his criminal case starkly contradicted Tourte's report and the truth about his criminal conviction.
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(20)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
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
CONDUCT
(12)
CRIMINAL
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(17)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
In the documentary film Divorce Corp, Ulf Carlsson describes egregious misconduct by Sacramento Family Law Court Judge Peter McBrien. Using
misleading sworn testimony about McBrien's reversal rate in the appellate court, 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland
effectively saved McBrien from being removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
COURTHOUSE
(1)
FAMILY
LAW
(9)
FAMILY
LAW
COUNSELOR
(4)
FAMILY
LAW
FACILITATOR
(4)
FEDERAL LAW
(2)
FEDERAL
LAWSUITS
(2)
FEE WAIVERS
(2)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
FIRST
AMENDMENT
(2)
FIRST
AMENDMENT COALITION
(2)
FLEC
(28)
FOIA
(2)
FOX
(1)
FREDRICK COHEN
(4)
GANGNAM STYLE
(1)
GARY E.
RANSOM
(1)
GARY
M.
APPELBLATT
(2)
GEORGE
NICHOLSON
(1)
GERALD UELMEN
(1)
GINGER
GREGORY
SYLVESTER
(1)
DWYER
(1)
HAL
BARTHOLOMEW
(1)
HATCHET
DEATH
(1)
HAZART SANKER
(2)
HONEST SERVICES
(4)
INDIGENT
(1)
INFIGHTING
(1)
J.
STRONG
(2)
JACQUELINE
ESTON
(2)
JAIME R.
ROMAN
(10)
JAMES
BROSNAHAN
(1)
JAMES
M.
MIZE
(17)
JEFFREY
POSNER
(6)
(1)
JERRY
JERRY BROWN
GUTHRIE
(1)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JODY PATEL
(1)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
(1)
JOSEPH SORGE
(1)
JOYCE
Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and
KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JUDGE
PRO TEM
(50)
JRC
(1)
JUDGE
(1)
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)
JUDGES
(10)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK
(1)
JUDICIAL
COUNCIL
(5)
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
(69)
JUDY HOLZER
HERSHER
(1)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
KIDS FOR CASH
(2)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
LAW
LIBRARY
(1)
LAW SCHOOL
(5)
LAWYER
(1)
LAWYERS
(7)
LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA
(1)
LEGISLATURE
(1)
LOLLIE
LINCOLN
(1)
ROBERTS
(5)
LOUIS MAURO
(1)
LUAN
CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
MARY
MOLINARO
(1)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ
(7)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
MCGEORGE
MEDIA
(1)
MICHAEL
SOL
(2)
T. GARCIA
(1)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH
(4)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)
NEWS
(24)
NEWS
EXCLUSIVE
(26)
NEWS
YOU CAN USE
(3)
News10
(1)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT
(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENT
RIGHTS
"Actually, before I even got sworn in in the bar, I was assigned out to juvenile hall and we
prosecuted...I prosecuted cases without any supervision - you know, against...really against
the rules...we were trying cases without any supervision." Click here.
In McGregor v. State Bar, the seminal case on the unauthorized practice of law, the California Supreme Court
explained why a nonlicensed person is prohibited from exercising the special powers and privileges of a lawyer.
"The right to practice law not only presupposes in its possessor integrity, legal standing and
attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the
nature of a public trust. It is manifest that the powers and privileges derived from it may not
with propriety be delegated to or exercised by a nonlicensed person." Click here.
25 years after he obtained his license to practice law, Justice Arthur G. Scotlandexploited the implied integrity of
his court of appeal office and exercised his special privilege in a way that to many Sacramento Family Court
litigants was a manifest violation of the public trust.
The Artifice
PARENTAL
PAULA
SALINGER
(15)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(24)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ
(1)
(3)
PRESIDING JUDGE
(2)
PRO
PERS
(18)
PROTEST
(9)
PSY
(1)
PUBLIC
RECORDS
After graduation, but before he was licensed to practice law, Scotland nonetheless practiced law while employed as
a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. In the outside world, the unauthorized practice of law is a
crime. But in Scotland's protective law enforcement bubble, "laws" are only enforced against drug addicts and the
unwashed masses. As Scotland explained in his own words, laws are actually only "rules" when a sworn peace
officer breaks one.
(1)
ALIENATION
(1)
RAOUL
THORBOURNE
(1)
M.
RAPTON(11)
KARRES
RECOGNITION/AWARDS
(3)
REVISIONISM SERIES
(2)
RICHARD SOKOL
(12)
ROBERT HIGHT
(11)
ROBERT
O'HAIR
(8)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
ROLAND
L. CANDEE
(1)
RON BURGUNDY
(1)
RONALD
ROBIE
(1)
RUSSELL CARLSON
(4)
RUSSELL L. HOM
(1)
RYDER
SALMEN
(2)
S. HINMAN
(3)
SACRAMENTO BEE
(4)
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SUPERIOR
COURT
(2)
SACRAMENTO
FAMILY
COURT
(13)
SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT
(12)
SANCTIONS
(2)
SANTA
CLARA
LAW SCHOOL
(1)
SARAH ANN
STEPHENS
(1)
SATIRE
(11)
SCBA
(22)
SCHWARZENEGGER
(1)
SCOTT
BUCHANAN
(5)
SCOTT
KENDALL
(1)
SCSD
(1)
SEATON
CASE
(1)
SELF-HELP
(1)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(2)
SFCN READERSHIP DATA
(4)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
SHARON HUDDLE
(6)
SO YOU WANT TO GO TO
LAW
SCHOOL
(4)
SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS
(5)
STATE AUDITOR
(6)
STATE BAR
(5)
STEPHEN
WAGNER
(2)
LEAVENWORTH
To help his old friend Pete McBrien keep his job, Justice Arthur G. Scotland concocted a clever plan intended to deceive the judges
deciding McBrien's punishment at the Commission on Judicial Performance.
In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character witness testimony for his old friend and law
enforcement co-workerPeter McBrien, Arthur Scotland drew on his training and experience in deceit from his
days as a narc."[Y]ou have to be an actor, you have to play the game," Scotland explained in the 2011 interview.
In front of the three CJP judges responsible for hearing evidence and deciding McBrien's fate, Scotland concocted
a clever, deceptive plan - an artifice in legal terminology - and convincingly delivered an award worthy actor's
WHITE
(1)
(2)
BURLINGHAM
GEVERCER
(1)
(1)
STEUART
STEVE
STEVEN
STEVEN
STEVEN
SUNDAY
FUNNIES
(15)
SPIELBERG
(1)
SUNSHINE
WEEK
(2)
SUPERIOR COURT
(2)
SUPREME COURT
(3)
TAMI
performance.
While testifying for McBrien,Scotland also revealed that his appearance on the troubled judge'sbehalf effectively
was voluntary. Before subpoenaing Scotland to testify, McBrien's defense attorney confirmed that Scotland would
not object to the subpoena. Click here. Judicial ethics Canon 2B restricts use of the prestige of judicial office to
advance the personal interests of the judge or others. Canon 2B(2)(a) permits a judge to testify as a character
witness only when subpoenaed.
The transcript of Scotland's testimony also showed that -to prepare his CJP testimony - the presiding justice of the
3rd District affirmatively and voluntarily took theinitiative (presumably on his own time) to research 3rd District
family court appeals where McBrien was the trial court judge. His objective was to show the CJP that McBrien had
a low reversal rate in the appellate court.
"I also, by the way -- when you called me to ask if I would object to being Subpoenaed as a
witness, and I said no, I did research. I looked up -- I knew what this was all about, so I
researched the number of appeals from cases from Judge McBrien's court. And so I -- and I
looked -- I read all the opinions in which he was reversed in full or in part...
I've known Judge McBrien for 32 years. I got to know, then, Deputy Attorney General Pete
McBrien. When I left the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and went to work for
the California Attorney General's Office, he was already a Deputy Attorney General there. So I
got to know him there, mainly professionally. Socially to a relatively minor extent. We had -we had two co-ed softball teams. He played on one; I played on another. Of course, we would
attend office functions together. His -- one of his very best friends was my supervisor in the
Attorney General's Office. So, on occasion -- not frequently, but on occasion we would attend
social events with others from the office....
[McBrien had] seven reversals in whole or in part, out of 110 appeals, which is about 6%,
which actually is a remarkably good reversal rate. Because our average reversal rate in civil
cases is 20 to 25 percent." Scotland testified at pages 549-553 of the reporter's transcript. Click
here.
Scotland's claim that McBrien had a
"remarkably good reversal rate" was,
at best, a half-truth. Under the legal
and ethical standards applicable to
lawyers and judges, a half-truth is the
same as a "false statement of fact" or
what the general public refers to as a
lie. Click here.
Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his days as an
"You have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in 2011.
Scotland then made a disingenuous, self-serving apples-to-oranges comparison between the reversal rate in civil
case appeals - where both sides are usually represented by an attorney, or team of attorneys, and appeals are
decided on the merits - with the reversal rate in family court cases, where neither qualifier is true.SFCNcurrently is
conducting an audit of 3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this subject in the near future.
BOGERT
(1)
TAXPAYERS
(1)
TERRY FRANCKE
(1)
BLIZZARD
(5)
THADD
THADDEUS
STEVENS
(1)
THE RUTTER GROUP
(1)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)
THOMAS WOODRUFF
(5)
TIMOTHY ZEFF
(5)
TOMMY
ULF
LEE
JONES
(1)
CARLSSON
(6)
UNITED
NATIONS
(1)
UPDATE
(2)
VANCE W. RAYE
(3)
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(2)
VL-CLASS-ACTION
(1)
WALL
STREET JOURNAL
(1)
WASTE
(1)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
ACT
(2)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WHITE HOUSE
(1)
WOODRUFF
O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
(11)
XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA
(4)
YOLO
COUNTY
(1)
YOUTUBE
(7)
had the balls to suggest that disciplining McBrien for his conduct in Carlsson would be a "miscarriage of justice,"
that would allow "incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges."
"And you haven't asked me this question, but if [McBrien] were, for some reason, to be found
to have violated the canons of judicial ethics, or whatever, I frankly -- I know about these
cases; I know about the Carlsson case. I think it would be a miscarriage of justice. I think it
would send the wrong signal to judges and practitioners that you don't allow -- that you would
be allowing incompetent attorneys to run the court instead of competent judges," Scotland
testified at the CJP.
Like Scotland, 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushingknew well the Carlsson case,
which he said "developed a certain notoriety."Unlike Scotland, Rushing wasn't an old friend and coworker of
McBrien who would disingenuously suggest the blame for McBrien's "reign of terror" lay with an incompetent
attorney. Scotland's colleagues at the 3rd District,Butz, Blease and Sims reversed and remanded the Carlsson
case for retrial based on extremely rare, reversible per se, egregiousstructural and constitutional error by Judge
McBrien.Aftercarefully scrutinizing the trial court record, the panel made no mention of attorney "incompetence" in
their published opinion.
However, Scotland's incompetence assertion to the CJP
did, coincidentally, perfectly dovetail with
thecarefullycrafted defense McBrien's legal team
presented during three days of CJP testimony to the
three-judge CJP panel assigned to decide McBrien's
fate.
Despite the parade of former law enforcement co-workers, friends, and family court judge pro tem
croniesMcBrien marshaled on his behalf, two of the voting CJP members saw through the ruse and dissented
from the decision to let the judge remain on the bench, stating they would have removed McBrien from
office.Click here.When he referred to McBrien's conduct in the Carlsson case as a "judicial reign of terror," 6th
District Justice Rushingalso noted that "two of the nine participating members [voted] to remove him from
the bench." Click here.
The Carlsson case is prominently featured in Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and
collusive industry of family law in the United States." The production team for the film conducted a nationwide
search for the most egregious examples of family court corruption and collusion, and four Sacramento County
cases are included in the movie. Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky,Divorce Corp opened in theaters in major U.S.
cities on January 9, 2014. Following the theatrical run, the documentary will be released on DVD, RedBox, Netflix,
broadcast and cable TV. Click here for our continuing coverage of Divorce Corp.To view trailers for the movie on
YouTube, click here.
Rehabilitation FAIL
The near-career death experience apparently has had no discernible corrective effect on the ethically-challenged
judge. In subsequent proceedings in his courtroom involving the judge pro tem attorneys (and lawyers at the
same firms as the judge pro tems) whose CJP testimony effectively saved his $170,00 per year job,McBrien
reportedly has never disclosed to opposing parties and attorneys the potential conflict of interest as required by
Canon 3E(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The failure to disclose the potential conflict is a violation of the canon
and other state laws, according to the CJP, Judicial Council, and California Judges Association. For the
exclusive SFCN report on conflict of interest law, click here.
No one can be certain precisely why Nicholson received such low ratings, but there is enough
in his public record to raise serious questions about his temperament and judgment. In 1979,
he left a job as director of the District Attorneys Association after an audit showed that the
organization's finances had been badly mismanaged and that it was on the verge of
bankruptcy. Later, as a senior assistant attorney general, he was twice admonished by
superiors for promoting a ballot measure in ways that could be mistaken as an official state
Justice Department endorsement of the measure. More recently, a federally funded $4 million
'National School Safety Center' affiliated with Pepperdine University that he directed was
embroiled in an extended controversy during which 18 of 30 staff members either resigned or
were fired.
The U.S. General Accounting Office, which conducted an audit into the management of the
Pepperdine program and into how the federal money was being spent, cleared the center of
fiscal irregularities, attributing the problems to Nicholson's 'combative' personality and
management style. But because of those problems, Pepperdine named a new executive
director, who, the auditors said, restored stability to the management of the program 'while
retaining Nicholson's creative talents,'" the Sacramento Bee said in 1987. Click here.
Nicholson subsequently was elected to both Sacramento County Superior Court and the 3rd District Court of
Appeal with backing from law enforcement, Crime Victims United and other Astroturf "victims rights" and "law
and order" groups. Crime Victims United is funded by - and acts essentially as asubsidiaryof - the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association, the controversial prison guard union.
A principal architect of Proposition 8 the "The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights", after a failed run as the GOP
candidate for attorney general Nicholson rode an anti-Rose Bird, tough-on-crime platform to the bench. Over
several decades, Associate Justice Nicholson played a significant role in giving the United States one of the
highest per capita rates of incarceration in the world. Thanks to Nicholson, the prison guard union, and
Astroturf "victims rights" groups bankrolled by the union, California now spends a significantly larger portion
of the state budget on corrections than on higher education.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar,
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan of the Supreme Court are responsible for oversight and accountability of the 3rd
District Court of Appeal, and the other appellate courts in the state.
Home
235
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(69)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(24)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.Most of the
illegal orders are issued against indigent, or
financially disadvantaged "pro per" parties
without an attorney. Manyof the pro pers also
are disabled.
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
CJP
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(17)
JAMES M. MIZE
(17)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
CARLSSON CASE
(11)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
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.
Court watchdogs charge that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes aracketeering enterprisewhich also deprives the public of thefederally
protectedright tohonest government services.The alleged federal crimes also include thetheft, misuse, or
conversion of federal fundsreceived by the court, predicate acts ofmail or wire fraud,andpredicate state law
crimes, including obstruction of justice and child abduction.
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
With the help of court employeewhistleblowers, Sacramento Family Court News has partially reconstructed the
framework of the alleged criminal enterprise that, in scale and scope, rivals theKids for Cashcourt scandal in
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and the Orange County Superior Court case-fixing corruption scheme recently
exposed by the FBI.
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
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.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
In 2012,troubled Judge James Mizefurther 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."
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
Reducing the Caseload and Workload of Judges and Court Staff in Exchange for
Kickbacks
One objective of the illegal public-private partnership is to significantly reduce the caseload, and workload of fulltime judges by having private sector lawyers - instead of judges or court staff - operate the settlement program,
according to watchdogs.
At the settlement conferences, judge pro tem attorneys pressure divorcing couples to settle cases so they won't
use the trial court services, including law and motion hearings, ordinarily required to resolve a contested divorce. In
many cases, two lawyers - one acting as a temporary judge - with social and professional ties team up against an
unrepresented pro per to compel one-sided settlement terms. Accounts of coercive and deceptive tactics are
common.
Under the quid pro quo agreement, in exchange for reducing the workload of judges and court staff, as
opportunities arise the temporary judge attorneys are provided reciprocalkickbacks, 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 ofdemonstrably illegal court orders that have ignored, and even
authorized criminal conduct by judge pro tem attorneys and their clients, including criminal child abduction.
In one case, a judge ordered the illegal arrest and assault of a disabled pro per to benefit the opposing, part-time
judge attorney. A court employee whistleblower leaked a courtroom security video of the incident. The judge pro
tem lawyer subsequently was caught on court reporter transcript defending the judge andlying about the arrest
and assault, portraying the disabled victim as being at fault.
The consistent, statistically impossible in-court success rate of judge pro tem attorneys has provided
themprominence, client referrals, wealth, and a substantial monopoly on the Sacramento County divorce and
family law business. Whistleblowers point out that this benefit of the alleged criminal organization also implicates
consumer protection andantitrust laws, including the CaliforniaUnfair Business Practices Act.
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
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 fulltime judges as required by state law.
Pro pers who attempt to report judge pro tem attorney misconduct to the State Bar are told they need a court
order from a judge before a disciplinary investigation against an opposing attorney can take place. There are no
known instances where a judge issued such an order.
On the other hand, at the request of cartel attorneys, pro per litigants are routinely punished by judges with illegal
fines, draconian financial sanctions, and other types of punishment to discourage them from returning to
court, and to coerce them to accept settlement terms dictated by the opposing judge pro tem lawyers.
Attorneys provide judges reciprocal protection by not reporting the judicial misconduct, Code of Judicial Ethics
violations, and criminal conduct committed by full-time judge cartel members. And the lawyers do more.
To help conceal and ensure the continuity of the enterprise, on the rare occasion when full-time judges doface
investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance, members of the cartel provide false, misleading, or
otherwise gratuitous character witness testimony and other forms of support for the offending judge. The
testimony and support is designed to, and does reduce or eliminate potential punishment by the CJP, ensuring
judge members remain on the bench.
Racketeering Conduct of Court Clerks, Supervisors and the Family Law Facilitator
The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, andpattern and practice misconductby court
clerks, supervisors, and theFamily Law Facilitatoroffice. Court clerks routinelyrefuse to filelegallysufficient
paperworkfor pro per parties, while at the same timefilinglegallyinsufficient, andeven counterfeitpaperwork which they arerequired by lawto reject for filing - for judge pro tem attorneys.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
In some cases, judges and court clerks work in tandem toprevent pro per partiesfrom filing documentsat court
hearingsfor the benefit of judge pro tems, deliberately creating an incomplete and inaccurate trial court record in
the event the pro per files an appeal.Court records showthat clerks also deliberately withhold and delay the filing
of time sensitive pro per documents until after filing deadlines have expired.
Family Law Facilitatorstaff provide pro per litigantswith false informationdesigned to concealstate law
violationsby court clerks and supervisors. Judges regularly provide attorneys withlegal 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.
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar- through the Family Law
ExecutiveCommitteeor FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court
operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and
bias against unrepresented litigants and"outsider" attorneys,including:
Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the
corrupt and collusive industry of family law in the
United States" was released in major U.S. cities on
January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for the
most egregious examples of family court corruption,
the movie's production team ultimately included
fourcases from Sacramento County in the film,
more than any other jurisdiction.
Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard
Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are
each accused of unethical conduct in the problem
cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson
case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
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.
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to
opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest
posts.
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive Committeefor the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the
70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers.
For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial
Performance,McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule.
Click here and here.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
171837
176
Google+ Badge
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
ABA
1102
(1)
AB 590
JOURNAL
(1)
ADMINISTRATORS
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL
SALMEN
(1)
AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
Divorce attorney Charlotte Keeley (R) and her client Katina Rapton of
Mel Rapton Honda leave a court hearing. Keeley reportedly has billed
Rapton more than $1 million in connection with a child custody dispute.
An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support
order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child supportorder, and other
proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team
of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster.
For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beverenhelped conceal judge misconduct
and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to
an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van
Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law.Van
Beveren isan officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee.Click here for our exclusive
report...
...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and
misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The
apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct,
trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up
reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government
whistleblower. Click here for details.Watch the exclusive Sacramento Family Court News video
below:
ANDY FURILLO
(2)
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G. SCOTLAND
(5)
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(11)
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(20)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT
FAMILY LAW
(1)
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(12)
CRIMINAL
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
(1)
DENISE
DIANE
RICHARDS
(1)
WASZNICKY
(2)
In 2008controversial family courtJudge Peter J. McBriendeprived a family court litigant of a fair trial
in a case where the winning party was represented by judge protemattorney Charlotte Keeley. In a
scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appealreversed in full and ordered a new
trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's
conduct in thecase as a "judicial reign of terror."McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the
Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009.Click here to read the
court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.
Judge pro tem attorneysCamille Hemmer,Robert O'Hair,Jerry GuthrieandRussell Carlsoneach
testified in support ofJudge Peter J. McBrienwhen thecontroversialjudge was facing removal from
the bench by theCommission on Judicial Performancein 2009.As a sworn temporary judges aware
of McBrien's misconduct, each wasrequired byCanon 3D(1)of theCode of Judicial Ethicsto take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a
character witnessin supportof the judge. In theCJP'sfinal disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to
remain on the bench, theCJPreferred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment.Click here. Court records indicate thatJudge McBrienhas not disclosed the
potentialconflict of interestto opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge.Click hereforSFCNcoverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro temattorneysTerri Newman,CamilleHemmer,Diane WasznickyandDonna
Reedwereinvolved in a proposedscheme to rig a recall electionofcontroversialJudgePeter J.
McBrienin 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the
Year" before the November election.Click herefor theSacramento News and Reviewreport.
Judge pro tem attorney
Robert J. O'Hair testified
as a character witness for
controversial Judge Peter
J. McBrien at the judge's
second CJP disciplinary
proceeding in 2009.Paula
Salinger, an attorney at
O'Hair's firm,Woodruff,
O'Hair Posner &
Salingerwas later granted
a waiver of the
requirements to become
ajudge pro tem. A family
court watchdog asserts
the waiver was payback for
O'Hair's testimony for
McBrien.Click hereto
read our exclusive
investigative report.
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(17)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY
COURTHOUSE
(1)
FAMILY
LAW
(9)
FAMILY
LAW
COUNSELOR
(4)
FAMILY
LAW
FACILITATOR
(4)
FEDERAL LAW
(2)
FEDERAL
LAWSUITS
(2)
FEE WAIVERS
(2)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
FIRST
AMENDMENT
(2)
FIRST
AMENDMENT COALITION
(2)
FLEC
(28)
FOIA
(2)
FOX
(1)
FREDRICK COHEN
(4)
GANGNAM STYLE
(1)
GARY E.
RANSOM
(1)
GARY
M.
APPELBLATT
(2)
GEORGE
NICHOLSON
(1)
GERALD UELMEN
Court records show that Judge Jaime Roman (L) and Judge Matthew Gary
routinely issued demonstrably illegal court orders for the benefit oflocal
attorneyswho also work as part-time judges in family court. Both judges
have been reassigned out of the family courthouse.
(1)
GINGER
GREGORY
SYLVESTER
(1)
DWYER
(1)
HAL
BARTHOLOMEW
(1)
HATCHET
DEATH
(1)
HAZART SANKER
(2)
HONEST SERVICES
(4)
INDIGENT
(1)
INFIGHTING
(1)
J.
STRONG
(2)
JACQUELINE
ESTON
(2)
JAIME R.
ROMAN
(10)
JAMES
BROSNAHAN
(1)
JAMES
M.
MIZE
(17)
JEFFREY
POSNER
(6)
(1)
JERRY
JERRY BROWN
GUTHRIE
(1)
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.
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JODY PATEL
(1)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
Sacramento Family Court temporaryjudgeandfamily law lawyerGary Appelblatt was charged with
13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were
clients and potential clients of the attorney.The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to fourof
the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court
administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click
hereto read our report.
JRC
(1)
JUDGE
(1)
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott Kendall was disbarred from the practice
(1)
JOSEPH SORGE
(1)
JOYCE
KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JUDGE
PRO TEM
(50)
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)
JUDGES
(10)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK
(1)
JUDICIAL
COUNCIL
(5)
JUDICIAL
of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate
the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not
telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without
notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to view our report.
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Estonin 2008 helped Donna Gary - the
wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software
program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by
the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.
In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the
only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento
Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal
Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the
newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court
administrators and judges.Click here for our report.
MISCONDUCT
(69)
JUDY HOLZER
HERSHER
(1)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
KIDS FOR CASH
(2)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
LAW
LIBRARY
(1)
LAW SCHOOL
(5)
LAWYER
(1)
LAWYERS
(7)
LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA
(1)
LEGISLATURE
(1)
LOLLIE
LINCOLN
(1)
ROBERTS
(5)
LOUIS MAURO
(1)
LUAN
CASE
(4)
MALPRACTICE
(4)
MARY
MOLINARO
(1)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ
(7)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
MCGEORGE
MEDIA
(1)
MICHAEL
SOL
(2)
T. GARCIA
(1)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH
(4)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)
NEWS
(24)
NEWS
EXCLUSIVE
(26)
NEWS
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT
(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENT
RIGHTS
(1)
PARENTAL
PAULA
SALINGER
(15)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(24)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ
ALIENATION
Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in
unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes
public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources.
Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for
judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and
"outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to
the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold
standard reference on judge misconduct.Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given
judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.
After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli
wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now
abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete,
scathing account.
The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee"
("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed ofChair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van
Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been
involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in
federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members.
Click here for otherarticles about FLEC.
Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that
another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any
provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that
temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys
but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of
office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons,Click here. For a Judicial Council
directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.
(1)
(3)
PRESIDING JUDGE
(2)
PRO
PERS
(18)
PROTEST
(9)
PSY
(1)
PUBLIC
RECORDS
(1)
THORBOURNE
(1)
RAOUL
M.
RAPTON(11)
KARRES
RECOGNITION/AWARDS
(3)
REVISIONISM SERIES
(2)
RICHARD SOKOL
(12)
ROBERT HIGHT
(11)
ROBERT
O'HAIR
(8)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
ROLAND
L. CANDEE
(1)
RON BURGUNDY
(1)
RONALD
ROBIE
(1)
RUSSELL CARLSON
(4)
RUSSELL L. HOM
(1)
RYDER
SALMEN
(2)
S. HINMAN
(3)
SACRAMENTO BEE
(4)
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SUPERIOR
COURT
(2)
SACRAMENTO
FAMILY
COURT
(13)
SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT
(12)
SANCTIONS
(2)
SANTA
CLARA
LAW SCHOOL
(1)
SARAH ANN
STEPHENS
(1)
SATIRE
(11)
SCBA
(22)
SCHWARZENEGGER
(1)
SCOTT
BUCHANAN
(5)
SCOTT
KENDALL
(1)
SCSD
(1)
SEATON
CASE
(1)
SELF-HELP
(1)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(2)
SFCN READERSHIP DATA
(4)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
SHARON HUDDLE
(6)
SO YOU WANT TO GO TO
LAW
SCHOOL
(4)
SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS
(5)
STATE AUDITOR
(6)
STATE BAR
(5)
STEPHEN
WAGNER
(2)
LEAVENWORTH
WHITE
STEUART
STEVE
(1)
(2)
BURLINGHAM
GEVERCER
STEVEN
(1)
STEVEN
(1)
STEVEN
SUNDAY
FUNNIES
(15)
SPIELBERG
(1)
SUNSHINE
WEEK
(2)
SUPERIOR COURT
(2)
SUPREME COURT
(3)
TAMI
BOGERT
(1)
TAXPAYERS
(1)
TERRY FRANCKE
(1)
BLIZZARD
(5)
THADD
THADDEUS
STEVENS
(1)
THE RUTTER GROUP
(1)
THOMAS M. CECIL
(4)
THOMAS WOODRUFF
(5)
TIMOTHY ZEFF
(5)
TOMMY
ULF
LEE
JONES
(1)
CARLSSON
(6)
UNITED
NATIONS
(1)
UPDATE
(2)
Sandy
Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California
Street,Auburn, CA95603.
Mark
Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of Mark A. Ambrose, 8801
Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826. Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.
Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator,206 5th
Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.
Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610 American River Drive #112,
Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 afterbeing convicted of
sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of
Law.
Beth
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.
VANCE W. RAYE
(3)
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(2)
VL-CLASS-ACTION
(1)
WALL
STREET JOURNAL
(1)
WASTE
(1)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
ACT
(2)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WHITE HOUSE
(1)
WOODRUFF
O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
(11)
XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA
(4)
YOLO
COUNTY
(1)
YOUTUBE
(7)