Professional Documents
Culture Documents
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
23 March 2013
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is named as a defendant in this federal court litigation stemming from a vexatious
litigant court order issued by Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman for Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley.
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
The vexatious litigant designation severely restricts a litigants access to the courts by requiring them to get preapproval from a presiding judge before they are permitted to file pleadings in any court in the state.Sacramento
Family Court News in Nov. 2012 reported exclusively on Judge Roman's unorthodox order, which also is
pending review by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Taxpayers likely will now get two substantial
bills in connection with the Keeley-Roman ruling. The state court appeal will cost the public between $8,500 and
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
$25,500, according to recent appellate court decisions. The public cost of defending the federal case could be
significantly higher. For several years, court watchdogs and whistleblowers have asserted that full-time judges
give preferential treatment to judge pro tem attorneys. They charge that the Rapton-Karres case is one of
several cases emblematic of judge-attorney cronyism and its effects, including the unnecessary use of scarce
court resources and the financial burden on taxpayers.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
Justice Cantil-Sakauye is a former Sacramento
County Superior Court Judge.
Click here to read the complete lawsuit filed March 22. Sacramento Family Court News will provide continuing
coverage of the case.
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
Posted by
PR Brown
at
8:19 PM
WE SUPPORT
+7 Recommend this on Google
Labels:
CHARLOTTE KEELEY,
CHILD CUSTODY,
CHILD SUPPORT,
FEDERAL LAWSUITS,
JAIME R. ROMAN,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
RAPTON-KARRES,
VL-CLASS-ACTION
Location:
US District Court Clerk Northern District Of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue #36060, San Francisco, CA 94102,
USA
6 comments
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
Add a comment
Top comments
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
22 April 2013
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
Roseville-based family law attorney Sharon Huddle continues to be subjected to retaliation by Sacramento County Family Court judges, apparently
for her assertive client advocacy in the notorious Carlsson case and the related Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings
against troubled Sacramento Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien.
News Analysis & Opinion by PelicanBriefed
For Roseville family law attorney Sharon Huddle, the Sacramento Family Court proceedings surrounding
issuance of a controversial orderdesignatingher client Andrew Karresa vexatious litigant may be dj vu all
over again. Throughout the 20-page order, written by Judge Jaime R. Roman, Huddle and her client are
demeaned, disparaged and ridiculed. The opposing attorney - Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley - and her client,
Mel Rapton HondaheiressKatina Rapton, are portrayed by Roman in thepatently unlawfulorder as victims.
For our complete coverage of the vexatious litigant order and the Rapton-Karres case, click here.
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
Huddle was subjected to similar treatment by Judge Peter J. McBrien during a family court trial in March, 2006.
McBrien's treatment of Huddle was later recounted by eyewitness and court reporter Robbi Joy insworn
testimonybefore the Commission on Judicial Performance, where the rogue judgereceived his second round
of discipline by the CJP.The transcript of Joy's testimony - obtained exclusively and published for the first time by
Sacramento Family Court News - provides still more explicit evidence of the preferential treatment and kickbacks
given by judges to the cartel of local family law attorneys who also serve as temporary judges. The transcript and
other records from the McBrien CJP proceedingsalso provide a troublingpoint of referenceindicating that the
unlawful,interdependentrelationship between full-time judges andjudge pro temattorneys dates back at least
seven years and is nowall butinstitutionalized.
To read the sworn testimony ofRobbi Joyand an incriminatingadmission bySanta Barbara County Superior
Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille, clickRead more >>below.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful
business practices, all of which are prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and
Professions Code 17200, according to court reform advocates.Whether a party is self-represented or
represented by an "outsider" attorney, a judge pro tem attorney on the opposing side is the common denominator
in lopsided, unfair and unlawful court rulings. They contend that taxpayers inevitably will be held liable for class
actionorinstitutional reform litigation [pdf], or government enforcement under B&P Code 17200on behalf
of outside attorneysand pro per litigants against the court and theSacramento County Bar Association Family
Law Section.
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise deBellefeuille was one of three judges assigned to hear
and decide the fate of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter J. McBrien in his 2009 disciplinary
proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance. [Click here to read the court of appeal decision
that sent McBrien to the CJP woodshed a second time]. In her assessment of the testimony and evidence
considered by the 3-judge panel, she candidly acknowledged that McBrien's favorable treatment of judge pro tem
attorney Charlotte Keeley and harsh treatment of attorney Sharon Huddle was partly attributable to the fact that
Huddle "wasn't an insider. She wasn't a pro tem." When San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelliread an
article in the ABA Journal on the court of appeal decision in the Carlsson case, he wrote about his own
nightmarish experience as an outsider attorney in Sacramento Family Court. Like Huddle, Gianelli also faced off
against judge pro temCharlotte Keeley:
"[I] was attacked personally in court filing after court filing. I was required to drive from San
Francisco to Sacramento (a three hour round trip drive) over six times on 24 hours notice, in
my opinion to harass me and make me quit," the attorney said. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in
which counsel outside Sacramento have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now
abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel."
Click here to read Gianelli's complete statement. In future posts, SFCN will have more, never before published
information on the McBrien CJP proceedings, including transcripts of sworn statements by character witnesses
who testified on McBrien's behalf, including full-time and temporary Sacramento County Superior Court judges.
Judge pro tem lawyers who testified for McBrien include Camille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair, and
current chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Russell Carlson.
The relevance of court reporter Robbi Joy's testimony about the contrast between how Judge McBrien treated
outsider attorneySharon Huddle and temporary judge attorneyCharlotte Keeley during the Carlsson trial was
described by CJP attorney Andrew Blum.
"Robbi Joy is a neutral third party. She's not friends with any of these people. She's been a
court reporter for a long time, and she has seen a lot of what takes place in courtrooms. She
testified that the judge was demeaning to Ms. Huddle, treated her with disdain and displayed
irritation towards her throughout the trial, and she never saw Ms. Huddle do anything to
justify that conduct. Even Judge McBrien admitted that some of his comments could make it
appear that he was badgering Ms. Huddle in an inappropriate manner. Now, in addition to
what these actual observers said, the record shows that he repeatedly threatened a mistrial
from early on in the trial, curtailed her presentation of evidence, threatened her with
contempt, and he would barely let her take breaks to go to the bathroom." To view Blum's
statement, click here.
Robbi Joy's testimony included the following exchange:
Q. During the Carlsson trial, how would you describe Judge
McBrien's behavior towards Attorney
Huddle?
A [Robbi Joy]. Demeaning. This is hard. He is a judge. I have no ill
will toward him. But it was
remarkable to me that he seemed to have an amicable
relationship with Ms. Keeley, but he seemed
so irritated with Ms. Huddle. In
fact, I asked the deputy MR. MURPHY: Objection
SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Sustained.
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
through.
Q. Did the judge's poor demeanor towards Ms. Huddle begin on
the first day of trial?
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
A. Yes.
A. Yes.
Divorce Corp
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
A. No.
A. No.
Q. In your years as a court reporter, have you ever seen a
judge behave this way, the way Judge
McBrien behaved towards Ms. Huddle?
A. Not to be glib, but not even on television.
Q. So that's a no?
A. That's a no. I certainly have seen judges lose their
temper, if they're consuming time or if it's just -for a reason. But I have
not seen a judge, without some prior history of dealing with this attorney or
-or for some other reason, just seeming to have disdain for them.
To read Robbi Joy's complete testimony, click here.
In 2008, the 3rd District Court of Appeal described how Huddle's client, Ulf Carlsson, was ultimately treated at
the conclusion of the 2006 trial. The description bears similarities to the recent treatment of Huddle client Andrew
Karres by Judge Jaime R. Roman.
"Judge McBrien issued a written decision, ruling against Ulf on almost every issue. He rejected Ulf's
contention that Mona was underemployed,ruled ruled that Ulf and Mona were sole owners of the
rental property; ordered both the family residence and the rental property sold; failed to segregate
Ulf's retirement account for purposes of awarding Mona her community share; and ordered Ulf to pay
Mona $35,000 in attorney and expert witness fees.Despite the court's prior handwritten order that
child support would not be determined until custody was resolved, the judgment ordered Ulf to pay
$736 per month in child support." Click here.
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
138819
NEXT: The Huddle-Keeley-McBrien backstory, continued: The revealing ex parte communication between
Judge Peter J. McBrien and Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley, and McBrien's secret transcript request.
136
Related articles:
Sacramento Family Court News has continuing coverage of issues involving judge pro tem attorneys and
financially disadvantaged, unrepresented litigants. For a list of all posts about temporary judges,click here. Our
special, independent Judge Pro Tems Page isat this link. Specific issues with direct links include:
Google+ Badge
PR Brown
A variety of illegal tactics used by court employees, judges, the Family Law Facilitator Office and judge
pro tem attorneys to obstruct family court appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged
litigants.Click here.
Follow
Full-time family court judges failure to disclose judge pro tem conflicts of interest to opposing parties and
attorneys.Click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys promoted a software program sold by the wife of a family court judge.Click
here.
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
Court administrators concealing from the public judge pro tem attorney misconduct, including sexual
battery against clients.Click here.
Illegal use of California vexatious litigant law by family court judges.Click here.
Waiver of judge pro tem qualification standards.Click here.
Failure to adequately train family court judges.Click here.
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
Allowing courtroom clerks to issue incomplete, useless fee waiver orders which prevent indigent and
financially disadvantaged litigants from serving and filing documents.Click here.
Preferential treatment provided to judge pro tem attorneys by family court judges, administrators, and
employees.Click here.
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
Unfair competition and monopolistic practices by family court judges and attorneys who also hold
theOffice of Temporary Judgewhich may violate state unfair competition laws.Click here.
FURILLO
CULTURE
(1)
(21)
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
Allowing judges with a documented history of misconduct and mistreatment of unrepresented litigants to
remain in family court.Click here.
Concealing from the public but disclosing to the family law bar the demotion of problem judges.Click
here.
ANDY
AOC
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
Judges cherry-pick state law and court rules to rewrite established law to reach a predetermined result to
benefit judge pro tem attorneys.Click here.
The waste of scarce court resources and taxpayer funds caused by unnecessary appeals and other
court proceedings.Click hereandhere.
(2)
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
CECIL
and CIANCI
(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
CHILD SUPPORT
(3)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
Posted by
PelicanBriefed
at
3:06 PM
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
CHARLOTTE KEELEY,
CHILD CUSTODY,
JAIME R. ROMAN,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
OPINION,
PETER J. McBRIEN,
RAPTON-KARRES,
SHARON HUDDLE
(11)
SERIES
LAW
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(9)
CRIMINAL
FAMILY LAW
(1)
Location:
Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA Family Relations Courthouse
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
4 comments
Add a comment
Top comments
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
(13)
DIVORCE
(5)
LAWYER
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
17 April 2013
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
The confusing legal rationale of Judge Roman's 20-page decision is constructed from a series of allegedly
consistent conjunctions conjoining components of the Family Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and court rules.
For example, Roman writes at page six:
"Sacramento Superior Court Rule 14.02(C), consistent with Code of Civil Procedure
section 2009, in conjunction with Family Code section 210.." and
"Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), inconjunctionwith Family Code section 210..."
at page eight, and
"California Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 in conjunction with Family Code section
210...California Rules of Court rule 3.1306(a), in conjunction with California Rules of
Court, rule 5.21...See Family Code section 217(c); California Rules of Court, rule
3.1306(b), in conjunction with rule 5.21 and rule 5.119," at page 19.
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Judge Roman's statute and court rule references, and calculated omission of contrary authority suggest an intent to
cherry-pick law - including law not applicable to a vexatious litigant proceeding - to reach a predetermined result for
the benefit of Judge Pro Tem attorney Charlotte Keeley. In our first report on the decision, veteran court
watchdog Robert Saundersastutely observed that the judge used reverse engineering. "In other words, he
knew how he wanted to rule and from there worked backwards to try and justify an unjustifiable ruling," Saunders
said in 2012.
Saunders' analysis appears to be substantially accurate, according to the family and civil law reference books
used by judges, attorneys and Sacramento Family Court News. The logically inferred intent of Roman's risible,
convoluted conjunctions is to enable himself to designate a family court party a vexatious litigantandissue a
$2,500 sanctions assessment and 13 additional orders against the same party - all without a court hearing and oral
argument. ButJudge Roman is off-the-rails at conjunction junction.
California Practice Guide:Civil Procedure Before Trial, the gold standard civil law reference work used by
judges and attorneys, indicates that Judge Roman attempted to create the illusion that his order was grounded
inlegitimatelaw by misstating and misapplying Code of Civil Procedure 2009,Family Code 210, and217,
andCalifornia Rules of Court rules 3.1306 and 5.21.The perplexing rationale Roman cobbled together from
parts of each is preempted and effectivelynullified by the vexatious litigant statute and decisional law,
according to the Guide.
Court watchdogs and whistleblowerscharge that Judge Roman's prejudgment, unlawfully vacated hearing and
erroneous statement of decision are more examples of Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and other
courtadministratorsfailing to adequatelytrain, supervise, and discipline family court judges. They point out that
Judge Roman, the supervising family law, probate and ADA judge has limited family court experience, and often
confuses civil law with family law. At the end of her own two-year stint in family court, Judge Sharon Lueras
confessed to the family law bar that, at the beginning of her family court assignment, she knew nothing about
family law. The consequences of inadequate training andsupervisioncan be tragic. Unrepresented litigant
Jessica Hernandez blames Lueras for the death of her son at the hands of her ex-husband. Click here for our
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
Conjunction Malfunction
The relationship between family law, civil law and the court rules applicable to each can be confusing. But the family
law procedure manual used by judges and attorneys, California Practice Guide: Family Law neatly sorts it all
out in just two pages, which,apparently, is news to Judge Roman who clumsily cut, conjoined, and pasted
conflicting laws and rules to justify his vexatious litigant order.
An assessment of the legality of Roman's order blacklisting Andrew Karres as a vexatious litigantbegins with the
law itself.California's vexatious litigant law is codified at Code of Civil Procedure391-391.8. Wikipedia
explains how the law works at this link. The law was intended to limit frivolous litigation by unrepresented, pro per
parties in civil courts. When a judge issues an order designating a self-represented litigant as a vexatious litigant,
the Constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process of law, equal protection of law and the right to
petition the government for redress are severely restricted. Due to the harsh consequences of the vexatious
litigant label, California law requires full due process before the order can be issued, including notice and a court
hearing where written or oral evidence is presented. The notice and hearing requirements of the vexatious litigant
statute are difficult to misconstrue:
"At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by
witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion," reads the law at section
391.2.
At 391.3, the vexatious litigant law specifies, twice, that a decision is made "after hearing the evidence on the
motion." The California Practice Guide for civil law recites the procedure for a vexatious litigant determination,
including the required court hearing. Based on the 2002 appellate court caseBravo v. Ismaj,"[a] party may not be
declared to be a 'vexatious litigant' without a noticed motion and hearing which includes the right to oral argument
and the presentation of evidence," according to the Guide.
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
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
Judge Roman gives his reasons for blacklisting Karres statewide as a vexatious litigant at pages 15-18 of his 20page statement of decision. Absent from the ruling is the boilerplate recital that "The Court has considered the
moving and responding papers, the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, and the files herein,"
which appears on page one of this vexatious litigant order from a family court case in Santa Clara County.
Judge Roman's unlawful order declaring Karres a vexatious litigant is now the subject of both a costly appeal and
federal civil rights litigation against Judicial Branch officials. The appeal and federal case will cost the parties
and taxpayers significant sums. The current cost to taxpayers for a single appeal is between $8,500 and $25,000,
according to recent appellate court decisions. Ironically, vexatious litigants are routinely accused of, and punished
for wasting scarce appellate court resources with frivolous litigation.
"Other appellate parties, many of whom wait years for a resolution of bona fide disputes, are
prejudiced by the useless diversion of this court's attention. [Citation.] In the same vein, the appellate
system and the taxpayers are damaged by what amounts to a waste of this court's time and
resources," reads a line of cases from 1988 to 2012, beginning with Finnie v. Town of Tiburon.
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
138819
136
Google+ Badge
PR Brown
The same should be said about the unnecessary appeal and federal litigation against the government compelled by
Judge Roman's order.
Follow
Related articles:
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.
For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
Labels:
ANALYSIS,
CHARLOTTE KEELEY,
CHILD CUSTODY,
CJP,
JAIME R. ROMAN,
JUDGE PRO TEM,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
OPINION,
RAPTON-KARRES,
SHARON HUDDLE,
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Location:
Family Relations Courthouse - William R. Ridgeway - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, USA
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
Posted by
PelicanBriefed
at
9:57 PM
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
11
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
15 November 2012
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime Roman (L) with Judge Matthew Gary. The two judges are known for issuing a disproportionate
number of favorable child custody orders for Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section lawyers, according to family court
watchdogs. Photo:Sacramento Lawyer.
In a rambling, unorthodox 20-page statement of decision peppered with 73 footnotes, Sacramento Family Court
Judge Jaime Roman designated family courtparty Andrew Karres a vexatious litigant, ordered Karres to pay
$2,500 in attorney fee sanctions, and issued 13 additional orders at a brief court proceeding yesterday.
All
the disputed issues inexplicably weredecided without oral argument and without the court hearing mandated by
both the vexatious litigant and sanctions statutes.Virtually all rulings were against Karres and in favor of Karres'
ex-wife, Mel Rapton Honda heiressKatina Rapton. Rapton is represented by veteran Sacramento County Bar
Association Family Law Section attorneyand family courtjudge pro tem Charlotte Keeley.
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
same court.
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
"Judge Roman's order is a similar situation, with the added inference that a full-time judge is doing a favor for a
part-time judge, Charlotte Keeley," Saunders continued. "I don't know what else would explain such a brazen
disregard of established law. The order is unlawful, void on its face, and inevitably will create more, but completely
unnecessary litigation in this case in both the trial and appellate courts. Most Family Court judges are either
rookies breaking in, or screw-ups spending time in purgatory," Saunders explained. "They're inherently thinskinned and rarely admit to mistakes. The odds are slim that Judge Roman will admit to the errors in this 20-page
debacle. This proceeding was, and will continue to be a complete waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the
courts claim to be starved for funding. And, by the way, we pay Judge Ramon $170,000 per year for work like
this."
To justify issuing the order without a
hearing, at page six of the ruling
Roman invoked a local court rule,
Code of Civil Procedure section
2009, and Family Code section 210.
On page 19, Roman also cited
California Rules of Court rule
3.1306(a) "in conjunction with rule
5.21" as his legal rationale for denying
Cal. Rule of Court rule 5.119requires judges to permit live testimony.
the parties their day in court.
"Nice try," Saunders scoffed. "Roman is using antiquated law and a local court rule that all are clearly superseded
by [Family Code] Section 217 and Rule 5.119. Both laws give family court litigants the right to present live
testimony at a court hearing unless the judge - at the hearing - denies the request based on a finding of good
cause. It is self-evident that the right can't be invoked if the judge vacates the hearing and mails out an order filed
the day before the hearing."
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
The violation of Family Code section 217, state court Rule 5.119, andboth the statutory anddecisional law
governing vexatious litigant determinations potentially exposes Judge Roman to an improper governmental
activities investigation by the California State Auditor. Sacramento Family Court has been in hot water with the
state auditor before. A 2011 audit disclosed problems with training and supervision of family court mediators,
custody evaluators and minors counsel. As SFCN reportedlast year, violation of a state statute or state court rule
is, by law, an improper governmental activity in the same category of offenses as corruption, malfeasance,
bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse
of government property and willful omission to perform duty, according to the California Whistleblower
Protection Act.
However, Saunders pointed out that the chances
of Roman being held accountable for the
violations are slim-to-none. "Judges in California
are untouchable. Like Roman did in this case,
judges can simply flip-the-bird at the law. It is not
hyperbole to say they are literally above-the-law.
The State Auditor, Commission on Judicial
Performance, Judicial Council and local court
administrators will all turn a blind eye," Saunders
predicted. "The reason we have an
overabundance of incompetent judges is because
meaningful oversight of judge misconduct is nonexistent in California."
Promising later posts analyzing the 20-page
statement of decision, Sacramento County
Family Court News in-house legal analyst
PelicanBriefed declined to opine on the decision.
"There is so much wrong with this ruling that it will
take me several posts to unravel and do justice. I
Court Employees Are Now Protected by theWhistleblower Protection Act
will say that it appears Judge Roman assumed
that if he put a lot of footnotes into the ruling, no one would notice his erroneous rationale for not holding a hearing,
nor his blatant disregard of the legislative intent behind Family Code section 217 and Rule 5.119. And not
allowing a hearing before declaring a party a vexatious litigant is unheard of. For now, let's just say that this ruling
may be an example of why Judge Roman was passed over for elevation to the Court of Appeal."
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
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
184
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.For a detailed
overview of the alleged collusion between judge
pro tem attorneys and family court employees
and judges, we recommend our specialColor of
Law series of investigative reports. The reports
document some of the preferential treatment
provided by family court employees and judges
to SCBA Family Law Section judge pro tem
lawyers. Click here to view the Color of Law
series. For a list of our reports about family court
temporary judges and controversies, click here.
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system andattorney operated settlement conference program
was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his
2009Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
testimony. In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro
tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's
testimony. To view O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference
kickback arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise
which deprives the public of the federally protected right to honest government services.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
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:
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
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 Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case
profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as theGround Zeroof family court
corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.
Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem
attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's
client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was
dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court
reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of
"hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.
Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law
Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of
justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in
a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of
justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For
our complete investigative report,click here.
Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a
California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party
is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were
renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013.Click here for details.
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to
opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest
posts.
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive 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.
In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Romanissued a rubber-stamped,
kickback orderdeclaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to
the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney
who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in
both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and
costing taxpayers significant sums.Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders
and help a client of judgepro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for
our investigative report.
An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support
order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child 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
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
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.
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
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.
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
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities.
Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of
Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of
Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information
included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.
Sacramento Family Court 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.
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott Kendall was disbarred from the practice
of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate
the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not
telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without
notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to view our report.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
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.
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
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.
FCAC News
Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on
disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro
tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are
prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code
17200, reform advocates claim.
Total Pageviews
RoadDog
138931
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.
136
Google+ Badge
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
For information about the role of temporary judges in
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
RoadDog SATIRE
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
Privacy Policy
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(63)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
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.
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(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 justices 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. Appeals are assigned to three of ten justices. The background of each appears to play a significant
role in how an appeal is decided.
For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show
that Court of Appeal justices who were elevated to
the appellate courtfrom Sacramento
CountySuperior Court will often effectively cover for
judicial errors in appeals from the same court. Third
District Justices George Nicholson, Harry E. Hull,
Jr.,Ronald B. Robie, and Presiding Justice Vance
W. Rayepreviously were trial court judges
inSacramento County Superior Court. Each have
social and professional ties to family court judges and
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
"[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.
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. 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.
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)
WE SUPPORT
In 1991, as a superior court judge, current3rd District
Justice Vance Raye partneredwith controversial family
court Judge Peter J. McBrien and attorneys from the
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law
Sectionin establishing the current, dysfunctional Sacramento
Family Courtsystem, according to the sworn testimony of
McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the
Commission on Judicial Performance.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
But before his sworn 2009 CJP testimony, McBrien gave the public a different account of the road trip and who
restructured the family court system in 1991.As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper
McBriendishonestly impliedthat the system was conceived and implemented by judges alone after they made a
county-paid "statewide tour" of family law courts. The judge omitted from the story the fact that the trip was initiated
by the family law bar, and included two private-sector family law attorneys who took the county-paid trip with
McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway.
"[M]cBrien and a few other Sacramento judges went on a statewide tour of family law courts.
At the time, there were continual postponements of trials. 'This is how we came up with the
system today,' McBrien said. 'It was the best trip Sacramento County ever paid for.' The
judges changed the local system so that family law judges presided over both law and motion
matters and trials..."the Daily Journal reported. Click here to view.
Under oath, McBrien admitted that the private-sector, for-profit family law bar dictated the public court facility
restructuring plan - conceived to serve the needs and objectives of SCBA Family Law Section member attorneys
- which then essentially was rubber-stamped by the bench.
"[T]he Bar culled through the various ideas and options, came up with a plan, presented it to
the family law bench. We made what adjustments we felt were appropriate and then presented
the whole of it to the full bench," and the plan was approved. Click here to view.
In essence, McBrien disclosed that the current public court system was set up by and for local attorneys with little, if
any, consideration of theneeds of the 70 percent of court users unable to afford counsel. The system also has
shown it is designed to repel carpetbagger, outsider attorneys, like Stephen R. Gianelli of San Francisco, and
Sharon Huddle of Roseville. Click here and here. "[T]his is a 'juice court' in which counsel outside Sacramento
have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being fair to out-of-town
counsel," Gianelli said.According to the Commission on Judicial Performance - the state agency responsible
for oversight and 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.
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
Family Law Updates at
Holiday Luncheon.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
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.
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
137887
140
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.
Google+ Badge
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.
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
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.
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
ABA
1102
(1)
AB 590
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(21)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ETHICS
(2)
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
(3)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
CECIL
and CIANCI
(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
CHILD SUPPORT
(3)
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.
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
(1)
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
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
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(9)
CRIMINAL
FAMILY LAW
(1)
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
(13)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
By his own admission, Scotland's career in the Judicial Branch of government was the result of connections and
preferential treatment. The former justice candidly recited his life history in a nearly three-hour interview for the
CaliforniaAppellate Court Legacy Project in 2011. Like other gratuitous "tough-on-crime"conservative
ideologues from a law enforcement background who rose to power in the 1980's, Scotland apparently lived the
cliche of beingborn on third base and going through life thinking he hit a triple. His interest in law developed
when he worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the state Department of Justice.
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(18)
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
"[I] bluffed my way through the interview, and I got hired as a narcotics agent in 1969...I was
an undercover narcotics agent. I've bought a lot of dope in my life...all lawfully, but I've
bought a lot of dope," Scotland said. "And I testified in court. And that's what got me
fascinated in the legal process...and it got me involved in the law." Click here to view.
Having worked with prosecutors as an undercover cop, Scotland
decided he wanted to be one. But due to his lackluster
performance as a college student, law school presented a
problem, albeit a problem easily solved through a family
connection.
"[I] thought, I want to be a prosecutor. I'm going to go
to law school; I want to be a prosecutor. So I applied
in 1971. I applied to only one school: University of the
Pacific, McGeorge School of Law...[M]y grades weren't
all that great. I did very well on the LSAT test: I did
excellent on that. But I didn't figure I could get
accepted anywhere else, 'cause I really hadn't been a
serious student. So I went to University of Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law," Scotland explained. "I didn't
know [McGeorge Dean Gordon D.Schaber], but my
dad did. And my dad had done some life insurance,
estate planning work for McGeorge. And again, my
dad was an influence on my life because he knew
people and he set me up with jobs. And I'm sure that
one of the reasons I got selected for McGeorge School
of Law is my dad's relationship with the dean."Click
here to view.
(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
JAMES M.
MIZE
(12)
JEFFREY
POSNER
(6)
JERRY BROWN
BROSNAHAN
(1)
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.
"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
(1)
JERRY
GUTHRIE
(1)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JODY PATEL
(1)
JOHN E.B. MYERS
(1)
JOSEPH SORGE
(1)
JOYCE
KENNARD
(1)
JOYCE TERHAAR
(1)
JUDGE
PRO TEM
(49)
JRC
(1)
JUDGE
(1)
JUDGE SALARIES
(1)
JUDGES
(10)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK
(1)
COUNCIL
JUDICIAL
(3)
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
(63)
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
(2)
NANCY
GRACE
(1)
NANCY PERKOVICH
(4)
NEW YORK TIMES
(2)
NEWS
(24)
NEWS
EXCLUSIVE
(26)
NEWS
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.
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
OPEN GOVERNMENT
(2)
OPINION
(12)
PARENT
RIGHTS
(1)
PARENTAL
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
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 the initiative(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.
(1)
PAULA
SALINGER
(15)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ
ALIENATION
(3)
PRESIDING JUDGE
(2)
PRO
PERS
(18)
PROTEST
(7)
PSY
(1)
PUBLIC
RECORDS
RAOUL
M.
RAPTON(9)
KARRES
RECOGNITION/AWARDS
(3)
REVISIONISM SERIES
(2)
RICHARD SOKOL
(12)
ROBERT
HIGHT
(5)
ROBERT
O'HAIR
(8)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
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
(1)
THORBOURNE
(1)
(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
(2)
BURLINGHAM
GEVERCER
STEUART
(1)
STEVE
STEVEN
(1)
(1)
STEVEN
STEVEN
SUNDAY
FUNNIES
(15)
SPIELBERG
(1)
SUNSHINE
WEEK
(2)
SUPERIOR COURT
(2)
SUPREME COURT
(3)
TAMI
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
(5)
UNITED
NATIONS
(1)
UPDATE
(2)
VANCE W. RAYE
(3)
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
(2)
VL-CLASS-ACTION
(1)
WALL
STREET JOURNAL
(1)
WASTE
(1)
In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and former Department of Justice co-workerPete McBrien,
and disrespect to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of AppealJusticesKathleen Butz, Cole Blease and
Rick Sims whose published opinion in the Carlsson caseresulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP, Scotland
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. A key component of McBrien's defense relied on suspiciously
consistent witness testimony portraying Ulf Carlsson's attorneySharon Huddle as incompetent and effectively
provoking McBrien's multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. CJP prosecutor Andrew Blum mocked the
risible defense in a confidential court reporter transcript leaked to SFCN. Click here to view the transcript.
Ironically, the time-tested, repugnant but effectiveblame the victim strategy, was coldly aided and abetted by
Scotland, a justice who rose to power with the backing and endorsements of victims rights groups
includingCrime Victims United of California, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's
defense team, Scotland dusted off thedog-eared playbook of exploiting victims, one way or another, to advance
his personal agenda.
Scotland's irony-infusedblame the victim testimony, misleading appeal reversal data, and theweight of
character witness testimonyfrom a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with similar character
testimony from Sacramento CountySuperior Court Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currentlyOf Counsel
at the family, family law firm Cecil & Cianci) , Michael Garcia and Robert Hight, and Sacramento County Bar
Association Family Law Section attorneys and judge pro temsCamille Hemmer, Jerry Guthrie, Robert O'Hair
and Russell Carlson all tipped the scale just enough to enable McBrien to keep his job. Click here to view the
complete, 12-page CJP summary of the McBrien character witness testimony.
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.
WATCHDOGS
(19)
WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
ACT
(2)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
WHITE HOUSE
(1)
WOODRUFF
O'HAIR POSNER and
SALINGER
(11)
XAPURI B.
VILLAPUDUA
(4)
YOLO
COUNTY
(1)
YOUTUBE
(7)
BlueCode of Silence
In addition, unpublished Third District Court of
Appealdecisions indicate that justices who come
from a law enforcement background appear to take
to the bench with them the "Blue Code of Silence"
culture often found in law enforcement agencies.
3rd District Associate Justice George Nicholson
worked as a prosecuting attorney for more than
15 years before being appointed to the bench in
Sacramento County. The first time Governor
George Deukmejian submitted Nicolson's name to
the bar for review as a judge in 1983, he was rated
as "not qualified," according to the Sacramento
Bee.
"George Nicholson, Republican candidate
for attorney general in 1982, has been
pursuing all manner of public legal
positions: U.S. District Court judge,
California Superior Court judge, U.S. Attorney, public defender in Riverside County. The other
day, when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him a Sacramento Municipal Court judge, he
finally got one. It's an appointment that ought to cause serious concern both within the State
Bar and in the community. When Deukmejian submitted Nicholson's name to the bar for
review on a possible appointment to the Superior Court in 1983, he was rated 'not qualified.'
The bar now ranks him 'qualified', the lowest acceptable rating of three the bar can give.
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.
Role of Political
Ideology
In 1985, Nicholson was demoted
from his position as director of the
federally financed National School
Safety Center in Sacramento. The
center was administered by
Pepperdine University at Malibu,
and established with a $3.8 million
Justice Department grant awarded
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
G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice - Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Victoria B. Henley Director Chief Counsel
Commission on Judicial Performance - Steven Jahr Administrative Director of the Courts - Phillip J. Jelicich Principal Auditor Bureau of State Audits - Janice M.
Brickley Legal Advisor to Commissioners Commission on Judicial Performance - Judicial Council and Court Leadership Services Division Jody Patel Chief of Staff - Doug D. Cordiner