-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of
24 PageID #: 1
FILF=I) Edwards & Edwards, Esqs. Attorneys for Plaintiff
It-',-.,, "; . ""'" "'t-i= U,S, bis tF-'1;1 ..... : . ., >J
Y
336 South Ocean Avenue Post Office Box 191 * NOV o 5 2009 *
Freeport, New York 11520 Attention: Harrison J. Edwards
LONG ISLAND orf!IC!i
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------C-Vx
- 0 9 4 B 3 2 WILLIAM F. GLACKEN,
(_ 4) Civil Action No. Plaintiff,
-against-
THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, ANDREW HARDWICK, in his
official capacity as Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport
and individually, the BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE INCORPORATED
VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, HOWARD COL TON, individually and in his
official capacity as Village Attorney for the Incorporated Village
of Freeport, DENNIS WARREN, individually, "JOHN DOE #111, "JOHN DOE
#2" , JOHN DOE "3", "JANE DOE #1 " , and "JANE DOE #2".
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Nature of Action
HURLEY TOMLltsor:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1. Plaintiff, William F. Glacken, brings this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983, alleging the deprivation of his First Amendment, Fifth
Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by the
defendants in retaliation
for plaintiff's published opinion and criticism of defendants
Hardwick, Colton and Warren's
PatCJBNN-Yel
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 2 of
24 PageID #: 2
malfeasance concerning the payment of $3,500,000. 00 of taxpayer
funds to a favored
developer to settle baseless litigation against the Incorporated
Village of Freeport. This
action arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S. C. 1983 and 1988, and New York's Public
Officers Law 18(3)
and (4), adopted by Freeport at Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the
Freeport Code.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42
U.S.C. 1983, et seq.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to U.S. Code 1331 and
1343. To the extent plaintiff's claims arise under New York law,
the action is properly
before the Court under the Court's pendant jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. The unlawful actions alleged hereinbelow occurred in Nassau
County, New
York and, therefore, venue is proper in the Eastern District of
New York pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1391 (b) .
The Parties
4. Plaintiff, William F. Glacken (Glacken) , is a citizen of the
United States, and
resides in Freeport, Nassau County, New York.
5. Plaintiff was, between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, the
full-time Mayor
of the Incorporated Village of Freeport and, as such, during
said period, was a public
officer and employee of Freeport continuously and without
interruption until 12:00 noon on
April 6, 2009, at which time plaintiff's term expired.
2
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 3 of
24 PageID #: 3
6. Plaintiff was a public officer and employee of Freeport, as
that term is defined
by New York Public Officers Law 18(1)(b) and Chapter 130-5, et.
seq. of the Code of
Freeport.
7. The Incorporated Village of Freeport (Freeport) is a
municipal corporation
duly formed under the laws of the State of New York and is a
political subdivision of the
State of New York, with municipal offices at 46 North Ocean
Avenue, Freeport, Nassau
County, New York.
8. The Incorporated Village of Freeport is a public entity as
that term is defined
in New York's Public Officers Law 18(1)(a) .
9. Defendant, Andrew Hardwick, was, as of April 6, 2009, and
continues to be
the Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, and is sued
herein in his official capacity
and individually.
10. The Defendant Board of Trustees (Board) is the governing
body for the
Incorporated Village of Freeport, as that term is defined by New
York Public Officers Law
18(1 )(c) and the Village Law for the State of New York.
11. Defendant, Howard Colton (Colton), at all times hereinafter
mentioned, was
and continues to be a resident of Freeport, County of Nassau,
State of New York.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Colton, from on or
about March 18,
2009 to date, was and continues to be a political operative of
Defendant, Andrew Hardwick.
13. Defendant Colton was, from April 6, 2009 and at all times
hereinafter
mentioned, and continues to be, the Village Attorney for the
Incorporated Village of
Freeport, and is sued herein in his official capacity and
individually.
3
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 4 of
24 PageID #: 4
14. Defendant, Dennis Warren, was, at all times hereinafter
mentioned, a
resident of Nassau County, State of New York.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Dennis Warren, was,
from on or
about October 1, 2008 to date, a political operative of
Defendant, Andrew Hardwick.
16. Defendants John Doe #1, #2 and #3 are parties whose true
identities are
unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information
and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
17. Defendants Jane Doe #1 and #2 are parties whose true
identities are
unknown to plaintiff at this time, but who are, upon information
and belief, involved with the
conduct and actions referred to hereinbelow.
18. The provisions of New York's Public Officers Law 18 was duly
adopted by
Freeport as Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code and
applies to Freeport by virtue
of Public Officers Law 18(2)(a) .
The Facts
19. In October of 2008, during Glacken's term as Mayor, Water
Works Realty,
LLC and Gary Melius filed two lawsuits (Water Works actions) in
State Supreme Court of
the County of Nassau against nineteen defendants, including, but
not limited to, the County
of Nassau (Nassau) , various County officials, employees, a
private law firm and several
of its employees, a private developer and its principals, the
Incorporated Village of Freeport
(Freeport) , the plaintiff Glacken, in his individual and
official capacity, and other Village
officials and employees in their official capacities and
individually (Water Works actions) .
4
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 5 of
24 PageID #: 5
20. Defendant Colton in this action is also a named defendant in
his official
capacity (then Deputy Village Attorney) and in his individual
capacity in the Water Works
actions.
21. The Water Works actions seek millions of dollars in damages
from Freeport,
Nassau, and the other defendants based on allegations of a
variety of criminal actions
against the defendants named therein, includ ing fraud,
conspiracy, civil RICO charges, and
a plethora of other claims. The Water Works claims arise from
municipal actions taken
in 2004 by Nassau and Freeport to liquidate $1. 2 million
dollars in tax liens representing
real property tax arrears on the real property owned by Water
Works and located in
Freeport and adjoining the unincorporated area of Baldwin.
22. In or about October of 2008, upon the recommendation of
Freeport's
retained Claims Administrator, Customized Claims Services,
Freeport retained the law firm
of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP to defend
Freeport and the individual
Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions then pending in
State Court.
23. In November of 2008, counsel from the Wilson firm met with
the then sitting
Board of Trustees 1 concerning the defense of the Water Works
actions, and indicated said
actions were completely defensible.
24. Thereafter, Wilson, Elser commenced its representation of
Freeport and the
individual Freeport defendants, including Plaintiff Glacken, in
the Water Works actions.
25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Freeport was and
continues to be a self-
insured entity with a self-insured retention (SIR) of $1,
000,000. 00.
The Board of Trustees consisted of then Mayor Glacken, Deputy
Mayor Frierson-Davis, and Trustees Miller, White and Martinez.
5
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 6 of
24 PageID #: 6
26. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter
mentioned, Freeport
maintained "excess" insurance coverage from "excess" insurance
carriers for claims in
excess of its self-insured retention, each policy provid ing in
the amount of $5,000, 000. 00
over Freeport's SIR.
27. Upon information and belief, in or about November of 2008,
Freeport's
Claims Administrator put Freeport's excess insurance carriers on
notice of the Water
Works actions, providing said carriers with copies of the Water
Works complaints and other
requested information in said actions.
28. In or about January of 2009, Freeport removed the Water
Works State Court
actions to Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
New, where said actions are
currently pending under Federal CV Numbers 08-4754 and 08-4449.
2
29. The allegations in the Water Works complaints have caused a
great
controversy in the Freeport community, and have become and
remain matters of public
concern in that Water Works allegations accuse the County of
Nassau, County officials,
the Village of Freeport, its former Board of Trustees and
various Village officials, including
plaintiff Glacken, of criminal conduct.
30. Plaintiffs in the Water Works actions seek millions of
dollars in damages from
Freeport, Nassau, and the other defendants named in said
actions.
31. In January of 2009, Glacken and Hardwick were opponents in
the 2009
Freeport mayoral election campaign which culminated with an
election on March 18, 2009.
2 Said actions were assigned to the Hon. Leonard Wexler, Federal
District Court Judge, and United States Magistrate Boyle.
6
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 7 of
24 PageID #: 7
32. The controversy created by the Water Works actions became a
major
campaign issue during the Freeport mayoral election
campaign.
33. Upon information and belief, prior to the March 2009
Freeport mayoral
election, Defendants Warren, Colton and Hardwick formed an
alliance with the plaintiffs
in the Water Works actions, the purpose of which was to fund
Hardwick's mayoral election
campaign, coordinate attacks on Glacken, and create a vehicle to
settle the Water Works
actions and various tax certiorari proceedings against
Freeport.
34. Upon information and belief, Defendants Colton, Warren and
Hardwick
agreed to promptly settle the Water Works litigation on terms
favorable to plaintiffs in that
action in the event Hardwick won the Freeport mayoral
election.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dennis Warren.
(Warren) , in his
capacity as Hardwick's chief political operative, was the
architect of Defendant Hardwick's
pre-election public position on the Water Works actions.
36. Upon information and belief, Gary Melius (Melius) , the
principal of Water
Works Realty LLC and a plaintiff in the pending Water Works
Federal actions, was a
contributor to Defendant Hardwick's mayoral campaign and a major
supporter of
Defendant Hardwick during the election campaign.
37. Upon information and belief, Gary Melius and members of his
family made
substantial contributions to the Nassau County Democratic
Committee on or about March
12, 2009, six days before the Village election and shortly
thereafter.
38. Upon information and belief, immediately after the Melius
March contribution
to the Nassau County Democratic Committee, Defendant Hardwick
received the
endorsement of Jay Jacobs, Chairman of the Nassau County
Democratic Committee
7
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 8 of
24 PageID #: 8
relative to Hardwick's candidacy for mayor in the March 18, 2009
Freeport mayoral
election.
39. Defendant Hardwick publicly advocated for and supported the
position of the
Water Works plaintiffs during the mayoral campaign.
40. On March 13, 2009, five days before the election, Melius
filed a defamation
action against Plaintiff Glacken in State Supreme Court for the
County of Nassau
concerning statements purportedly made by Glacken at a February
26, 2009 public
meeting at the Freeport Library with respect to the pending
Water Works actions against
Freeport and others.
41. Upon information and belief, on or about March 14, 2009,
four days before
the mayoral election on March 18, 2009,, Melius circulated a
mailing to Village residents
throughout Freeport excoriating Glacken and other Village
officials, referring to the
Water Works actions pending in Federal District Court.
42. Upon information and belief, the mailing by Melius, a
plaintiff in the Water
Works actions against Freeport, was coordinated by Defendant
Hardwick's campaign
operatives on behalf of Defendant Hardwick in cooperation and
concert with Melius.
43. The statements purportedly made by Glacken on February 26,
2009 were
in response to public questions concerning the Water Works
allegations of criminal
conduct by the Village government, Village officials (including
Glacken), contract vendors
of Freeport and Nassau.
44. The purported statements made by Glacken were also in
response to public
concerns about the joint municipal process by which liens
representing real property tax
arrears were liquidated by the taxing authorities of Freeport
and Nassau.
8
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 9 of
24 PageID #: 9
45. On March 30, 2009, pursuant to New York Public Officers Law
18(3) and
(4) and Chapter 130-5, et seq. of the Freeport Code, Freeport
authorized the defense and
indemnification of plaintiff, then Mayor Glacken, in the Melius
State Court defamation
action.
46. Freeport's Claims Administrator assigned the defense of the
Melius State
Court defamation action to the law firm of Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker.
47. On March 18, 2009, Defendant Hardwick and two running mates,
Carmen
Pineyro and Robert Kennedy were elected as Mayor and Trustees of
Freeport.
48. On April 6, 2009, Hardwick, Kennedy and Pineyro took office
as Mayor and
Trustees, respectively, for Freeport. Collectively, defendant
Hardwick, Trustee Kennedy
and Trustee Pineyro were and continue to be three members of
Freeport's five-member
Board of Trustees3.
49. Upon information and belief, between March 19, 2009 and
April 5, 2009,
Defendants Colton, Warren and others met with the Water Works
plaintiffs and formed a
plan to promptly settle the Water Works actions on terms
favorable to plaintiffs in said
actions. Upon information and belief, defendants' plan included
measures to stifle
Glacken's opposition to the settlement.
50. Upon information and belief, shortly after the March 18,
2009 election but
before taking office, Defendants Hardwick, Warren and Colton
ordered Freeport's Claims
Administrator to replace the Wilson, Elser firm as Freeport's
counsel in the Federal Water
Works actions with the two-person law firm of Warren &
Warren, of which Defendant
3 White and Martinez were and continue to be the remaining two
members of the five-member Board.
9
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 10 of
24 PageID #: 10
Warren was, and continues to be, a principal. At such time,
Defendants Hardwick, Colton
and Warren were acting in their respective individual
capacities.
51. On April 6, 2009, Defendant Hardwick appointed Defendant
Colton to the
position of Village Attorney for Freeport.
52. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hardwick, without
Board of Trustees
approval or authorization, increased Defendant Colton's
Village-paid salary from
$90, 000. 00 to $130, 000. 00.
53. Upon information and belief, shortly after April 6, 2009,
Freeport's Claims
Administrator removed Wilson, Elser as Freeport's counsel, but
continued Wilson, Elser's
representation of Plaintiff Glacken and the other individual
Village defendants in the Water
Works actions now pending in Federal Court, except for Defendant
Howard Colton.
54. Simultaneously, Freeport's Claims Administrator retained
Warren & Warren
as Freeport's counsel in the Water Works actions.
55. Defendant Colton is now represented by Warren & Warren,
LLP in the Water
Works actions.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant Colton nominally
disqualified himself
as to any matters before Freeport that involved or concerned the
Water Works or its
principal, Melius.
57. The Wilson Elser firm has also continued as Freeport's
retained counsel
assigned to the defense of Glacken in the Melius State Court
defamation action
pursuant to the Public Officers Law 18(2) and Chapter 130-5, et
seq. of the Code of
Freeport.
10
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 11 of
24 PageID #: 11
58. Upon information and belief, in or about May or June of
2009, Defendant
Hardwick instructed Dennis Warren to settle the Water Works
Federal Court litigation as
against Freeport only, by having Freeport pay $3.5 million to
plaintiffs Water Works and
Melius. The Hardwick-directed $3.5 million dollar settlement
excluded the non-Village
defendants in said pending actions.
59. Between August 1, 2009 and September 24, 2009, Defendants
Hardwick,
Colton, and Freeport's Special Counsel in the Water Works
action, Defendant Dennis
Warren, threatened to remove the defense of Glacken and other
individual Freeport
defendants in the Water Works Federal actions unless Glacken and
others agreed to
support the Hardwick-directed $3. 5 million dollar payment to
the Water Works plaintiffs in
settlement of the Water Works actions, and also agreed not to
publicly disparage the
proposed Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5 million dollars to
Melius.
60. Glacken has publicly opposed the Hardwick-directed $3. 5
million dollar
settlement of the Water Works actions as imprudent because, upon
information and belief,
Defendant Hardwick's directed settlement was to be made (1)
prior to the service and
filing of any answer or affirmative defense by any of the
nineteen defendants in the two
pending Federal actions; (2) without resolving Freeport's
insurance coverage issues with
its two excess insurance carriers; (3) without the conduct of
any depositions in the
pending actions or the exchange of any document disclosure by
any of the parties or
multiple non-party witnesses in the pending actions; (4) without
any provision for
contribution or set-offs from any of the non-Village defendants;
(5) without any expert
analysis of the Water Works' damages claim; (6) without a
judicial decision on a pending
request of all defendants for leave to file a motion to dismiss
the complaints; (7) with no
1 1
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 12 of
24 PageID #: 12
assurance that the Village and the individual defendants would
not be cross-claimed back
into the action by the non-settling, non-Village defendants; (8)
while continuing to require
individual defendants to comply with ongoing discovery requests
at Freeport's expense for
legal fees; (9) with no municipal funds available or
appropriated to pay the settlement;
and {1 O) without a Village bond resolution in place to
authorize the financing of the
proposed settlement.
61. On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff Glacken published his
objections to the
Hardwick-directed payment of $3. 5 million dollars to Melius in
settlement of the Water
Works actions by circulating a letter to the Mayor, each member
of the Board of Trustees,
the Village Clerk and the Village Attorney, setting forth in
general terms his objections to
Hardwick's proposal to pay the Water Works plaintiffs $3. 5
million dollars without first fully
and thoroughly investigating the claims through the normal
discovery process and
determining the insurance coverage issue first.
62. Upon information and belief, Defendant Warren, Freeport's
and Colton's
counsel in the Water Works actions, has not conducted any
discovery nor issued a single
demand for production of documents against plaintiffs in the
Water Works actions.
63. Upon information and belief, within days of the receipt and
distribution
Plaintiff Glacken's letter of opposition to the proposed $3. 5
million dollar payment to Melius,
Defendants Hardwick, Colton, and Warren took steps to withdraw
Freeport's defense and
indemnification of Plaintiff Glacken in the Melius State Supreme
Court defamation action.
64. Neither Plaintiff Glacken nor his Freeport-retained defense
counsel received
prior notice or an opportunity to be heard on this action by
Defendant Hardwick.
12
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 13 of
24 PageID #: 13
65. Upon information and belief, at the urging of Defendants
Warren and Colton,
the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution, on September 14,
2009, purportedly revoking
the indemnification of Glacken in the State Court defamation
action, and authorizing the
Village Attorney and/or Special Counsel Warren to commence
proceedings against
Plaintiff Glacken to recover all Village funds expended by
Freeport "on the matter. "
66. Upon information and belief, said actions were taken and the
resolution
adopted only after Defendants Warren and Colton knowingly and
intentionally misinformed
the Board of Trustees that payments to Wilson, Elser on behalf
of Glacken were illegal
and possibly criminal, and that any Trustee who voted against
the termination resolution
would be personally liable for said legal fees.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendants Colton and Warren
refused and/or
ignored existing law requiring the Board's obligation and duty
to defend Glacken pursuant
to Public Officers Law 18.
68. On September 25, 2009, Freeport's ClaimsAdministrator
vicariously notified
Glacken and his Village-retained defense counsel that Freeport
had withdrawn Freeport's
defense and indemnification of Glacken in the Melius State Court
defamation action
pending in Nassau Supreme Court.
69. Upon information and belief, Trustees White and Martinez,
also named
defendants in the Water Works actions and voting members of the
current Board of
Trustees, were and continue to be threatened by Defendants
Warren, Colton and Hardwick
with Freeport's discontinuance of their Village-provided defense
and indemnification in the
Water Works actions unless they agreed to vote for a bond
resolution or other financial
13
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 14 of
24 PageID #: 14
device to municipally fund the Hardwick-directed settlement
payment of $3.5 million dollars
to Melius.
70. The municipal actions taken by Freeport unilaterally
withdrawing the defense
of Glacken and authorizing municipal collection efforts against
Glacken in the State Court
defamation action were retaliatory actions against Glacken, and
were taken solely because
of Glacken's publicly expressed opposition to Defendant
Hardwick's proposed $3.5 million
dollar payment to Melius in settlement of the Federal actions, a
significant matter of public
concern.
71. Upon information and belief, said action was also taken to
bolster and
reinforce the threats directed at Trustees White and Martinez,
two voting members of the
Board, and also named defendants in the Water Works actions.
72. Upon information and belief, said action was taken to
bolster and reinforce
similar threats directed at Village Treasurer Vilma Lancaster,
also a named defendant in
the Water Works litigation.
73. Upon information and belief, during the week of October 12,
2009, Defendant
Colton presented Treasurer Lancaster with a Stipulation of
Settlement of the Water Works
litigation and instructed her to sign same.
74. Upon information and belief, Lancaster's attorney, Wilson,
Elser, was not
present at such signing and did not authorize such action by
Defendant Colton with regard
to Treasurer Lancaster.
75. Upon information and belief, when Lancaster's
Village-retained counsel,
Wilson, Elser, objected to Colton's unauthorized meeting with
Lancaster, Defendant Colton
14
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 15 of
24 PageID #: 15
declared a "conflict of interest" and replaced Wilson, Elser
with Warren & Warren as
Lancaster's counsel in the Water Works litigation.
76. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of their goal to
stifle any
opposition and/or perceived obstruction of the proposed
settlement, Defendants Colton
and Warren have instructed Defendant Lancaster to have no
further communication with
Wilson, Elser, her counsel in the Water Works litigation, and
also unilaterally removed
Wilson, Elser from representing Lancaster in the Water Works
litigation.
77. Upon information and belief, neither Defendant Colton nor
Defendant Warren
has authority to unilaterally remove Wilson, Elser as
Lancaster's Freeport-retained
counsel in the Water Works litigation.
78. No governmental interest was advanced by said retaliatory
actions.
79. But for Plaintiff Glacken's published opposition to the
Hardwick-proposed
settlement, Freeport would not have taken the action against
Glacken complained of in
this action.
80. Said municipal actions were retaliatory in nature and
calculated to intimidate
Glacken and other public officers and employees, including, but
not limited to, Trustees
White and Martinez, and Treasurer Vilma Lancaster, into
supporting the Hardwick
settlement, passing a resolution approving a $3.5 million dollar
bond to fund said
settlement, and to prevent Plaintiff Glacken and others from
bringing defendants' actions
to the attention of the public.
81 . The actions taken by Freeport violated Plaintiff's right of
free speech to
comment on matters of public concern, as guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
15
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 16 of
24 PageID #: 16
82. Plaintiff's right to a defense in the civil action entitled
Melius v. Glacken is a
statutorily mandated employment benefit extended to plaintiff by
New York Public Officers
Law 18(3) and (4) , adopted by Freeport in Chapter 130-5, et
seq. of the Code of Freeport.
This right vested in Glacken during his tenure as Mayor of
Freeport, a public officer and
employee of a public entity, and is therefore a substantial
property right.
83. Plaintiff's entitlement to said employment benefit continued
beyond
Glacken's tenure as an official and employee of Freeport, and
exists on a continuing basis,
and may not be unilaterally taken away by Freeport without due
process.
84. Freeport has provided no pre-termination or
post-determination procedure
or process to review the basis for its unilateral termination of
plaintiff's rights under Public
Officers Law 18 and Freeport's Chapter 130-5, et seq.
85. Freeport's duty to defend its officers and employees is a
statutorily mandated
obligation under New York Public Officers Law 18, as adopted by
the Code of Freeport
at Chapter 130. 5, et seq.
86. Freeport's unilateral withdrawal of Glacken's defense
constitutes a violation
of New York's Public Officers Law.
87. Defendants' unilateral action of withdrawing such defense is
a denial of
Glacken's property interest, without affording Glacken any
pre-termination notice or
opportunity to be heard prior to said withdrawal, and
constitutes a violation of the due
process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
88. By reason of defendants' violation of the New York Public
Officers Law,
Plaintiff has been and will be forced to expend large sums of
money to secure Plaintiff's
16
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 17 of
24 PageID #: 17
defense in the pending Melius State Court defamation action
pending in Nassau Supreme
Court.
89. Owing solely to the expression of his opinions on public
concerns over the
continuing impropriety and malfeasance of Hardwick's proposed
$3. 5 million dollar
payment to Melius in settlement of the pending Water Works
Federal actions, plaintiff has
become fearful that Defendants Hardwick and Colton will carry
out their threats and "pull"
the defense of Glacken in said action.
90. Defendants have threatened and continue to threaten
plaintiff and other
individual Freeport defendants in the Water Works actions with
the same actions as they
have already taken in the Melius State Court defamation action,
exposing the plaintiff and
others to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and
court costs, and inhibiting
plaintiff's and others' First Amendment rights to comment and
oppose defendants' actions
with regard to the Water Works actions . .
91. Freeport, in the past, has provided defense and
indemnification in many civil
actions against its public officers and employees. Upon
information and belief, Freeport
has never made any determination to rescind its defense of an
employee under any
circumstances.
92. Freeport's rescission of its defense of Glacken in the State
Court action is a
denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
93. The chill cast upon plaintiff's First Amendment rights by
Freeport's completed
retaliatory actions and threats of further reprisals is
continuing, ongoing and palpable.
94. The retaliatory actions against plaintiff and the continuing
threats and
intimidation aimed at the plaintiff and others are part of
defendants' policy of retaliation,
17
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 18 of
24 PageID #: 18
intimidation and reprisal aimed at the plaintiff and other
individual Village defendants to
force their assent to the Hardwick settlement payment of $3. 5
million dollars to Melius,
notwithstanding the claimed impropriety and malfeasance of said
actions.
95. Defendants' actions have been taken under color of State
law, as are the
threatened actions, and have been approved by the Defendant
Board of Trustees, policy
makers for Freeport.
96. Defendants' actions have cast a chill on Plaintiff's
continuing exercise of his
First Amendment right of freedom of expression on matters of
public concern and interest.
97. Defendants' acts of intimidation, reprisal and retaliation
are policies approved
by the Defendant Board of Trustees for Defendant Freeport, and
are ongoing.
98. Defendants Hardwick, Colton and Warren's actions have been
intentionally
inflicted upon plaintiff to deny him of his First Amendment
right to defend himself in the
court proceedings by denying him access to court.
99. By reason of defendants' actions against plaintiff,
plaintiff has lost income,
suffered embarrassment, mental anguish, and loss of self
esteem.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM - CONSPIRACY
100. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "99," with the same force and effect
as if set forth at length
herein.
101. State actors Hardwick and Colton acted jointly and
conspired with Defendant
Warren to present to the Board of Trustees (i) a false statement
relative to the Village's
duty to defend plaintiff in the State Court action; (ii) a false
statement to the Board of
Trustees as to each member's individual liability for any
payments on behalf of the defense
18
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 19 of
24 PageID #: 19
of Glacken in the State Court defamation suit; (iii) a false set
of minutes concerning the
Board's actions at its meeting of September 14, 2009; and (iv)
did provide the Village's
Claims Administrator a false "Corrected Directive" relative to
the Board's actions at its
September 14, 2009 Executive Session meeting.
102. That by reason of the foregoing, defendants have
implemented a conspiracy
to deprive plaintiff of his constitutionally-protected property
rights and right to free speech.
103. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to
damages, to be
determined at trial, but believed to be not less than
$2,500,000. 00.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM - FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKING
104. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "103, " with the same force and effect
as if set forth at length
herein.
105. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants, acting under
color of State law,
violated the plaintiff's right to substantive due process by
removing plaintiff's defense in the
civil action Melius v. Glacken, in violation of New York Public
Officer's Law 18.
106. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to
recover damages against
defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1983, in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed
to be not less than $2,500, 000.00.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM - FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
107. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "106, '' with the same force and
effect as if set forth at length
herein.
19
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 20 of
24 PageID #: 20
108. By reason of the foregoing, and solely as retaliation for
plaintiff's expression
of First Amendment rights objecting to defendants' actions,
past, present and proposed,
defendants, acting under color of State law, terminated
plaintiff's employment benefit
consisting of the defense and indemnification of plaintiff in a
civil action, Melius v. Glacken.
109. By reason of the foregoing, plain tiff's free speech rights
under the First
Amendment were chilled, and plaintiff has been forced to spend
money, time and
resources in defending himself in said action.
110. The actions of the defendants are in violation of the
First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
111. The actions of the defendants are in violation of New York
Public Officers
Law 18 and the Code of Freeport, Chapter 130-5, et seq.
112. By virtue of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is entitled
to recover damages
against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but
believed to be not less than
$2,500,000. 00.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM - INJUNCTION
113. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "11 O," with the same force and effect
as if set forth at length
herein.
114. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to a
declaratory judgment
declaring defendants' conduct illegal and violative of the
First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, New York Public
Officer's Law 18 and the
Code of Freeport, Chapter 130-5, et seq.
20
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 21 of
24 PageID #: 21
115. Upon such declaratory judgment, plaintiff is entitled to an
injunction
restraining defendants from illegal conduct against
plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
116. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "113," with the same force and effect
as if set forth at length
herein.
117. By virtue of plaintiff's status as a public officer and
employee for the period
of time between April 7, 1997 and April 6, 2009, plaintiff has a
constitutionally- cognizable
property right in the form of employment benefit defined by New
York Public Officers Law
18, to wit, the defense and indemnification in civil actions
arising from plaintiff's duties and
actions as duly elected and serving full-time Mayor for the
Incorporated Village of Freeport.
118. Plaintiff's above-described property right may not be taken
away without due
process of law.
119. By reason of the foregoing, defendants, acting under color
of State law,
violated plaintiff's right to procedural due process by failing
to provide plaintiff with a pre
termination hearing concerning the Village of Freeport's
termination of plaintiff's defense
in the State Court action entitled Melius v. Glacken.
120. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated plaintiff's
right to procedural
due process by failing to provide plaintiff with
post-termination notice or opportunity to be
heard relative to the termination of plaintiff's statutory
benefit of a defense in the State
Court action entitled Melius v. Glacken.
2 1
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 22 of
24 PageID #: 22
121. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to
recover damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM - LEGAL FEES
122. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every
allegation contained
in paragraphs "1" through "119," with the same force and effect
as if set forth at length
herein.
123. As a result of the wrongful conduct by the defendants, in
both their official
and individual capacities, said conduct having been carried out
under color of State law,
plaintiff has been forced to expend substantial sums for legal
fees, Court costs and related
expenses to vindicate his constitutionally-protected rights.
124. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees
pursuant to 42 USC 1988,
in an amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants
Colton, Hardwick
and Warren, individually, the Defendant Board of Trustees, and
the Defendant
Incorporated Village of Freeport, as follows:
(A) On plaintiff's First Claim, compensatory damages in an
amount to be
determined at trial;
(B) On plaintiff's Second Claim, compensatory damages in an
amount to be
determined at trial;
(C) On plaintiff's Third Claim, compensatory damages in an
amount to be
determined at trial;
22
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 23 of
24 PageID #: 23
(D) On plaintiff's Fourth Claim, judgment declaring that the
actions of the
defendants are unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff under
the facts and
circumstances of this action, and granting plaintiff permanent
injunctive relief
preventing and enjoining defendants from interfering with
Plaintiff's exercise
of rights secured by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the
United States Constitution or basing any action regarding
Plaintiff's former
employment upon Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment
rights;
(E) On plaintiff's Fifth Claim, compensatory damages in amounts
to be
determined at trial.
(F) On plaintiff's Sixth Claim, legal fees in an amount to be
determined at trial;
and
(G) Punitive damages against the individual defendants Hardwick,
Colton and
DATED:
Warren, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,500,000.
00.
Freeport, New York November 5, 2009
23
J. EDWARDS (HE 2810) & EDWARDS
Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address 336 South
Ocean Avenue Post Off ice Box 191 Freeport, New York 11520 Tel:
516-379-1323 Fax: 516-379-7121
-
Case 2:09-cv-04832-DRH-AKT Document 1 Filed 11/05/09 Page 24 of
24 PageID #: 24
STATE OF NEW YORK )
VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF NASSAU ) ss.:
WILLIAM F. GLACKEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am the defendant in the action herein; I have read the annexed
Complaint, know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my
knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I
believe them to be true.
Sworn to before me this
sd
HARRISON J. EDWARDS IV NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 02ED6200602 Qualffled In Nassau County
My Commision Expires February 02, 2018
-
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion &
Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING 3rd
DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO
RoadDog SATIRE ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative ReportThis
investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in April,
2015.
As many of the articles on our main page reflect, Sacramento
Family Law Court whistleblowers and watchdogs contend that a
"cartel" of local family law attorneys receive kickbacks and other
forms of preferential treatment from family court judges,
administrators and employees because the lawyers are members of the
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the
Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement
conference program on behalf of the court.
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubber-stamped" court orders
which are contrary to established law, and cannot be attributed to
the exercise of judicial discretion. For a detailed overview of the
alleged collusion between judge pro tem attorneys and family court
employees and judges, we recommend our special Color of Law series
of investigative reports.
The Color of Law series reports catalog some of the preferential
treatment provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA
Family Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here to view the
Color of Law series. For a list of our reports about family court
temporary judges and controversies, click here.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system and
attorney operated settlement conference program was set up in 1991
by and for the lawyers of the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section,
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge Program
Controversy
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court Operations,
Charge Whistleblowers
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion
between judges and local attorneys deprives financially
disadvantaged, unrepresented pro per court users of their parental
rights, community assets, and due process and access to the court
constitutional rights.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)
JUDGE PRO TEM (50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
FLEC (28)
ARTS & CULTURE (23)
CHILD CUSTODY (22)
PETER J. McBRIEN (22)
SCBA (22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)
WATCHDOGS (20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)
CJP (18)
PRO PERS (18)
DOCUMENTS (16)
DIVORCE CORP (15)
JAMES M. MIZE (15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
RAPTON-KARRES (11)
SATIRE (11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS
217 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In
-
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court
Judge Peter J. McBrien at his 2009 Commission on Judicial
Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge
McBrien's testimony.
In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran
family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J. O'Hair corroborated
McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value
to Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section members.
Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view
O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.
Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback
arrangement between the public court and private sector attorneys
constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of
the federally protected right to honest government services.
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local
family law bar - through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC
- continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually
all aspects of court operations, and have catalogued documented
examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and bias
against unrepresented litigants and "outsider" attorneys,
including:
Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and
collusive industry of family law in the United States" was released
in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search
for the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the
movie's production team ultimately included four cases from
Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.
Judge pro tem attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van
Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each accused of unethical conduct in
the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson
case, featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge
Peter McBrien is the central case profiled in the documentary, with
Sacramento County portrayed as the Ground Zero of family court
corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete
coverage of Divorce Corp.
Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in
November, 2013 for judge pro tem attorney Richard Sokol authorizing
an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's
client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider"
attorney from San Francisco who was dumbfounded by the order. Click
here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court
reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier
report on the unethical practice of "hometowning" and the
prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.
Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar
Association Family Law Executive Committee officer and judge pro
tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of justice
crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim.
The victim was a witness in a criminal contempt case against a
Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of
justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and
controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For our complete investigative
report, click here.
Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by
Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a California Rule of Court
prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where
one party is self-represented and the other party is represented by
an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were renewed by Presiding
Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013. Click here for details.
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest
laws requiring them to disclose to opposing parties when a judge
pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click
here for a list of other conflict of interest posts.
Family court policies and procedures, including local court
rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee for
the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often
disadvantage the 70 percent of court users without lawyers,
according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers. For
example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the
Commission on Judicial Performance, McBrien described seeking and
obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule. Click here
and here.
In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Roman
issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order declaring a family court
party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to the
opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required
by law. The opposing attorney who requested the orders is Judge Pro
Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in both
an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting
scarce judicial resources and costing taxpayers significant sums.
Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both
obstruct an appeal of his own orders and help a client of judge pro
tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click
here for our investigative report.
An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made
homeless by an illegal child support order issued by Judge Matthew
Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner
of
(11)
CARLSSON CASE (10)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
LAURIE M. EARL (10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)
FERRIS CASE (8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JULIE SETZER (7)
YOUTUBE (7)
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
CIVIL RIGHTS (6)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)
CONTEMPT (5)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
LUAN CASE (4)
MIKE NEWDOW (4)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
WE SUPPORT
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION
-
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback
child support order, and other proceedings in the case were so
outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team
of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of
global law firm Morrison & Foerster. For our exclusive, ongoing
reports on the case, click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren
helped conceal judge misconduct and failed to comply with Canon
3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to
an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in
Department 121. Both Sokol and Van Beveren failed to report the
misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law. Van
Beveren is an officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee.
Click here for our exclusive report...
...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court
disseminated demonstrably false and misleading information about
the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The
apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit
the victim of Gary's misconduct, trivialize the incident, and cover
up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our
follow-up reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal
arrest and assault was leaked by a government whistleblower. Click
here for details.
In 2008 controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien
deprived a family court litigant of a fair trial in a case where
the winning party was represented by judge pro tem attorney
Charlotte Keeley. In a scathing, published opinion, the 3rd
District Court of Appeal reversed in full and ordered a new trial.
6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing
characterized McBrien's conduct in the case as a "judicial reign of
terror." McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the Commission on
Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009. Click
here to read the court of appeal decision. Click here to read the
disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.
Judge pro tem attorneys Camille Hemmer, Robert O'Hair, Jerry
Guthrie and Russell Carlson each testified in support of Judge
Peter J. McBrien when the controversial judge was facing removal
from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance in 2009.
As a sworn temporary judges aware of McBrien's misconduct, each was
required by Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics to take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's
misconduct. Instead, each testified as a character witness in
support of the judge. In the CJP's final disciplinary decision
allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the CJP referred
specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment. Click here. Court records indicate that Judge
McBrien has not disclosed the potential conflict of interest to
opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge. Click here for SFCN coverage
of conflict issues.
Judge pro tem attorneys Terri Newman, Camille Hemmer, Diane
Wasznicky and Donna
Reed were involved in a proposed scheme to rig a recall election
of controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien in 2008. The plan involved
helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the
Year" before the November election. Click here for the Sacramento
News and Review report.
Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character
witness for controversial Judge Peter J. McBrien at the judge's
second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009. Paula Salinger, an
attorney at O'Hair's firm, Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salinger
was later granted a waiver of the requirements to become a judge
pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for
O'Hair's testimony for McBrien. Click here to read our exclusive
investigative report.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
California Courts Homepage
California Courts YouTube Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Performance
Sacramento County Family Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar Association
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at JDSupra Law News
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs
(may be gender-specific)
-
In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks
and judges permit judge pro tem attorneys to file declarations
which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements.
The declarations - on blank paper and without line numbers - make
it impossible for the pro per to make lawful written evidentiary
objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our
report documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion
filed by SCBA Family Law Section officer and temporary judge Paula
Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to
the illegal filing click here, and click here for the pro per
points & authorities.
Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to
file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of Findings and Order After
Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry
of Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights
notifications and other information included in the mandatory form.
Click here for our exclusive report.
Sacramento Family Court temporary judge and family law lawyer
Gary Appelblatt was charged with 13-criminal counts including
sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims
were clients and potential clients of the attorney. The judge pro
tem ultimately pleaded no contest to four of the original
13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months
in prison. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to read
our report.
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorney Scott Kendall
was disbarred from the practice of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall
was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to
violate the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and
failing to keep clients informed, including not telling a client
about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same
case without notifying the client or obtaining court permission.
Court administrators concealed from the public that Kendall held
the Office of Temporary Judge. Click here to view our report.
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Eston in
2008 helped Donna Gary - the wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary -
promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software
program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the
conflict of interest as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.
In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew
& Wasznicky cut off the public from the only online access to
The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the
Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm
include judge pro tem attorneys Hal Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky
and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the newsletter
often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA
attorneys and court administrators and judges. Click here for our
report.
Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem
attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on disputed issues at a
statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time
judges and judge pro tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent,
and unlawful business practices, all of which are prohibited under
California unfair competition laws, including Business and
Professions Code 17200, reform advocates claim.
Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge
pro tem attorneys ultimately results in unnecessary appeals
burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation
that wastes public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and
squanders scarce court resources.
Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a
two-track system of justice. One for judge pro tem attorneys and
another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and
"outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code
of Judicial Ethics, according to the Commission on Judicial
Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold
standard reference on judge misconduct. Click here for articles
about the preferential treatment given judge pro tem attorneys.
Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.
After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San
Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli wrote "this is a 'juice
court' in which outside counsel have little chance of
prevailing...[the] court has now abandoned even a pretense of being
fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete,
scathing account.
The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led
by an "Executive Committee" ("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys
composed of Chair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van Beveren,
Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the
four have been involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations
of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in federal civil
rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the
Executive Committee members. Click here for other articles about
FLEC.
Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate
corrective action if they learn that another judge has violated any
provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has
violated any provision of the California Rules of Professional
Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that temporary judges
regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court
judges and attorneys but have never taken or initiated appropriate
corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 5 5 1 2 1
163
PR Brown
Follow
Google+ Badge
3rd DISTRICT COA (6)
AGGREGATED NEWS (14) ANALYSIS (36)
APPEALS (10) ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND (5) ARTS & CULTURE (23)
ATTORNEY
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN AUDITS (2)
AB 1102 (1) AB 590 (1) ABA JOURNAL (1)
ADMINISTRATORS (4)
AL SALMEN (1)AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1)
ANDY FURILLO (2) AOC (1)
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM (1)
ATTORNEY (4) ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE (4) ATTORNEY ETHICS (2)
-
office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons,
Click here. For a Judicial Council directive about the obligation
to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component
of the Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.
For information about the role of temporary judges in family
court, click here. For official Sacramento County Superior Court
information about the Temporary Judge Program click here. Using
public records law, Sacramento Family Court News obtained the list
of private practice attorneys who also act as judge pro tems in
Sacramento Family Law Court. Each lawyer on the list below is
currently a temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. SFCN cross-checked each name on the
Sacramento County judge pro tem list with California State Bar
Data. The first name in each listing is the name that appears on
the Sacramento County judge pro tem list, the second name, the
State Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived from the
official State Bar data for each attorney. The State Bar data was
obtained using the search function at the State Bar website.
For-profit, private sector lawyers who also hold the Office of
Temporary Judge:
Sandy Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra
Amara,1 California Street, Auburn, CA 95603.
Mark Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of
Mark A. Ambrose, 8801 Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826.
Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.
Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law
& Mediator, 206 5th Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.
Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610
American River Drive #112, Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was
disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 after being convicted
of sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive
report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of Law.
Beth Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135, 1430
Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816.
Bunmi Awoniyi, Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi, SBN 154183, Law Office
of Bunmi Awoniyi a PC, 1610 Executive Ct. Sacramento, CA 95864.
Awoniyi unethically advertises herself as a temporary judge.
Awoniyi was appointed a Superior Court Judge in December 2012 and
holds court in Department 120 of Sacramento Family Court.
Alexandre C. Barbera, C. Alexandre Barbera, SBN 70071,915
Highland Point Drive, Ste. 250 Roseville, CA 95678.
A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court
records indicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from
judges kickbacks and other preferential treatment in exchange
for operating the family court settlement conference program.
MISCONDUCT (35) ATTORNEYS (11) BAR ASSOCIATION (11)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5) CARLSSON CASE (10)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18) CHILD CUSTODY (22)
CHRISTINA ARCURI (5) CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8) CIVIL RIGHTS (6) CJP
(18)
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11) CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)
CONTEMPT (5)
CRIMINAL CONDUCT (11)
DIVORCE (7) DIVORCE ATTORNEY (5) DIVORCE CORP (15) DIVORCE
LAWYER (5) DOCUMENTS (16)
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN (13)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT (19)
FAMILY COURT (9)
BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1)
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER
(1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)
CECIL and CIANCI (2) CEO (4)
CHILD SUPPORT (4)
CIVICS (1)CIVIL LIABILITY (1)
CJA (3) ClientTickler (2) CNN
(1) CODE OF
SILENCE (2) COLLEEN MCDONAGH (3)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (3)
COURT CONDITIONS (2)COURT EMPLOYEE (1) COURT
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS (1)COURT POLICIES (1) COURT
RULES (4) COURTS (1) CPG FAMILY LAW (1)
CRIMINAL LAW (3) CRONYISM (2)DAVID KAZZIE (4) DEMOTION
(1) DENISE RICHARDS (1)DIANE WASZNICKY (2)DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DONALD TENN (3) DONNA GARY (2) DSM-301.7 (1)
EDITORIAL (1) EDWARD FREIDBERG (2) EFF (2)
EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT AWARD (1)
ELECTIONS (1) EMILY GALLUP (3)EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
(4)
EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)
FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2)
FAMILY
ZLNEE/QWNyb2JhdFdlYkNhcFRJRDEA: form0: q: