-
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER
Date: 05/16/2008 Time: 03:05:44 PM Judicial Officer Presiding:
Judge Shelleyanne W L Chang Clerk: E. Higginbotham
Bailiff/Court Attendant: None ERM: None
Dept: 54
Case lnit. Date: 04/13/2007
Case No: 07AS00238 Case Title: NICK KALANGES VS BACKSCRATCHERS
SALON SYSTEMS. INC ET AL
Case Category: Civil - Unlimited
Date Filed: 01/15/2008
Appearances:
Nature of Proceeding: Disqualification of Judge Shelleyanne W.L.
Chang Pursuant to CCP Section 170.6
Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang having been disqualified pursuant
to CCP Section 170.6, the matter is ordered transferred to
Department 53 for the hearing of all future law and motion matters.
A Motion for Summary Adjudication is currently scheduled on July
29, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 53.
Declaration of Mailing
I hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action and
that I deposited a copy of this document in sealed envelopes with
first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the
attorney of record in the U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street,
Sacramento, California. Dated: May 19, 2008
E. Higginbotham, Deputy Clerk ___
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Gordon Fine Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP One Sansome
Street, Ste. 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104
Donald H. Heller L.O. Donald H. Heller 655 University Ave., Ste.
215 Sacramento, CA 95825
Date: 05/16/2008 Dept: 54
MINUTE ORDER Page: 1 Calendar No.:
-
May-16-2008 10:25am To-1916443311' From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISCAARD
& 'H LLP T-046 P.006/008 F-748
l Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841
2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH tLP
3 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California
94104
4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580
s Facsimile: ( 415) 434-0882
Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC.,
JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )
12 Plaintiff; ) DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN ) SUPPORT OF
PEREMPTORY
13 v. ) CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
14 BACKSCRA TCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES
1-25,
15
16
17
Defendant.
18 I, Gordon Fine, declare as follows:
) ) ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: ). Trial date:
January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set
19 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all
the courts in the State of
20 California and am a partner with the law fum of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of
21 record for Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and
Michael Megna (hereinafter
22 "defendants") in this matter.
23 2. I believe that the Honorable Shellyanne W.L. Chang the
judge, the judge to whom
24 Plaintiff Nick Kalanges' Motion for Summary Adjudication of
Issues, scheduled to be heard on
25 July 29, 2008, has been assigned, is prejudiced against the
interests of defendants or the interests
26 of its anomeys, or both, so that defendants cannot have a
fair and impartial hearing or trial before
27 Judge Chang.
28
4827-0l08-68SO. I -1-DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FJNE IN SUPPORT OF
PEitMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
-
May162009 10:26am To-19164433111 FromLEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& . 'H LLP T046 P.007/008 F749
..
...
..
E as ""5 ii! -fi?lil
t;5-0 ; ti -i;j" IXI w8::z: II) ::;.,o 0;:; if "'w - .. D:
"' ti ma., Ill Ill _,
1 I declare under penalty of perjUtY pursuant t6 the laws of the
State of California that this 2 declaration is true and correct,
and that this declaration is executed on this fifteenth day of
May,
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2008 in San Francisco, California.
4827-0308-6850. I 2 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
-
May-16-2008 10:26am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& ... 'TH LLP T-046 P.008/008 F-748
l
2
PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS00238
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of
California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within
action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite I 400,
San
5 Francisco, California 94104.
6 On May 16, 2008, I served the following document described
as
7 DECLARATION OF GORDON J. FINE IN SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true
copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed
9 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Donald H. Heller Law Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University
Avenue, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F:
916.927.2009
**Attorney for Plaintif/NICK KALANGES
[X] (BY MESSENGER SER.VICE) I served the documents by placing
them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the
addresses listed above and providing them to a professional
messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger
will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)
[XJ (STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
a, .. on Ingram
4827-0308.0UO.J -3-l>ECLARATJON OF GORl>ON J. FINE IN
SUPPORT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
-
Uay162009 10:25am Ta-19164433111
1 Gordon J. Fine, SBN 135979 Charles 0. Thompson, SBN 139841
2 Corinne L. Keating, SBN 248576 ZDUBl'M Y 16 PM 2: 08
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 One Sansome Street,
Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 362-2580
Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 5
.:i'\;, ',:,11.:. i;C COURTS DEPT 1153 #54
Attorneys for Defendants BACKSCRATCHERS SALON SYSTEMS, 6 INC.,
JACK MEGNA and MICHAEL MEGNA
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALJFORNJA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 NICK KALANGES, ) Case No. 07AS00238 )
12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY ) CHALLENGE TO
JUDGE
13 v.
14 BACKSCRATCHERS, INC., MICHAEL MEGNA, JACK MEGNA and DOES
1-25,
15
16
17
Defendant.
) } ) Action filed: ) Cross-complaint filed: Trial date:
) )
January 17, 2007 February 13, 2008 None set
18 Defendants Backscratchers, Inc, Jack Megna and Michael Megna
respectfully request
19 reassignment of Plaintiff Nick K.alanges' Motion for Summary
Adjudication ofissues, scheduled 20 to be heard on July 29, 2008,
pursuant to Code of C ivil Procedure section 170.6. This challenge
is
21 based upon the Declaration of Gordon J. Fine in Support of
Peremptory Challenge to Judge.
22
23
24
25 Dated: May L" 2008
26
27 28
4826-023S-80!8.l
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
By;
c=LK::
ordonJ. Fme
Attorneys for Backscratchers, Inc., Jack Megna and Michael
Megna
-1-BY FAX
NO'fICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
-
May-16-2008 10:25am To-19164433111 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& H LLP T-046 P.005/008 F-748
1
2
PROOF OF SERVICE Kalanges v. Backscratchers
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07 AS00238
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
4 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of
California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within
action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400,
San
S Francisco, California 94104.
6 On May 16, 2008, 1 served the following docwnent described
as
7 NOTICE OF AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE
8 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true
copy [ ) the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes
addressed as follows:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Donald H. Heller **Attorney for Plaintiff NICK KALANGES Law
Offices of Donald H. Heller 655 University Avenue, Suite 215
Sacramento, California 95825 T: 916.974.3500 F: 916.927.2009
[XJ
[X]
(BY MESSENGER SER VICE) I served the documents by placing them
in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses
listed above and providing them to a professional messenger
service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be
filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)
(STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on May 16, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
4826.0235-$018.1 -2-NOTICE OF A.N'D PEREMPTOQY CHALLENGE TO
JUDGE
-
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion &
Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO 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
-
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
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO
This ongoing investigative project was updated in April,
2015.
Sacramento Family Court News is conducting an ongoing
investigation of published and unpublished 3rd District Court of
Appeal decisions in trial court cases originating from family
courts. This page is regularly updated with our latest news,
analysis, and opinion. Our preliminary findings reveal an
unsettling link between how an appeal is decided and the political
ideology, work history, and family law bar ties of the court of
appeal judges assigned to the appeal.
Our investigation indicates that the outcome of an appeal is in
large part dependent on the luck of the justice draw and the
undisclosed connections between the trial court judge whose order
is appealed, the trial and appellate court attorneys, and the
judges assigned to resolve the appeal.
The collusive atmosphere falls hardest on unrepresented or "pro
per" appeal parties who can't afford to hire a local appellate
attorney. 3rd District appeal outcome statistical data reveals a
virtually perfect record of success for attorneys in cases where
the opposing party is a pro per. Appeals taken by pro per litigants
rarely, if ever, succeed.
In addition, a separate SFCN investigation has uncovered
evidence that both trial and appellate court judges, part-time
judges, and court employees deliberately obstruct appeals by
indigent, unrepresented parties. Appeal data from the Third
District reveals that most pro per appeals are never decided on the
merits and are instead
Third District Court of Appeal:
Justice, Ideology & Conflicts of Interest
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.
An Exclusive Sacramento Family Court News Investigation
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
2 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In
-
dismissed on legal technicalities, which are often caused by the
deliberate acts of government employees.
Court whistleblowers assert and have documented that the family
law division of Sacramento Superior Court and the 3rd District
Court of Appeal effectively operate as a RICO racketeering
enterprise that deprives the public of the federally protected
right to honest government services, and includes predicate acts of
mail and wire fraud. Click here to read our full report on the
allegations.
The 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp, designated Sacramento
County as the most corrupt family court in the United States. Court
watchdogs contend that the scale and scope of the corruption rivals
the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which
also became a documentary film.
Third District Court of Appeal cases are assigned to three of
ten judges. The background of each appears to be a critical factor
in how an appeal is decided.
For example, 3rd District unpublished opinions show that Court
of Appeal justices who were elevated to the appellate court from
Sacramento County Superior 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. Raye previously
were trial court judges in Sacramento County Superior Court.
Each have personal, social, or professional ties to family court
judges and attorney members of the Sacramento County Bar
Association Family Law Section. After his retirement in 2011, 3rd
District Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland described the
professional and personal relationships he had with attorneys
during his career on the bench.
"[I] enjoy friendships...I go to all the county bar events. I do
that for two reasons. One, I think it's a responsibility of a judge
to be active in the community, and the attorneys appreciate it. But
I really like the people. I really like going to these events. I
enjoy friendships and that sort of thing." Click here to view
Scotland's statement.
Sacramento Lawyer, the monthly magazine of the Sacramento County
Bar Association each month publishes accounts of recent social,
educational and charitable events sponsored by the association, its
17 specialty law sections - including the family law section - and
its eight local affiliates, including the Asian/Pacific Bar
Association, and Women Lawyers of Sacramento. Most are well
attended by a mix of state and federal judges, court
administrators, supervisors and employees, and lawyers.
To get a sense of the collusive atmosphere in Sacramento Family
Law Court, we recommend reading our special Color of Law series of
investigative reports, which document the preferential treatment
provided by family court employees and judges to SCBA Family Law
Section lawyers at the trial court level. Click here to view the
Color of Law series. Financially disadvantaged, unrepresented
litigants who face opposing parties represented by SCBA attorneys
assert that the collusive collegiality taints appeal proceedings in
the appellate court.
Pro per advocates contend that under Canon 3E(4)(a) and (c) of
the Code of Judicial Ethics, Raye, Robie, Hull and Nicholson should
disqualify themselves from participating in any appeal originating
from Sacramento 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 court Judge Peter McBrien. To view the 2002
Raye recusal and CJP 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 California due 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
3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert that appeal
outcomes are inconsistent, and in large part determined by
the work history, and social or professional connections of the
three judges assigned to decide an appeal.
Friends in Low Places
(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
-
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.
In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Justice
Vance Raye partnered with controversial family court Judge Peter J.
McBrien and attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section in establishing the current, dysfunctional
Sacramento Family Court system, according to the sworn testimony of
McBrien at his 2009 judicial misconduct trial before the Commission
on Judicial Performance.
Behind closed doors and under oath, the judge provided explicit
details about the 1991 origins of the present-day family court
structure. The public court system was built to the specifications
of private-sector attorneys from the SCBA Family Law Section Family
Law Executive Committee, according to McBrien's testimony. To view
McBrien's detailed description of the collusive public-private
collaboration, posted online exclusively by SFCN, click here. To
view the same, current day collusion, click here.
The 1991 restructuring plan began with a road trip suggested by
the family law bar:
"[T]he family law bar, and it was a fairly strong bar here in
Sacramento, initiated the concept of a trip to Orange County and
San Diego County to pick up some ideas about how their courts were
structured. And myself and Judge Ridgeway and two family law
attorneys made that trip and came back with various ideas of how to
restructure the system," McBrien told the CJP. Click here to
view.
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 McBrien dishonestly implied that 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 the needs 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
History & Origins of the Current Sacramento County Family
Court System
Tani Cantil Sakauye worked with Peter J. McBrien in Sacramento
County Superior Court from 1997-2005.
California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
California Courts Homepage
California Courts YouTube Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Performance
Sacramento County Family Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar Association
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
ABA Family Law Blawg Directory
California Coalition for Families and Children
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs
(may be gender-specific)
-
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.
One objective of the revamped system was to keep all family
court proceedings in-house: within the isolated family relations
courthouse. Prior to the change, trials were conducted at the
downtown, main courthouse and before judges more likely to have a
neutral perspective on a given case, and less likely to have ties
to the family law bar.
"The judges changed the local system so that family law judges
presided over both law and motion matters and trials, which used to
be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal
trials for scheduling," the Daily Journal reported.
Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers allege that under the
system set up by Raye and McBrien, the local family law bar -
through the Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC - now controls
for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court
operations, including local court rules. A cartel of local family
law attorneys receive preferential treatment from family court
judges and appellate court justices because the lawyers are members
of the Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section, hold the
Office of Temporary Judge, and run the family court settlement
conference program, court reform advocates charge.
Court watchdogs have catalogued and documented examples of judge
pro tem attorney favoritism, and flagrant bias 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.
Keeping Neutral Judges Out-of-the-Loop
Justice Ronald Robie performs in the "Judge's Choir" for the
Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section
Holiday Luncheon.
Carlsson Case Exposes 3rd District Ideology & Undisclosed
Conflict of Interest Issues
JDSupra Law News
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside Superior Court
Weightier Matter
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
RoadDog
CONTRIBUTORS
Total Pageviews
1 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)
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
-
One of the few Third District opinions to critically, and
scathingly scrutinize the problematic Sacramento Family Court
system was the 2008 decision In re Marriage of Carlsson, authored
by Associate Justices M. 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 District decision subjected McBrien to a second disciplinary
action by the state Commission on Judicial Performance.
The judge's first go-round with the CJP stemmed 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
2001 Sacramento 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 the value
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.
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.
ATTORNEY 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)
ETHICS (2)
BARACK OBAMA (1) BARTHOLOMEW and WASZNICKY (3) BUNMI AWONIYI (1)
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK (1) CALIFORNIA LAWYER
(1)CALIFORNIANS AWARE (2)
CAMILLE HEMMER (3)
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)
-
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.
On his second trip to the CJP woodshed, Judge Peter McBrien
needed all the help he could get to save his job, and then-Third
District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland
delivered in a big way.
Among other slight-of-hand tricks, Scotland devised a clever
artifice to make it appear to the CJP judges assigned to decide
McBrien's fate that the trial court judge had a much lower than
average rate of reversal in the court of appeal.
Scotland's 2009 testimony on McBrien's behalf also was
controversial and may itself have violated the Code of Judicial
Ethics. A critical self-policing component of the Code, Canon 3D(1)
requires judges who have reliable information that another judge
has violated any provision of the Code take "appropriate corrective
action, which may include reporting the violation to the
appropriate authority." Click here to view Canon 3D(1). Click here
to view a Judicial Council directive about the duty to take
corrective action, and the types of corrective action required.
While under oath before the CJP, Scotland verified that he was
aware of McBrien's misconduct in the Carlsson case. Scotland
essentially defied the self-policing Canon and, in effect, the
published Carlsson opinion authored by his co-workers Butz, Blease
and Sims, and instead testified in support of McBrien at the CJP.
In it's final decision allowing McBrien to remain on the bench, the
CJP specifically cited Scotland's testimony as a mitigating factor
that reduced McBrien's punishment. Click here. An examination of
Scotland's career in government - funded by the taxpayers of
California - provides insight into the tactics, motives, and
questionable ethics behind his unusual involvement in the McBrien
matter.
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 California Appellate 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
being born 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.
"[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
Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland Intervenes in McBrien CJP
Prosecution
Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arthur Scotland, George Nicholson and Peter
McBrien all worked for former California Attorney General
and Governor George Deukmejian. All were appointed to the
Sacramento County bench by Deukmejian.
FAMILY COURT (9)
FAMILY LAW (9)
FERRIS CASE (8)
FLEC (28)
JAIME R. ROMAN (10)
JAMES M. MIZE (15) JEFFREY POSNER (6)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)
JUDGE PRO TEM (50) JUDGES (10)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL (5)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (67)
JULIE SETZER (7) LAURIE M. EARL (10)
LAW SCHOOL (5) LAWYERS (7)
LOLLIE ROBERTS (5)
MATTHEW
HERNANDEZ (7) MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
EQUAL PROTECTION (2)EUGENE L. BALONON (1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (2) EX PARTE (1) F4J (4)
FAMILY COURT AUDITS (1) FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS (2)FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1) FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE (1) FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO (2)
FAMILY COURTHOUSE (1)
FAMILY LAW COUNSELOR (4) FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)
FATHERS FOR JUSTICE (1)FEDERAL LAW (2) FEDERAL
LAWSUITS (2) FEE WAIVERS (2) FIRST AMENDMENT (2) FIRST AMENDMENT
COALITION (2) FOIA (2) FOX (1) FREDRICK COHEN (4)
GANGNAM STYLE (1) GARY E. RANSOM (1) GARY M. APPELBLATT (2)
GEORGE NICHOLSON (1) GERALD UELMEN (1) GINGER SYLVESTER (1)
GREGORY DWYER (1) HAL BARTHOLOMEW (1) HATCHET DEATH (1) HAZART
SANKER (2) HONEST SERVICES (4)INDIGENT (1) INFIGHTING (1) J.
STRONG (2) JACQUELINE ESTON (2)
JAMES
BROSNAHAN (1)
JERRY BROWN (1) JERRY GUTHRIE (1)
JODY PATEL (1) JOHN E.B. MYERS (1) JOSEPH SORGE (1) JOYCE
KENNARD (1) JOYCE TERHAAR (1)
JRC (1) JUDGE (1)
JUDGE SALARIES (1) JUDICIAL CONDUCT
HANDBOOK (1)
JUDY HOLZER
HERSHER (1) KIDS FOR CASH (2)
LAW LIBRARY (1)
LAWYER (1) LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION of
CALIFORNIA (1) LEGISLATURE (1) LINCOLN (1)
LOUIS MAURO (1) LUAN CASE (4)
MALPRACTICE (4) MARY MOLINARO (1)
MCGEORGE SOL (2)
-
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.
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. Scotland exploited 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.
In his Commission on Judicial Performance sworn character
witness testimony for his old friend and law enforcement co-worker
Peter 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
Arthur Scotland used a family connection to get into a law
school with liberal admission standards.
The Artifice
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.
NEWS (24) NEWS EXCLUSIVE (26)
NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)
OPINION (12)
PAULA SALINGER (15) PETER J. McBRIEN (22)
PRO PERS (18) PROTEST (9)
RAPTON-KARRES (11) RICHARD SOKOL (12) ROBERT HIGHT (9) ROBERT
O'HAIR (8) ROBERT SAUNDERS (21)
SACRAMENTO FAMILY COURT (13) SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT (12)
SATIRE (11) SCBA (22) SCOTT BUCHANAN (5)
SHARON A. LUERAS (10) SHARON HUDDLE (6)
SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS (5) STATE AUDITOR (6) STATE BAR (5)
MEDIA (1) MICHAEL T. GARCIA (1) MIKE NEWDOW (4) NANCY GRACE (1)
NANCY PERKOVICH (4) NEW YORK TIMES (2)
NEWS YOU CAN USE (3) News10 (1)
OPEN GOVERNMENT (2) PARENT RIGHTS (1) PARENTAL
ALIENATION (1)
PHILLIP HERNANDEZ (3) PRESIDING JUDGE (2)
PSY (1) PUBLIC RECORDS (1) RAOUL M. THORBOURNE (1)
RECOGNITION/AWARDS (3)REVISIONISM SERIES (2)
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)
SANCTIONS (2) SANTA CLARA LAW SCHOOL (1) SARAH ANN STEPHENS
(1)
SCHWARZENEGGER (1) SCOTT
KENDALL (1) SCSD (1) SEATON CASE (1) SELF-HELP (1)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (2) SFCN READERSHIP DATA (4)
SO YOU WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL (4)
STEPHEN WAGNER (2) STEUART LEAVENWORTH (1) STEVE WHITE (2)
STEVEN BURLINGHAM (1) STEVEN GEVERCER (1) STEVEN
-
performance.
While testifying for McBrien, Scotland also revealed that his
appearance on the troubled judge's behalf 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.
Scotland's claim that McBrien had a "remarkably good reversal
rate" was, at best, a half-truth. Under the legal and ethical
standards applicable to lawyers and judges, a half-truth is the
same as a "false statement of fact" or what the general public
refers to as a lie. Click here.
What Scotland withheld from the CJP is the fact that the vast
majority of appeals from family court are never decided on the
merits. Unlike appeals from civil cases, most family court appeals
are taken by unrepresented parties who fail to navigate the
complexities of appellate procedure and never make it past the
preliminary stages of an appeal. In other words, Scotland rigged
his statistics. While McBrien may have had seven reversals out of
110 appeals filed, only a small portion of the 110 appeals filed
were actually decided on the merits.
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. SFCN currently is conducting an audit of
3rd District family court appeals, and will have more on this
subject in the near future.
In a final act of both flagrant cronyism to his friend and
former Department of Justice co-worker Pete McBrien, and disrespect
to the work of his fellow 3rd District Court of Appeal Justices
Kathleen Butz, Cole Blease and Rick Sims whose published opinion in
the Carlsson case resulted in McBrien's prosecution by the CJP,
Scotland
Arthur Scotland poses with the fruits of a drug bust from his
days as an undercover cop. Trained to lie and deceive in order to
make undercover
drug buys, Scotland acknowledged his skill in the role. "You
have to be an actor, you have to play the game," he said in
2011.
Blame the Victim
SUNDAY FUNNIES (15)
THADD BLIZZARD (5)
THOMAS WOODRUFF (5) TIMOTHY ZEFF (5)
ULF CARLSSON (6)
WATCHDOGS (20)
WHISTLEBLOWERS (11) WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)
YOUTUBE (7)
SPIELBERG (1)
SUNSHINE WEEK (2)SUPERIOR COURT (2)
SUPREME COURT (3) TAMI BOGERT (1) TAXPAYERS (1)
TERRY FRANCKE (1) THADDEUS
STEVENS (1) THE RUTTER GROUP (1) THOMAS M. CECIL (4)
TOMMY LEE JONES (1)
UNITED NATIONS (1) UPDATE (2)
VANCE W. RAYE (3)VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (2)
VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH (1) VL-CLASS-ACTION (1) WALL STREET
JOURNAL (1) WASTE (1)
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (2)
WHITE HOUSE (1)
XAPURI B. VILLAPUDUA (4) YOLO COUNTY (1)
-
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 Rushing knew 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, egregious structural and
constitutional error by Judge McBrien. After carefully 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 the carefully crafted
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 attorney
Sharon 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 effective blame 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 including Crime Victims United of California,
and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. To help McBrien's defense
team, Scotland dusted off the dog-eared playbook of exploiting
victims, one way or another, to advance his personal agenda.
Scotland's irony-infused blame the victim testimony, misleading
appeal reversal data, and the weight of character witness testimony
from a sitting Court of Appeal presiding justice, along with
similar character testimony from Sacramento County Superior Court
Judges James Mize, Thomas Cecil (currently Of 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 tems Camille 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 cronies McBrien 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 Rushing also
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.
Contrary to the explicit findings by his colleagues at the 3rd
District Court of Appeal, in his deceptive CJP testimony Justice
Arthur
Scotland blamed attorney Sharon Huddle for the egregious
misconduct of his old friend, Judge Peter McBrien.
-
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.
In addition, unpublished Third District Court of Appeal
decisions 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 a subsidiary of - 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.
Rehabilitation FAIL
Justice George Nicholson & the Law Enforcement Blue Code of
Silence
Third District Court of Appeal Associate Justice George
Nicholson rode to the bench on a "law and order" agenda.
-
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
without competitive bidding.
Under Nicholson's leadership, 20 of the original 30 staff
members who set up the Center resigned or were dismissed. The
Associated Press reported that that the debacle was rooted in
ideological conflicts between Nicholson and staff whom Nicholson
perceived as too liberal. According to the AP coverage:
"Several [staffers] described Nicholson as a political
conservative who mistrusted his mostly liberal staff members,
argued with them unceasingly about the direction of projects, and
accused them of disloyalty when they questioned his ideas.
'When it became obvious to him he attracted a number of us with
a different political philosophy, we were not permitted to do our
work,' said Shirley Ruge, a former principal of schools for
delinquent children and one of those dismissed. 'We were considered
troublemakers and he wanted to shut us up.'"
Nicholson and former 3rd District Presiding Justice Arthur
Scotland have been close friends and colleagues for more than 30
years. For the California Appellate Court Legacy Project Nicholson
conducted an almost three-hour interview with Scotland on December
8, 2011. The transcript of the interaction reads like a meeting of
the Nicholson-Scotland mutual admiration society. Nicholson opened
the interview detailing the joint work history of the BFFs.
"George Nicholson: We are here with retired Presiding Justice
Arthur G. Scotland, who served on the Court of Appeal, Third
Appellate District, for more than 20 years, from 1989 to 2011, and
that...the last dozen of which he was the Administrative Presiding
Justice. I'm George Nicholson, Justice of the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, and I had the pleasure of serving with
Presiding Justice Scotland for 20 years on this court. Before that,
we served together as trial judges on the Sacramento Superior
Court, and even before that we served together in the Governor's
Office during the Deukmejian administration and in the California
Department of Justice. This has been a long time coming, Scotty,
hasn't it?Arthur Scotland: Nick, it has, and it's a delight for me
to have you interview me for this project."
Click here to view the full interview transcript.
In addition, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento
applies a unique and previously rarely used "judgment roll"
standard of review that in virtually every case where applied
results in affirmance of trial court rulings. Appeals brought by
self-represented indigent and low-income litigants make up the vast
majority of appeals where the 3rd District applies the judgment
roll standard of review. Although the appellate court has authored
dozens of decisions invoking the draconian standard against family
court litigants, it has managed to keep the assembly line,
boilerplate process under the radar. The court has not published a
single judgment roll appeal originating from family court. Click
here to see a list of unpublished 3rd District opinions archived by
Google Scholar. The judgment roll summary affirmance process helps
the court maintain its title as the most efficient Court of Appeal
in the state. Equal protection of the law is implicated because
other appellate court districts do not apply the standard nearly as
often as the Third District. Equal application of the law is a
Role of Political Ideology
3rd District Court of Appeal watchdogs assert thatJustice George
Nicholson is ethically-challenged,
and not particularly qualified to speak on the subject.
"Judgment Roll" Standard of Review Hits Hardest Indigent and
Low-Income Litigants
-
Home
foundational attribute of American Democracy.
Vance W. Raye, Administrative Presiding Justice.Cole
BleaseRonald RobieWilliam Murray Jr.George NicholsonKathleen
ButzElena DuarteHarry Hull Jr. Louis MauroAndrea Lynn Hoch
For additional Sacramento Family Court News reporting on the
Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, click here.
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook,
YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter.
Justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in
Sacramento:
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.
+2 Recommend this on Google
-
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion &
Satire
Sacramento Family Court NewsHOME JUDGE PRO TEMS 3rd DISTRICT
COURT of APPEAL RoadDog SATIRE
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS Terms &
Conditions Privacy Policy
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DOCUMENT LIBRARY
14 January 2013
Sacramento Superior Court Employee Misconduct: Family Court
Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Code of Civil Procedure and Court
Rule Violations by Court Administrators & Clerks
Color of Law: The Conspiracy to End Pro Per AppealsA Sacramento
Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report. Part 1.This story
is part of an ongoing investigation and was updated in September,
2013
A Sacramento County Family Court whistleblower has leaked to
Sacramento Family Court News court records indicating that
countless family court cases are missing critical paperwork
required by state law. After any family court hearing which results
in a judgment regarding child custody or visitation, spousal
support, or any other judgment subject to immediate appeal,
California Rules of Court rule 5.134 requires court clerks to
enter, file and serve a Notice of Entry of Judgment. State court
rule 8.104(e) defines "judgment" as any appealable order. By law,
the court clerk must use Judicial Council Form FL-190 to provide
the notice of entry to all parties. The notice provides an
important notification regarding the right to appeal, and the
destruction of exhibits on file with the court. In addition, two
other components of the FL-190 form eliminate ambiguity in the time
frame for an appeal, according to the California Supreme Court. In
a 2007 decision, the high court noted that the title of the
mandatory form and the clerk's certificate of mailing at the bottom
of the notice were drafted specifically to eliminate
miscalculations and disputes related to appeal time frames. Click
here and scroll down to the highlighted text to view the relevant
sections of the 2007 Supreme Court case.
For appealable judgments in law and motion proceedings,
Sacramento Family Court Director of Operations Julie Setzer,
Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise
Richards have directed
Sacramento Family Court Chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh
Responsible for Serial State Law Violations, Whistleblower
Charges
Sacramento County Family Court Director of Operations Julie
Setzer and Manager Colleen McDonagh have directed court employees
to disregard state laws mandating entry of judgment procedure,
charges a family court whistleblower.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)
JUDGE PRO TEM (49)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)
MATTHEW J. GARY (33)
F