14

CANON 3 1 2

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL 3 OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,* COMPETENTLY, AND 4

DILIGENTLY 5 6

A. Judicial Duties in General 7 8 All of the judicial duties prescribed by law* shall take precedence over all other 9 activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties, the following 10 standards apply. 11 12 B. Adjudicative Responsibilities 13 14

(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those 15 in which he or she is disqualified. 16

17 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(1) 18

Canon 3B(1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of 19 Civil Procedure section 170. 20

21 (2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public 22 clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the 23 law.* 24

25 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(2) 26 Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal 27 knowledge,* skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to 28 perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office. Canon 1 provides that an 29 incorrect legal ruling is not itself a violation of this code. 30 31

(3) A judge shall require* order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. 32 33

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, 34 witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official 35 capacity, and shall require* similar conduct of lawyers and of all staff and 36 court personnel under the judge’s direction and control. 37

38 (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge 39 shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or 40 other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice, 41 including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, 42

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

15

religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital 1 status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment. 2

3 (6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain 4 from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, 5 gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, 6 marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation against parties, 7 witnesses, counsel, or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate 8 advocacy when race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, 9 age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political 10 affiliation, or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding. 11

12 (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a 13 proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to 14 law.* Unless otherwise authorized by law,* a judge shall not independently 15 investigate facts in a proceeding and shall consider only the evidence presented 16 or facts that may be properly judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to 17 information available in all media, including electronic. A judge shall not 18 initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, any 19 communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties 20 concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding, and shall make reasonable 21 efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows: 22

23 (a) Except as stated below, a judge may consult with other judges. A judge 24 shall not engage in discussions about a case with a judge who has 25 previously been disqualified from hearing that matter; likewise, a judge 26 who knows* he or she is or would be disqualified from hearing a case shall 27 not discuss that matter with the judge assigned to the case. A judge also 28 shall not engage in discussions with a judge who may participate in 29 appellate review of the matter, nor shall a judge who may participate in 30 appellate review of a matter engage in discussions with the judge presiding 31 over the case. 32 33 A judge may consult with court personnel or others authorized by law,* as 34 long as the communication relates to that person’s duty to aid the judge in 35 carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities. 36 37 In any discussion with judges or court personnel, a judge shall make 38 reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of 39 the record or an evaluation of that factual information. In such 40 consultations, the judge shall not abrogate the responsibility personally to 41 decide the matter. 42

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

20

C. Administrative Responsibilities 1 2

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative 3 responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, 4 free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in 5 the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of 6 administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would 7 reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to 8 bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, 9 ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic 10 status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment. 11

12 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(1) 13

In considering what constitutes a conflict of interest under this canon, a 14 judge should be informed by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision 15 (a)(6). 16

17 (2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, 18 and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration 19 of court business. 20

21 (3) A judge shall require* staff and court personnel under the judge’s direction 22 and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct and to refrain from 23 manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national 24 origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, 25 socioeconomic status, or political affiliation in the performance of their official 26 duties. 27

28 (4) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other 29 judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of 30 matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial 31 responsibilities. 32

33 (5) A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall 34 exercise the power of appointment impartially,* on the basis of merit, without 35 bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes 36 public confidence in the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall avoid 37 nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of 38 appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered. 39

40 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(5) 41

Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel and officials such as 42 referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, and guardians. Consent by 43

Califo

rnia

Jud

icia

l Bra

nch

News N

etwor

k

CJBNN.c

om

May 2011

Speaking up about judicial misconduct

By Janice M. Brickley

Highly publicized corruption scandals involving government officials

provide fertile ground for Monday morning pundits. They can also be a

catalyst for education and positive change. Such is the case with the “kids

for cash” judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In

an article published in the March Bar Journal, I discussed the

Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board’s failure to follow through with a

complaint concerning the judges involved in the scandal and what the California

Commission on Judicial Performance has done to ensure that its rules and procedures

are not susceptible to the failures that occurred in Pennsylvania. This article examines

the role of an attorney in exposing judicial corruption and abuse in the context of the

“kids for cash” scandal.

Two former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, were charged with

federal crimes based on their participation in a scheme to close down a county juvenile

detention facility and contract for the placement of juveniles with for-profit facilities in

exchange for a secret “finder’s fee” of $997,600. Juveniles were sent to the private

detention facilities by Ciavarella at the same time both judges were accepting payoffs

from the owner of the facilities. Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering

and in February, Ciavarella was convicted by jury of 12 felony counts, including

racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. Both men are awaiting

sentence.

The Report of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, issued last

May, examines the circumstances that led to the “kids for cash” scandal, including the

role of attorneys who appeared regularly before Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court.

While these attorneys were not privy to Ciavarella’s financial “arrangement” with the

owners of the detention facilities, they did know that Ciavarella had a “zero-tolerance”

policy that resulted in juveniles being sent to detention facilities in unprecedented

numbers. Under Ciavarella’s zero-tolerance policy, juveniles were automatically sent to

out-of-home placement for certain offenses, such as fighting in school, without an

individual evaluation of the circumstances of the offense or the offender – contrary to a

judge’s obligation to decide sentences on a case-by-case basis.

Attorneys who regularly appeared in Ciavarella’s courtroom also knew that he routinely

adjudicated and sentenced juveniles who were unrepresented by counsel without

obtaining the required waiver of the right to counsel. In 2003, the statewide percentage

of juveniles who waived the right to counsel was 7.9 percent; in Ciaverella’s courtroom

the “attorney waiver” rate was 50.2 percent. Similar gaps appear in the statistics

throughout Ciavarella’s five-year reign in juvenile court.

A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign,

has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant

is accorded procedural justice. (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79

Top Headlines

OpinionFrom the PresidentJanice M. BrickleyLetters to the Editor

MCLE Self-Study

Attorney Discipline

You Need to Know

Trials Digest

Public Comment

Ethics Byte

Contact Us

Marketplace

Archived Issues

Share

L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50

Cal.4th 35, 48.) Nowhere is this responsibility more important than in juvenile court.

Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors have an

ethical obligation to ensure that the accused has been advised of the right to counsel

and has been given the opportunity to obtain counsel. (See also American Bar

Association Model Code of Professional Conduct 3.8 (b) [a prosecutor shall “make

reasonable efforts to assure the accused has been advised of the right to, and the

procedure for, obtaining counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain

counsel . . .”].) Before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel from juvenile

defendants, Pennsylvania’s Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure require a judge to

conduct on-the-record discussions or “colloquies” to ensure that the juveniles

understand the right they are giving up. (See also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.

806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77 [158 L.Ed.2d

209, 124 S.Ct. 1379].) Yet, prosecutors regularly witnessed Ciavarella deciding cases of

unrepresented juveniles without first engaging in the required colloquies but said

nothing. The Report of the Interbranch Commission concluded that “the prosecutors

clearly abdicated their roles as ministers of justice and simply became passive observers

to the tragic injustices that were perpetrated against juvenile offenders.”

Jonathan Ursiak’s first assignment when he joined the public defender’s office in 2007

was to represent juveniles in Ciavarella’s court. On a regular basis, he observed

juveniles admitting to crimes and being sentenced without an attorney and without the

required advisements of rights by the judge and waivers from the juveniles. This was

not the only practice in Ciavarella’s courtroom that troubled Ursiak – proceedings were

abbreviated, psychological evaluation reports were not provided to him before the

hearing, juveniles were being sent to placement at an alarmingly high rate, the judge’s

zero-tolerance policy impeded the juvenile’s right to be heard, and, in general, the

public defender was not given an adequate opportunity to advocate for his clients.

When Ursiak reported his concerns to his supervisor, he was told the public defender’s

office did not need more clients. Undeterred, Ursiak provided assistance to the Juvenile

Law Center of Philadelphia, which was investigating the suspected abuses in Luzerne

County’s juvenile court.

Ursiak’s courage and persistence in reporting Ciavarella’s improper practices should be

applauded. However, the silence of other attorneys who knew of the abuses in

Ciavarella’s courtroom is disturbing. Had others reported the misconduct when it first

occurred, the abuses and corruption might have been abated years earlier – saving

countless youthful offenders from a harsh and draconian fate suffered at Ciavarella’s

hand.

According to the Interbranch Commission’s report, no attorney practicing in Ciavarella’s

courtroom ever filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, the

agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct. Young

prosecutors recognized the inherent unfairness of Ciavarella’s practices, but did not

know what to do or to whom to turn for guidance. Many defense attorneys who

appeared before Ciavarella were equally derelict. Public defenders and private attorneys

routinely witnessed Ciavarella violate the rights of juveniles, including their own clients,

yet most took no action. The Interbranch Commission found that these attorneys

“clearly abdicated their responsibility to zealously defend their clients and to protect

their due process rights.” “At a bare minimum,” the commission concluded, “they

should have contacted their supervisors in the Public Defenders Office and the local bar

associations or notified the appropriate judicial or attorney disciplinary organizations.”

Many factors can deter an attorney from reporting judicial misconduct – indifference,

fear of retaliation, inexperience, ignorance. During its investigation, the Interbranch

Commission found that some attorneys did not know how or where to report judicial

misconduct. The commission encouraged Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board to

partner with the Pennsylvania Bar Association to create and implement programs to

educate attorneys and the public on the existence of the judicial disciplinary board and

on how to report judicial misconduct. The commission also recommended that the

Judicial Conduct Board revise and update its Website to provide clear, simple

directions for filing complaints. In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance

works with the State Bar to provide information concerning the process for reporting

judicial misconduct. The commission’s website offers user-friendly instructions on how

to file a complaint of judicial misconduct, as well as information on what constitutes

judicial misconduct.

As tragically illustrated in the “kids for cash” scandal, those in the legal community

share a mutual responsibility to take action when faced with abuses of judicial

authority. Indifference and inaction hurts not only the individual targets of the

misconduct but the reputation and integrity of the bar and the judiciary.

• Janice M. Brickley is Legal Advisor to Commissioners at the California Commission

on Judicial Performance.

Copyright © 2015 The State Bar of California Contact Us | Archived Issues | Notices | Privacy Policy Site Design by Duuplex

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

26 April 2013

Sacramento Family Court Administrators Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and Clerk Christina Arcuri Violate State Law, Court Rules In Fee Waiver Errors

A Sacramento Family Court News audit of family court cases reveals that court clerks are issuing incomplete, defective fee waiver orders which contain substantive errors rendering the orders useless. Under California law, indigent and low income litigants are entitled to a waiver of court filing fees. Certain family court filings - including

Defective Fee Waiver Orders Show Family Court Clerks Violate State Laws, Block Court Access of Indigent Litigants

Supervision, Oversight & Accountability Absent

This fee waiver order filed by Department 121 courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri and stamped with the signature of Judge Matthew J. Gary is useless. Incomplete, defective orders like this are refused by courthouse public counter filing clerks and the Sacramento County

Sheriff's Department Civil Division. Click here to view the full-size order. Click here to view the specific defects in the order. Click here to view a complete, valid fee waiver order issued to the same person by a clerk at the Carol Miller Justice Center courthouse in Sacramento.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (63)

JUDGE PRO TEM (49)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (35)

MATTHEW J. GARY (33)

FLEC (28)

SCBA (22)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

CHILD CUSTODY (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (20)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

CJP (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (11)

SATIRE (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (11)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

4 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

domestic violence and contempt actions - require proof of personal service and the fee waiver also entitles poor litigants to have papers served by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. The fee waiver procedure is specified by California Rules of Court rules 3.50 - 3.58 and the process is standardized throughout the state. But a comparison of orders issued in other courts with those issued by Sacramento Family Court clerks shows the family court orders consistently are not in compliance with state law. Family court clerks issue incomplete orders that often result in a Catch-22 situation: When a litigant later attempts to use the defective fee waiver order to file documents the order is refused by public counter filing clerks for being incomplete. The orders also are rejected as defective when a litigant attempts to have documents served by the Sheriff's Civil Division. In addition, in all of the cases reviewed by SFCN, the orders also omitted mandatory Judicial Council form FW-010 - an entire page of the order required by state court rule 3.52(4).

To continue reading, click Read More >> below...

Page 1 of 5Page 1 of 5

This fee waiver order issued to the same person by Deputy Clerk D. Turner at the Carol Miller Justice Center in Sacramento complies with state law governing fee waiver procedure. Click here to view the order in a new browser window. The family court fee waiver order issued by Christina Arcuri - courtroom clerk for Judge Matthew J. Gary - is not only incomplete and missing the mandatory Judicial Council FW-010 form, it also is filled out by Arcuri using the wrong Judicial Council form. As the accurate, Carol Miller Justice Center fee waiver order reflects, the correct form is FW-003. Arcuri used the form for issuance of a fee waiver after a court hearing, FW-008. The litigant listed in the defective order - who is disabled and on public assistance - was entitled to an automatic, non-discretionary waiver and did not have a fee waiver hearing. Other fee waiver orders audited by Sacramento Family Court News contained similar errors making the orders unusable. None of the orders resembled the state law compliant fee waiver order issued at the Carol Miller Courthouse.

Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. "Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure §1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of conduct." As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by

Carol Miller Courthouse Issues Accurate, Valid Fee Waiver Orders

Oversight and Accountability

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

FERRIS CASE (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

Posted by PR Brown at 12:34 PM

Labels: CHRISTINA ARCURI, CHRISTINA VOLKERS, COLLEEN MCDONAGH, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE

MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS, FERRIS CASE, JULIE SETZER, LAURIE M. EARL, MATTHEW J. GARY, NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WATCHDOGS

Location: William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA

95814, USA

the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. Yet from the local court to the state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.

Court watchdogs also point out that the fee waiver order problem is another example of systemic family court mismanagement by Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, and reflects a failure of oversight by Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl and Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers. Sacramento Superior Court internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.

"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the Superior Court policy introduction.

The fee waiver order problem also exposes taxpayers to potential liability for civil rights violations against indigent litigants, and violates several state laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, which classifies court rule violations by court employees as an improper governmental activity. In upcoming posts, SFCN will report on additional problems with fee waiver orders and procedure in family court, including an attempt by Judge Matthew J. Gary to block appellate review of his own orders by unlawfully using the fee waiver review process against an indigent family court litigant.

Related articles:

Sacramento Family Court chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh responsible for serial court rule violations. Click here.

Family court appeals unit illegally rejecting appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants. Click here.

Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts gives false info to indigent pro per litigants. Click here.

Family court clerks let judge pro tem attorneys file sham entry of judgment paperwork. Click here.

Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers silent on fixing appeals unit problems. Click here.

Other court employee misconduct articles: Click here.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Court Administration Mismanagement

+4 Recommend this on Google

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

Local & National Family Court-Family Law Sites & Blogs (may be gender-specific)

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

29 April 2013

Judge Matthew Gary Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver Hearing

Monday Document Dump

Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from the bench, Judge Matthew Gary denies a fee waiver request by an indigent, unrepresented litigant in this startling court reporter transcript. The fee waiver request was for trial court appellate costs for an appeal of several orders issued by the judge. The pro per had an existing fee waiver which by law automatically applied to the trial court appeal costs, making the hearing ordered by the judge patently unlawful. To view the order Gary issued after the hearing, click here. The opposing party is represented by divorce attorney Paula Salinger, partner at the prominent Sacramento family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., sworn Sacramento County Superior Court temporary judge, and current officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee or FLEC. Days after the hearing, Gary issued a second order reversing himself and granting the fee waiver request, but at the same time embedding in the order a sham finding designed to help Salinger and her client at a pending trial in the case.

To continue reading, and to view the court reporter transcript click Read more >> below... The second order mischaracterized the facts and testimony recorded in the hearing transcript, and included false statements intended to create a misleading record to enable Salinger to use the order at a pending trial to avoid a potential spousal support obligation of her client.

"[T]he court does not find [respondent's] assertion of poverty credible and that, even if he were, the state of 'poverty' is self induced & is a deliberate effort on his part to manipulate this ongoing dissolution case," the judge wrote in his revised order. Click here to view the order.

Under judicial ethics rules, Gary's written statement indicates that he was not acting as an impartial judge, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for oversight and accountability of California judges. Gary also is caught on the transcript probing the pro per about the pending trial and spousal support issue, subjects with no logical connection to the fee waiver hearing. Click here to view this portion of the transcript. As the transcript records, the judge manipulated the hearing through intentional misstatements and omissions of material fact to achieve his desired result - fabricating false findings to help the judge pro tem attorney at trial - also a judicial ethics violation, according to the CJP. In essence, Gary used the illegal fee waiver hearing for an unrelated and improper purpose: to influence and reduce or eliminate the potential spousal support liability of Salinger's client at a subsequent trial before a different judge. The formal finding is calculated to enable the attorney to argue that her client should not have to pay support because - according to a finding by the judge assigned to pre-trial proceedings in the case - the unrepresented spouse's lack of income is "self-induced."

As the transcript records, Gary abandoned the role of judge and assumed the role of advocate for the opposing

Judge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help Judge Pro Tem Lawyer

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (58)

JUDGE PRO TEM (44)

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (31)

MATTHEW J. GARY (28)

FLEC (26)

ARTS & CULTURE (21)

PETER J. McBRIEN (20)

SCBA (20)

CHILD CUSTODY (19)

WATCHDOGS (19)

CHARLOTTE KEELEY (18)

EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (18)

PRO PERS (18)

ROBERT SAUNDERS (17)

DOCUMENTS (16)

CJP (15)

DIVORCE CORP (13)

JAMES M. MIZE (12)

COLOR OF LAW SERIES (11)

SATIRE (11)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (10)

JAIME R. ROMAN (10)

LAURIE M. EARL (10)

NO CONTACT ORDERS (10)

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SUBJECTS AND POSTS

6 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

5 comments

Add a comment

Posted by PR Brown at 9:28 AM

Labels: ANALYSIS, APPEALS, CHRISTINA ARCURI, COLOR OF LAW SERIES, DOCUMENTS, EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT, FEE WAIVERS,

J. STRONG, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, MATTHEW J. GARY, PAULA SALINGER, SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS

Location: Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - Sacramento Family

Court

attorney. Acting as an advocate for a party or attorney is expressly prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics and multiple judge disciplinary decisions by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Click here to view CJP decisions. Revealing additional bias and prejudgment, the judge speculatively accused the unrepresented litigant of "voluntarily" becoming unemployed a year before his wife filed for divorce so that he would be eligible for spousal support. Click here and here to view these excerpts from the court reporter transcript. A fervent right-wing ideologue, Gary reportedly detests what he calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court pro pers who obtain fee waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. A trial court judge who obstructs an appeal, or retaliates against an attorney or litigant for taking an appeal is subject to discipline by the CJP for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here to view a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions. Judges also have been disciplined for manipulating a hearing to achieve a desired result, click here, and for creating a misleading record, click here. Despite documented, serial violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Gary has never been publicly disciplined by the CJP. The judge's unlawful conduct in connection with the fee waiver hearing was witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government employees, each had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. Neither, apparently, did.

For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the document.

Share Embed of 18

+6 Recommend this on Google

SHARON A. LUERAS (10)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (10)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER (10)

CARLSSON CASE (9)

RAPTON-KARRES (9)

CHRISTINA VOLKERS (8)

JESSICA HERNANDEZ (8)

FERRIS CASE (7)

JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)

3rd DISTRICT COA (6)

CHRISTINA ARCURI (5)

CIVIL RIGHTS (4)

CONTEMPT (4)

FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR (4)

LUAN CASE (4)

THADD BLIZZARD (4)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (3)

MIKE NEWDOW (2)

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

The Divorce Artist

Above the Law

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

California Lawyer Magazine

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION