judge michael garcia testimony for judge peter mcbrien defense team: code of judicial ethics...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

---000--

INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE PETER J. McBRIEN CJP NO. 185

-------------------------/

TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 3, 2009

VOLUME 3, PAGES 526 - 630

REPORTED BY: SANDRA LEHANE

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER NO. 7372

155 Orr Road

Alameda, California 94502

(510) 864-9645

'------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09-----------' 526

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatCJBNN-Yel

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

from the website of the Sacramento County Superior

Court. So this is the 2006 local rules, which is

Exhibit 0, premarked.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Okay.

SPECIAL MASTER DE BELLEFEUILLE: 1'm sorry,

what was the number?

MR. MURPHY: O.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: 0, as in Oscar.

MR. MURPHY: 0, as in os scar; right.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Anything else from

either one of you before we start?

MR. BLUM: No, Your Honor.

MR. MURPHY: No, Your Honor.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: All right. Then you

may call your next witness, Mr. Murphy.

MR. MURPHY: I'll call Judge Michael Garcia.

---000--

JUDGE MICHAEL GARCIA

having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

---000--

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Please have a seat.

State your full name and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: My name is Michael Theodore

Garcia, G-a-r-c-i-a.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Thank you.

~-----------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 413109--------------------~ 530

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatRectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MURPHY:

Q. Good morning, Judge Garcia.

A. Good morning.

Q. You are a judge of the Sacramento County

S erior Court?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And could you set forth for the Special

Masters your educational background?

A. I went to undergrad at Cal State Fullerton.

Went to law school at the University of California at

Davis. Lots of other little things here and there,

but I think those are the two major -- major degrees have.

Q. Followi graduation from law school, did you

become a member of the Bar?

A. I did. I became a member of the Bar,

California Bar, the Federal Bar, and the -- the

Washington, D.C. Bar. I have appearances in the Court

there, Supreme Court.

Q. What were the inclusive dates of your active

membership in the California State Bar?

A. From 1974, when I graduated from law school,

and I became -- I forget the specific title of the

reserve status, but an inactive member when I took the

~-----------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09----------------------~

I

531

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

bench in 1987.

Q. Between 1974 and 1987, can you briefly

summarize your professional experience?

A. I was -- I briefly served as a Deputy County

Counsel and Deputy District Attorney in the County of

Tehama, and then I got full loyment at the Ventura

County District Attorney's Office in 197 - again, in

1974. I worked there until I became a member of the

Attorney General's Office. When I was in the District

Attorney's Office in Ventura County, it was very

small. I was Deputy No. 22. And so we did everything

from commercial law violations through homicides,

whatever, anything in between. Whatever the District

Attorney's Office did, including family law matters or

child support, paternity. l\nd then - and during that

time, I taught law school at the Ventura College of

the Law. I then -- I also taught - that was later.

Excuse me.

Then I got a job at the Attorney General's Office, and there -- that was as a legislative liaison

for Attorney General Dukemajian. I did that until he -- I also was teaching law school at the University

of California at Davis, had four classes there. I did

that. And then when Governor Dukemajian became the governor, I went into the criminal di

~------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09----------------------~ 532

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

did death penalty matters and also did trials where

the District Attorney would be recused. And so I did

several -- multiple trials of a sheriff, a district

attorney, one judge. Things along those lines.

And then I took the bench in January of 1987

in Municipal Court. And it was, again, March of 1989

that I was appointed to the Superior Court.

Q. Since your appointment to the Superior Court,

what assignments have you held?

A. I think it's easier to state it this way:

I've held every assignment except juvenile dependency.

But I've done everything else that the court has.

Q. When were you assigned to the family law

departments?

A. I want to believe it was somewhere in either

1987 or 1988. I believe it was in 1987. The Court

had a policy at that time that -- excuse me. I take

that back. It would have been 1989, would be my first

year when I was in Superior Court because Superior

Court had a policy that that was the new judge assignment. You went to family law at that time.

Q. How long did you sit in the family law

department?

A. I served one year in family law.

Q. Have you held the position of Assistant

L--------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09----------------------~ 533

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior

Court?

A. I have not. That is a relatively new

position. That came in place after I had become

Presiding Judge.

Q. And when were you the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento County Superior Court?

A. In 2002 and 2003. I should also indicate

that in the early '90s, the regular trial udges also

would try family law cases. We did the overflow that

family law couldn't handle at the time. So I had

multiple family law trials that I've had even though I

was not in a f ly law assignment.

Q. You've also sat as a Special Master in

Commission proceedings, have you not?

A. have, multiple times.

Q. On how many occasions?

A. I believe three.

Q. Do you recall the matters in which you sat as

a Special Master?

A. You know, I should. I just one was in Orange County. You know, the names -- I can tell you

the names or where the judges were from, but, you know -- I just destroyed those files, and I didn't

he names of the judges any longer. RE CJF NO. 185 4/3/09--------------------~

534

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

One still is a s

Q. Joseph 0' Flaherty?

A. Joseph O'Flaherty was the most recent matter.

I believe you were counsel on that matter.

Q. I was.

A. But, I'm sorry, I just don't recall the names

of the judges any longer.

Q. You obviously know Judge Peter McBrien?

A. I do.

Q. When did you first meet Judge McBrien?

A. I met him sometime in 1981.

Q. While you were with the Attorney General's

Office?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have a professional relationship with

him at that time?

A. I did.

Q. What was the nature of the professional

relationship?

A. Well, I was, again -- legislative liaison is

the government term for lobbyist. And Peter was in

the executive division - excuse me. Judge McBrien

was in the executive division of the Attorney

General's Office, and I had to interact with many

members of the executive division in order to

L-------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 4/3/09--------------------~ 535

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

determine the position of the Attorney General's

Office on a myriad of bills, and I would interact with

him in that fashion.

Q. Would you say you enjoyed a good professional

relationship?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Was he helpful to you?

A. Yes.

Q. When you joined the bench, did you join the

bench at or about the same time that Judge McBrien

joined the bench?

A. I believe - I believe I joined the bench

before I took the bench before Judge McBrien did,

if memory serves me correctly. I think at the time he

was in the Governor's Office when I took the bench.

Q. When you became the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento County Superior Court, what was Judge

McBrien's assignment?

A. You know, I do not recall whether he still

had a trial assignment downtown or a family law

assignment. I believe he had a family law assignment,

to be truthful with you, at the time. As a matter of

fact, I'm positive he was in family law.

Q. At least in connection with your experience

as Presiding Judge, how would you rate Judge McBrien?

L-------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 4/3/09--------------------~ , ;

536

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Well, 1 1 d have to do that ln two ways. I

first, as a judge, he has I think that he has a

very good temperament as a judicial officer. He's

he's inquisitive, which means that he makes rulings

based upon the law, not based upon what he may want to

do. So, you know, again, one of the judges that I sat

on as a Special Master would make rulings based

upon because he would hear other judges make the

same type of rulings without the reason behind it.

Judge McBrien is not that type of judge. He knows the law well. He researches the law.

And looking at it from the viewpoint of -- I

made him supervisor of family law when I took PJ

because he had great people skills, and he has

organizational skills, and he had a lot of respect

from the family law bar at that time because he had

worked in family law. So both as a judge and as a person that I wanted to supervise, I thought he had

the skills and he had that intellectual curiosity.

And he would continue doing that, which I thought was

very important for our court as well as the family law

bar. And that is, when I was in family law, it was an

assignment that you gave to new judges. And there -it was cases would resolve for the wrong reasons.

Cases would resolve because they were - gosh - both

L--------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 413109----------------------~ 537

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

attorneys would say, "Gosh knows what's going to

happen when it gets sent to a regular trial judge who

mayor may not know family law well." You know,

Judge- Presiding Judge - or Presiding Justice

Scotland, Justice Robie and Peter McBrien were kind of

in the forefront of judges who helped change that.

They changed the format to have the judges that were

ruling on the short - on the Orders to Show Cause

would be the same -- they would keep those and also do

the trials so that there would be a continuity.

People would know the reasons behind the rulings. And

so when it came to trial time, many of the factual

matters had already been determined by the same trier

of fact, and cases would resolve, as I would say, for

the right reasons. That is, people understood how the

matters were going to be determined.

Q. So Judge McBrien brought continuity to the

family law bench?

A. He -- he continued that. He - and he worked

towards that, yes.

Q. Now, when Judge McBrien joined the bench and

was assigned to the family law department, the family

law system in Sacramento County changed from when you

were in family law?

A. It did.

L------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09--------------------~ 538

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And was Judge McBrien instrumental ln that

change?

A. He was, very much so. He was part of this

Judge McBrien wanted to be in family law, and that was

unique at the time. Family law was not a sought-out

assignment by many judges. He enjoyed family law, as

did Judge Robie and Judge Scotland.

Q. Based upon your experience in the old system

and your involvement, at least as Presiding Judge, in

the new system, is the new system an improvement?

A. I think it is, for the reasons I previously

stated. Is that the cases are really resolving, I

think, for the r ght reasons. There's a lot of

participation by the family law bar to help matters

resolve. It is a - it's a joint venture, if you

will.

Q. And at the present time, do you believe that

Judge McBrien is a benefit to the bar - excuse me, to

the bench?

A. I do.

Q. And what benefit do you believe that he

brings?

A. Well, again, for the strengths -- those

reasons that I made him a supervising judge, I believe

he still has those. And that is, he has a respect for

IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09-----------539

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the family law bar and the mental health

professionals. He still has his intellectual

curiosity. He still eps up with the law and, I

believe, makes good decisions. He has people skills

that are very positive.

Family law is a very difficult assignment,

and there's a lot of - well, I think everybody

anybody who has served in family law has an

understanding of the difficulty that family law

presents in regards to the participants, in regards to

the issues, in regards to the fact that, I think, the

simplest thing is you do not have two households that

need to be supported on the same amount of funds that

couldn't support one household very well. All those

factors are difficult for a bench officer. The

children -- issues regarding children. And I think

Judge McBrien really is very good at that and

continues to be very good at that, resolving those

issues.

MR. MURPHY: Those are all the questions I

have, Your Honor. Thank you very much.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Mr. Blum?

MR. BLUM: No quest ons.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: May this witness be

excused?

L-------------IN RE CJF NC . ..I85 - 4/3/09---------------1 540

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

SPECIAL MASTER ANDLER: Thank you,

Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I call Justice Arthur Scotland.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Raise your right

hand.

---000--

JUSTICE ARTHUR SCOTLAND

baving been first du1y sworn, testified as f0110ws:

---000--

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Please have a seat.

Please state your full name and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: Arthur George Scotland,

S c-o t I-a n-d.

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Thank you.

You may examine.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MURPHY:

Q. Good morning, Justice Scotland.

A. Good morning.

Q. You are the Presiding Judge of the Third

District Court of Appeal?

A. Presiding Justice

L------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/3/09--------------------~ 541

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2009

COMMISSJON ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE PETER J. McBRIEN,

v.

No. 1 85

FILED JUN 2 3 2009

Commission on Judicial Performance

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE SPECIAL

MASTERS

1

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

"[T]his is a very serious proceeding. There 's no question about it. And the problem is, when people 's livelihood is on the line, I think that you should be able to show as much positive aspects of somebody, especially Judge McBrien here, who has gone out-he's not been prodded. He got into the soup kitchen right after the search warrant was filed [in the tree case] . And these are things he said he wants to do. He wants to make amends, and I think that' s quite good." (Exhibit 46, pp. 1 29- 1 30)

Judge McBrien's post-hearing statement

In response to his hearing testimony about the prior disciplinary matter, and the

Commission' s introduction of his prior sworn statement, Judge McBrien submitted the

following statement to the Special Masters after the hearing:

"Judge McBrien's [hearing] testimony regarding the arborist ' s trimming of oak trees related to his own personal observation and not to the extent of the tree trimming activity that was the subject ofthe misde1neanor charge. Judge McBrien observed only one large limb cutfrom the oak tree in question and apologizes if there was any COJ?fitsion regarding this testimony. Judge McBrien acknowledges that the limb he observed being removed was not the only cutting done by the arborist. The point Judge McBrien was attempting to make by way of his testimony was that it did not make any difference whether the oak tree was on private or public land; the prohibitory ordinance made any cutting without a permit a misdemeanor. While view enhancement was an intended effect of the trimming, the testimony of Judge McBrien on April 3, 2009 was true and correct to his best recollection." (Exhibit P, italics added)

PART VIII CHARACTER EVIDENCE

At the hearing, Judge McBrien called numerous witnesses to testify to his good

character and judicial demeanor.

Judge James Mize, the presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court, often

appeared before Judge McBrien in the family law division before his own appointment to

the bench in 2000. Judge Mize testified that when he appeared as an attorney in family

law cases, Judge McBrien was fair, impartial, courteous, dignified, and patient, and Judge

Mize considered him an asset to the family law bench. As a family law practitioner,

1 14

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

Judge Robert Hight of the Sacramento County Superior Court testified he was

assigned to the family law division in 2006. He did not have any experience in family

law and Judge McBrien served as his mentor. (HT 455-456) Judge Hight and another

new judge began their family law assignment by sitting in Judge McBrien's courtroom

and watching him, and he was impressed with Judge McBrien's patience and

understanding of the issues. (HT 457) Judge Hight testified that Judge McBrien was

patient and dignified, acted warm and hospitable to parties, and his demeanor broke the

tension often present in family law cases . (HT 457) He was particularly courteous to

pmiies who were representing themselves and he helped them through their arguments .

(HT 457-458) Judge Hight testified he "never observed anything other than comiesy to

all attorneys and pro pers ." (HT 458)

Judge Hight testified that when he stmied to hear family law cases, "every day, I

would go in and ask [Judge McBrien] some question; and he either [gave] me an instant

answer or would say, you know, ' I just read a recent Appellate Court case on that, ' and

he had a big stack behind his desk of Appellate Court cases just related to family law, and

he would go through them and pull out of the middle this recent case and say, 'This is

exactly on point ."' (HT 456) Judge McBrien was presiding judge for a period of time,

and had the ability to organize the division: "I mean, it' s a back-breaking job because

you' ll have 20 cases in the morning, easily, and another 20 in the afternoon; and it' s

just-it' s just a tough job." (HT 458)

Judge Michael Garcia of the Sacramento County Superior Court met Judge

McBrien in 1 98 1 , when they served in the Attorney General ' s Office. Judge Garcia

testified Judge McBrien was helpful and they enjoyed a good professional relationship

when they worked together. (HT 535-536) On the bench, Judge Garcia testified that

Judge McBrien "wanted to be in family law, and that was unique at the time. Family law

was not a sought-out assignment by many judges," but he enjoyed the assignment. (HT

1 1 6

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

539) Judge McBrien was instrumental in changing and improving the family law

division's procedures . (HT 53 8-539)

Judge Garcia was presiding judge in 2002 and 2003 , when Judge McBrien

continued to serve in the family law division. (HT 534) Judge Garcia testified Judge

McBrien had a very good judicial temperament, he was inquisitive, and he made rulings

based on the law and not on what he might want to do. (HT 536-537) "Judge McBrien is

not that type of judge. He knows the law well . He researches the law." (HT 53 7)

Judge Garcia appointed Judge McBrien as supervisor of the family law division

because Judge McBrien had great "people" and organizational skills, and "he had a lot of

respect from the family law bar at that time because he had worked in family law." (HT

537) Judge McBrien also provided continuity in the family law division, which was

important for the court and the family law bar. (HT 537-538)

Judge Garcia testified Judge McBrien was an asset to the bench because he

respected the family law bar and the mental health professionals, he still displayed

intellectual curiosity, he kept up with the law and made very good decisions, and his

"people skills" were very positive. (HT 539-540)

Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,

was a native of Sacramento. He had known Judge McBrien for 32 years, and they served

together in the Attorney General ' s office and the Office of the Governor. (HT 548-550)

Justice Scotland testified there had been 1 1 0 appeals to the Third District from Judge

McBrien' s cases, and seven cases had been reversed. (HT 549, 5 5 1 -552) Justice

Scotland testified that one of the seven reversals was the Carlsson case; two other cases

were reversed in full, and the other four were reversed in part, such that Judge McBrien 's

reversal rate was six percent, "a remarkably good reversal rate. " (HT 552-553) Justice

Scotland testified the Third District ' s average reversal rate in civil cases was 20 to 25

percent. (HT 553)

1 1 7

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

reflect any bias or prejudice against either Mr. Carlsson or Ms. Huddle. Aside from the

incident on the last afternoon of trial, Judge McBrien never prevented a witness from

testifying and never cut off a witness ' s testimony. While Judge McBrien improperly and

inappropriately terminated the trial, Ms. Huddle failed to pursue other opportunities to

introduce evidence through a settled statement or stipulation, and her failure to do so was

based upon her own decisions and not on Judge McBrien's conduct.

FACTORS IN A GGRA VA T/ON

1 . Judge McBrien lacked insight as to the impropriety of continuing to preside

over the Carlsson matter after sending the transcript of Mr. Carlsson's testimony to his

employer and not notifying the parties.

2 . Judge McBrien continues to lack insight into how his actions in the Carlsson

matter would be perceived by the public .

3 . Judge McBrien has a prior public admonishment.

4. At the Special Masters ' hearing, Judge McBrien gave testimony inconsistent

with his prior sworn statement regarding the underlying matter of his prior public

admonishment.

5 . Judge McBrien improperly tried to use the Special Masters ' hearing as a public

forum to address a grievance with the media on a prior disciplinary matter.

FACTORS IN MITIGA TION

1 . Judge McBrien is extremely hard working, keeps long hours, willingly works

through lunch hours, and takes short breaks to make sure parties get their trial time.

2 . Judge McBrien voluntarily stayed in the family law division for nearly 20

years .

3 . Judge McBrien played an active role in revising the family law system to allow

trials to be heard expeditiously by experienced family law judges .

1 4 1

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

4. Judge McBrien had a good faith belief in his duty to repmi a possible criminal

violation.

5 . Judge McBrien consulted with judicial colleagues as to the appropriate steps to

take to report a possible criminal violation.

6. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Carlsson by his employer was based

upon his own misconduct, and not influenced by Judge McBrien.

7. Judge McBrien admitted in a personal letter to the Commission: "I admit I

acted badly and for which actions I deserve to be rebuked." (Exhibit 3 , p. 72)

8. Judge McBrien apologized to his judicial colleagues for his prior public

admonishment.

9. Judge McBrien voluntarily performed public service, unrelated to any

condition of a criminal plea, upon the filing of criminal charges in the underlying matter

that resulted in the prior public admonishment.

1 0 . Judge McBrien has served as a mentor to new judges in the family law

division.

1 1 . Judge McBrien has continued to work with the family law bar to improve the

trial system in family law division.

1 2 . In over 40,000 contested hearings, this is the only instance of Judge

McBrien 's misconduct on the bench.

1 3 . Judge McBrien is widely respected by attorneys who frequently appear in

front of him, and judges who serve with him.

14 . Judge McBrien has a very low reversal rate on appeal considering the nature

of his lengthy assignment in the family law division.

1 42

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1 5 . Numerous character witnesses testified favorably about Judge McBrien's

judicial demeanor.

Respectfully submitted,

kd /Hon. Dennis A. Cornell Presiding Special Master

Special Master

1 43

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

18 July 2013

Vance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers

In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding 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.

In essence, McBrien and Raye agreed to effectively privatize public court operations to the specifications of private-sector attorneys in exchange for not having to run the court's settlement conference program. The SCBA Family Law Section agreed to run the settlement program provided they were given effective control over most court policies and procedures, including local court rules.

As a result, the public court system was restructured to the specifications of local, private-sector attorneys, 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 an example of 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

Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991

Vance Raye and Peter J. McBrien were thearchitects of the current family court system.

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

3 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

3 comments

Top comments

Sacramento Family Court News via Google+ 1 year ago - Shared publiclyVance W. Raye Third District Justice and Judge Peter McBrien Turn Over Court Operations to SCBA Family Law Section Lawyers. Leaked Transcript Indicates Vance Raye & Judge Peter McBrien Enabled Family Law Bar Control of Court in 1991:In 1991, as a superior court judge, current 3rd District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice

Add a comment

Posted by PelicanBriefed at 11:20 AM

Labels: 3rd DISTRICT COA, ANALYSIS, APPEALS, ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, CJP, FLEC, JUDGE PRO TEM, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,

NEWS EXCLUSIVE, PETER J. McBRIEN, SCBA, VANCE W. RAYE

Location: Sacramento County Superior Court Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA

- William R. Ridgeway

court system in 1991. As reported by the Daily Journal legal newspaper, McBrien dishonestly implied that the new 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 tour with McBrien and the late Judge William Ridgeway. As the Daily Journal reported:

"Around 1990, McBrien 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 probably 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, which used to be sent to a master calendar department and competed with criminal trials for scheduling.

'Now, if you're ready and unable to settle, chances are 99.9 percent that you are going out [to trial] the first time,' McBrien said. 'A lot of that is attributable to the willingness of the Sacramento bar to work as settlement counselors.'" Click here to view the Daily Journal report.

To continue reading the rest of this article, visit our special, updated 3rd District Court of Appeal page. Click here. For more on the alleged collusion between judges and attorneys who also serve as Sacramento Superior Court temporary judges and work as settlement counselors, visit our special judge pro tems page. For additional posts about the people and issues in this report, click on the corresponding labels below.

Sacramento Family Court judges and local, Sacramento Bar Association attorneys openly acknowledge their close relationship.

+3 Recommend this on Google

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

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3 - - - -

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

- -oOo

4 INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE PETER J. McBRIEN

5 CJP NO. 185 ORIGINAL 6 -- ---- ------ -- - -- - -- ---- --1

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 1, 2009

VOLUME 1, PAGES 1 - 250

REPORTED BY: SANDRA LEHANE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTE:R

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER NO. 7372 155 Orr Road

Alameda, California 94502 (510) 864-9645

----------- IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09 ------- ----1 1

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It's actually 920 - no. 720 9th Street.

Q. That's the main Sacramento County courthouse?

A. It is.

Q. And how long were the family law departments

in that particular courthouse?

A. Until 1999, when we moved out to the Ridgeway

building.

Q. Going back to when you were first appointed

to the family law department or assigned to the family

law department, what were the problems with this

master calendar system?

A. The trials never got to trial. So the Bar

the 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 i as of how

to restructure the system.

Q. Now, is there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association?

A. There is.

Q. And was there a family law section of the

Sacramento County Bar Association back in 1991?

A. There was.

b-------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09----------------------~ 188

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Is there an organization called the Family

Law Executive Committee?

A. There is.

Q. What is the Family Law Executive Committee?

A. It is a group of leaders that the family law

bar e ects to take care of the administrative needs

for the section.

Q. And did you work with the Family Law

Executive Committee in developing the current system

in the fami y law practice in Sacramento County?

A. We did.

Q. Could you describe what that wor ng

relationship was?

A. Okay. We - we I, first of all, it's a very

good relationship. We meet -- we still meet monthly.

We keep making adjustments to the system when there are problems. But basically, we moved to a system

where we have law and motion in the family aw

departments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and we hear

the trials on Thursday and Friday if, in fact, those

trials are two days or less. And if they are more

than two days, they go down through the master

calendar.

Q. Backing up, the Family Law Executive

Committee is appointed in what fashion?

~------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - /09----------------------~ 189

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. They are elected by the membership of the

family law bar.

Q. The family law bar section of the Sacramento

County Bar Association?

A. Correct.

Q. And you and other judges worked together with

this Family Law Executive Committee in developing the

current system?

A. Correct.

Q. Who are the other judges?

A. Well, at the time, there was Justice Raye

now Justice Raye.

Q. Justice Vance Raye of the Third District

Court of Appeal?

A. Yes.

And another individual whose name always

escapes me, but he left the bench after about two

years.

Q. Dave Sterling?

A. Dave Sterling.

Q. Now, after you went to Orange County, you met

with the Family Law Executive Committee and

developed - or started to develop a plan. Was that

presented to the Superior Court for its approval?

A. It was. And what happened is the Bar culled

4/1/09 --________--1L------------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 190

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

Q. And was that plan approved?

A. It was.

Q. When?

IA. In 19 I want to say late 91 .

Q. And since 1991, is that the current plan that

is employed in the family law departments?

A. It is.

Q. You testified that on Mondays, Tuesdays and

Wednesdays f ly law courts hear law and motion

matters and trials of two days or less on Thursday and

Friday; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Who hears the settlement conferences?

A. The family law bar indicated that they would

be willing to volunteer, and they serve as the

settlement pro terns. There are two for each day of

the week except for Monday. So they have four days a

week where they have two volunteers. And they try to

make it gender neutral, have one male and one female,

and they hear the settlement conferences.

Q. And are settlement conferences assigned

~----------------------IN RE CJF NO. 185 - 4/1/09----~------------------191

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

1.1

12

13

1 4

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

dependent upon the length of the trial?

A. They are.

Q. How does that work?

A. If, in fact, it's going to be a one-day or

less trial, the settlement conference would be one

week before the trial date. And if it's going to be

two days or less, it would be two weeks before.

Q. And in connection with the estimation of the

length of the trial, is that something that you as a

judge would do?

A. No.

Q. Who makes the estimation?

A. The attorneys.

Q. Are the attorneys encouraged to work together

in developing the estimated time?

A. They are.

Q. And is there any significance to the

estimated length of the case, at least from the

judicial perspective of the Sacramento County Superior

Court judge?

A. I believe that -- you know, having seen many,

many of them, that they generally are accurate. They

aren't always accurate, but I think they are trying to

be accurate, stay within the guidance that we have.

Because quite frankly, if, in fact, they don't

L-------------------------IN RE Cc7F NO. 185 - 411109----------------------~ 192

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

complete it, they can be mistried.

Q. And when you say "mistried," meaning that the

parties will then be given a new trial date?

A. They would.

Q. You were involved, obviously, with the

Carlsson vs. Carlsson case?

A. Correct.

Q. I would like you to take a look at Exhibit C

in the respondent's

A. I think mine is over there.

MR. MURPHY: May I approach the witness?

SPECIAL MASTER CORNELL: Yes. You don't need

to seek permission.

THE WITNESS: you said C?

MR. MURPHY: Exhibit C, yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I have it before me.

BY MR. MURPHY:

Q. For the record, could you describe what

Exhibit Cis?

A. This is an Order to Show Cause filed by

Ms. Huddle on behalf of Mr. Carlsson asking to

continue the trial, fi ed on March 1st of 2006.

Q. What was the basis of the request for a

continuance?

A. That she was just served with a joinder '-------------IN RE CJ.F NO. 185 411109------------~

193

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m


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.


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)


SCBA (22)


WATCHDOGS (20)



CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER



Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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)

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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 6 4 2 7 9

167

PR Brown

Follow

Google+ Badge


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)

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m


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


JUDGE PRO TEM (50)



FLEC (28)

ARTS & CULTURE (23)

CHILD CUSTODY (22)


SCBA (22)


WATCHDOGS (20)



CJP (18)

PRO PERS (18)

DOCUMENTS (16)

DIVORCE CORP (15)

JAMES M. MIZE (15)



RAPTON-KARRES (11)

SATIRE (11)

WHISTLEBLOWERS (11)

WOODRUFF O'HAIR POSNER and SALINGER



Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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)




FERRIS CASE (8)


JULIE SETZER (7)

YOUTUBE (7)


CIVIL RIGHTS (6)

CANTIL-SAKAUYE (5)


CONTEMPT (5)

THADD BLIZZARD (5)


LUAN CASE (4)

MIKE NEWDOW (4)



Californians Aware

WE SUPPORT


Law Librarian Blog

Law Professor Blogs


Kafkaesq

Above the Law

The Divorce Artist

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

LEGAL NEWS & INFORMATION

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

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

judge michael garcia testimony for judge peter mcbrien defense team: code of judicial ethics...

Documents

special master cornell

california bar

california state bar

special masters sacramento

university of california

judge garcia

judge michael garcia

federal bar