perjury and lies by judge valeriano saucedo at the commission on judicial performance: whistleblower...

1 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

2 ---oOo---

3 -----------------------------------

4 IN THE MATTER CONCERNING

JUDGE VALERIANO SAUCEDO

5 CJP NO. 194

6 -----------------------------------

7

8

9

10

11

12 CLOSING ARGUMENT BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS

13 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

14

15 April 27, 2015

16

17

18

19 REPORTED BY: SANDRA LEE HOCKIN

20 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER NO. 7372

21

22 UCCELLI & ASSOCIATES

Certified Shorthand Reporters

23 1243 Mission Road

South San Francisco, California 94080

24 Tel: 650.952.0774 Fax: 650.952.8688

www.UccelliReporting.com

25 Silicon Valley: 408.275.1122

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatCJBNN-Yel

CLOSING ARGUMENT BEFORE SPECIAL MASTERS 04-27-2015 2 of 22

408.275.1122 Uccelli & Associates 650.952.0774 uccellireporting.com

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2

3 Special Masters:

4 Presiding Special Master

5 Honorable Judith L. Haller

6 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,

7 Division One

8

9 Honorable Becky Lynn Dugan

10 Superior Court of California, County of Riverside

11

12 Honorable Louis R. Hanoian

13 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

14

15 Examiner

16 James F. Harrigan, Esq.

17 Victoria Henley, Director-Chief Counsel

18 Office of Trial Counsel

19 Commission on Judicial Performance

20

21 Respondent's Counsel:

22 Randall A. Miller, Esq.

23 Caroline van Oosterom, Esq.

24 Miller LLP

25

2

1 April 27, 2015 11:58 A.M.

2 ---oOo---

3 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: We are here in the

4 Commission on Judicial Performance inquiry concerning

5 Judge Valeriano Saucedo. I'm Justice Haller, presiding

6 over these proceedings. To my right is Judge Hanoian,

7 and to my left is Judge Dugan.

8 Counsel, I'm going to ask you to make

9 appearances for the record so that we have everything on

10 the record.

11 Mr. Harrigan, starting with you, sir.

12 MR. HARRIGAN: Thank you.

13 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: And I'm just going to

14 ask you also to come to the microphone here.

15 MR. HARRIGAN: James Harrigan; I'm the examiner

16 in this case. And Victoria Henley from the Commission is

17 with me.

18 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right.

19 And, Mr. Miller, sir.

20 MR. MILLER: Good afternoon, Your Honors.

21 Randy Miller for the respondent, Judge Valeriano Saucedo,

22 as well as Caroline van Oosterom.

23 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: And the record shall

24 reflect also that Judge Saucedo is present with us. All

25 right.

4

1 I N D E X

2

3 Page

4 EXAMINER'S CLOSING ARGUMENT 9

5 RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT 32

6 EXAMINER'S REBUTTAL 79

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

1 Counsel, I think we should have the record

2 indicate why we were -- we started an hour later than we

3 anticipated. Certainly none of us thought that the first

4 flight out of the San Francisco/Oakland area would be

5 canceled, and that's why Mr. Harrigan was not able to be

6 here by 11:00. Fortunately he was able to get on the

7 10:00 clock flight and has literally come straight from

8 the airport. So I appreciate, Mr. Miller, your

9 flexibility on this. And with that, we will be ready to

10 proceed.

11 Counsel, the judges and I had an opportunity to

12 chat before we began this morning. We are going to

13 conduct this in a very traditional closing argument

14 setup. We will -- absent something extraordinary

15 happening, we will not be interrupting you in your

16 closing arguments. However, at the end of your closing

17 arguments, if there is something that we feel needs to be

18 covered that has not been, there may be questions from

19 the bench. There may not be.

20 So, Mr. Harrigan, when you finish yours, we will

21 ask questions.

22 Mr. Miller, then, after your closing, we'll ask

23 any questions.

24 But we thought that would be a better way to

25 proceed than interrupting you so that your train of

5

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m



1 will largely treat many of the issues that I have -- I am

2 not going to discuss today. However, I thought that

3 there were some points that should be made, and I hope to

4 do so.

5 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right.

6 MR. HARRIGAN: This is a case that involves a

7 lot of paperwork and a lot of documents. And in

8 preparing for this argument, it became clear to me that

9 this case might be analogized to a painting. The

10 painting that I have thought about is a painting by a

11 Belgian artist, Rene Magritte. He is one who often

12 presented a male figure in a black bowler hat. One of

13 his famous ones involved a green apple in the place of a

14 face.

15 The painting that I'm thinking about is called

16 The Blank Signature or The Rider. And it's a painting of

17 a woman on a horse, a chestnut horse, a beautiful horse,

18 riding through a scene of a forest with very vertical

19 trees. And you may be familiar with this.

20 At first glance, it's an ordinary, normal scene.

21 But the more you examine it, the more you view it

22 critically; you find that it's not at all normal. There

23 are elements of that that jar the senses and that don't

24 add up with our initial impression.

25 And this case is much the same. The more

10

1 Now, in a single week, there might well be,

2 conservatively, 100 instructions from the judge to his

3 clerk, which would be roughly 5,000 in a year or. In the

4 three years they worked together, 15,000 times when he

5 told her to do something, and she did it. She would have

6 followed every one of those instructions. She trusted

7 him, and she was told what -- she did what she was told

8 to do.

9 Also, we shouldn't fail to recognize that he is

10 a graduate of University of California Berkeley and

11 Stanford Law School. She's a high school graduate. He

12 enjoyed a position of power over her. And throughout the

13 course of the months involved, he used that position to

14 inculcate himself into her life, to control her, to

15 threaten her, to gain her dependence on him, to identify

16 her vulnerabilities, to test her trust and obedience, to

17 forge an intimacy. And when his advances were ultimately

18 rejected, he humiliated her. He injected the possibility

19 of her being criminally prosecuted. These are the facts.

20 As the judge testified on April 10th, on

21 Page 1203, Lines 15 to 17, the quote is: "I have always

22 lived a very ethical, very orderly life, and that period

23 of time was -- I've expressed it already -- was a lapse."

24 And I submit that that's -- it was quite a

25 lapse.

12

1 evaluation of the evidence is undertaken, the more a

2 different picture emerges.

3 And this is not simply the case of improper

4 gifts provided by the judge to a subordinate court clerk

5 or a mentoring relationship that got out of hand. No.

6 The evidence demonstrates a compulsive, singlemindedness

7 of purpose, a design by the judge to apply increasing

8 pressure to secure a special-friend relationship with

9 Mrs. Tovar. This is a case of seduction, of

10 psychological manipulation intended to achieve financial

11 dependence with a quid pro quo of intimacy.

12 And this is important, I believe, to direct our

13 focus on the context within which the judge's conduct

14 occurred. He was her boss in the parlance of those who

15 serve in the courts. She is subordinate to him. They

16 worked in his department together for three years. She

17 was used to doing what she was told.

18 For example: Call the next case. Is the jury

19 panel ready? Have the jury instruction -- requested

20 instructions been received? Do we have a probation

21 report? Have you heard from the public defender? Is

22 there a general appearance of counsel on file? Is there

23 a surety bond posted? Is conflict counsel identified?

24 Please contact the district attorney. We need to reset

25 this motion.

11

1 Now, as I mentioned, the post-hearing brief will

2 explore, in detail, the evidentiary record and provide a

3 full treatment of the issues that will supplement what I

4 have to say today, but I wish to discuss four different

5 topics: the primary reason the judge is not credible and

6 the significance of certain falsehoods, why his conduct

7 is not mentoring and is unethical, why the evidence

8 establishes that he is the author of the anonymous

9 letter, and finally the type of misconduct committed by

10 the judge, prejudicial misconduct and, in some instances,

11 willful misconduct.

12 Now, the judge has shown ongoing willingness to

13 lie to advance his interests. He admitted lying to

14 Ms. Tovar about intercepting the letter at the hospital.

15 He repeated that lie 12 days later in the September 30th

16 long note about the risk he took. He falsely denied that

17 this risk was intercepting the letter in his verified

18 answer. He was impeached by Witness Lisa Buehler on this

19 point.

20 The significance of the interception lie was to

21 make her feel grateful, beholding to him for what he was

22 doing. It also suggests that the authorship of the

23 letter is -- he is the author because it only makes sense

24 that he decided not to actually contact the hospital

25 after saying he would if he knew there was no letter to

13

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



1 be intercepted.

2 Now, the judge lied in his written response to

3 the Commission and in testimony at the hearing as to what

4 Mrs. Tovar told him was her relationship with

5 Deputy Knoy. He claimed she told him there was an

6 ongoing affair; that she was trying to extricate herself

7 from it. This was a fabrication.

8 Both Mrs. Tovar and Deputy Knoy testified there

9 was no romantic relationship between them in -- after

10 2008. This was corroborated by Tessie Velasquez. And

11 the judge was impeached by his own wife, who testified

12 that he told her that Tovar reported just a financial

13 connection had existed. Lisa Buehler, who testified that

14 he told her Tovar said there was just a financial

15 connection, also impeached him on this point.

16 The significance of his lie about the existence

17 of an affair between Mrs. Tovar and Deputy Knoy in 2013

18 is that it was his rationale for much of his ensuing

19 conduct. He was helping her through a crisis, ending an

20 affair she had in order to strengthen her marriage.

21 Additionally, he sought to develop the fiction of this

22 affair because without one, the pool of theoretical

23 suspects as to being the authors of the letter

24 evaporates.

25 Now, the judge was untruthful as to why he gave

14

1 of course, as you know, we have records from the flower

2 shop that they were delivered on the 24th.

3 The fact that he sent these flowers anonymously

4 was an example of his effort to control the situation.

5 He didn't want anybody else to know that he sent them.

6 In fact, he told her to lie about who sent them. It was

7 a way that he tested her to see if she was willing to lie

8 for him.

9 The judge maintained, in his testimony, that he

10 believed Mrs. Tovar had all along told her husband the

11 truth about the gifts and the money and the trips. But

12 when he texted her on November 3rd to say she would --

13 when she texted him on November 23rd -- November 3rd, to

14 say she wouldn't tell her husband anything, he thanked

15 her for saving his life. This is inconsistent with his

16 position.

17 Now, he told his staff that he submitted a

18 resignation letter and decided to rescind it.

19 Tessie Velasquez corroborates this fact. He falsely

20 stated, in his written response, that he had told

21 Mrs. Kennedy he thought of drafting a resignation letter

22 for her to hold, quote, "in my file." Kennedy impeached

23 him on this point.

24 Now, there are several other examples of where

25 the judge falsely claimed the facts to be other than

16

1 Mrs. Tovar his brother's contact information. He said,

2 in his response, it was only in connection to her son's

3 arm injury. He denied, in his answer, that he ever told

4 her his brother would take care of her financially. He

5 falsely claimed, in that answer, that Buehler did not

6 even ask him why he gave Tovar his brother's number.

7 Buehler impeached him on this point. He

8 testified he gave his brother's number because of her

9 son's medical issue. However, Lisa Buehler testified

10 that he told her he did so because he had made a

11 commitment to pay $200, and Tovar could continue to

12 receive this with his brother's help as the judge wanted

13 her to be financially free, meaning financially free of

14 Deputy Knoy, not of the judge.

15 Now, the judge was evasive when he was asked to

16 explain his text of October 29th, when he told Mrs. Tovar

17 that he had had a wonderful conversation with his brother

18 about her, and he didn't -- she didn't know how well she

19 was covered.

20 The judge lied about seeking permission to send

21 flowers to Mrs. Tovar. If he had done so, the flowers

22 would have been delivered on the anniversary of her

23 brother's death, not a week or two earlier. This

24 explains why he denied, in his answer, that the delivery

25 was on September 24th. He said it was October 1st. And

15

1 alleged, sought to supply evasive answers, testified

2 nonresponsively to avoid answering specific questions, or

3 gave explanations intended to obscure and to dodge

4 culpability. The post-hearing brief will incorporate

5 these examples.

6 His credibility is critical to the findings of

7 fact, and I submit that the record convincingly

8 demonstrates that he has no credibility at all.

9 I think Sir Walter Scott said it best in 1808:

10 "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice

11 to deceive."

12 Now, the judge was not engaged in mentoring

13 Mrs. Tovar. That claim is simply nonsensical. His

14 conduct toward her was nothing at all like the examples

15 his character witnesses described.

16 First, they sought his help. She did not.

17 Secondly, they had a specific reason such as

18 studying for the Bar exam. She did not.

19 And third, they were not subordinate employees.

20 She was.

21 Mentoring is guidance and the imparting of

22 wisdom to one less experienced. Described here, from the

23 earliest days, the judge had his interests as paramount.

24 He tested the waters by giving her cash for her

25 son. He gave her cash for her birthday when he had not

17

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

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine



1 done so before. He gave her cash for a new cell phone.

2 He used the letter -- anonymous letter to find out the

3 depth of her financial relationship with Knoy. He gave

4 her cash the next day to substitute himself for

5 Deputy Knoy. Within days, he sent her flowers and gave

6 her $500 more, unrelated to any payment for a Jeep loan.

7 He gave her luxury items like Disneyland vacations and a

8 BMW automobile. He regularly told her that she had no

9 financial worries as long as she agreed to be his special

10 friend, to trust him completely and to tell him

11 everything about her life. He would pay for body

12 sculpting if it made her feel better about herself.

13 He used various means, mechanisms to insert

14 himself into her life such as writing the legal advice

15 letter to -- for her son, scheduling auto repairs once he

16 overheard that she was having a car problem, buying a AAA

17 card for her protection on a trip she was taking with her

18 daughter.

19 He obtained her bank account number to control

20 and manipulate her with deposits of money. For example,

21 he wanted his texting privileges reinstated and wrote

22 that in the October 18th note while depositing $500 in

23 her account.

24 He apologized to her on October 31st, at 7:42 in

25 the morning and twice later that day after they had gone

18

1 emotional affair that she did not want.

2 Now, it's very rare that a case will have a

3 significant evidentiary issue; that is, both the smoking

4 gun and a red herring. And this is what is presented in

5 a discussion of the authorship of the anonymous letter.

6 It's a red herring because for purposes of the

7 charges in this case, authorship does not need to be

8 established. The actions of the judge following receipt

9 of the letter are prejudicial misconduct and, arguably,

10 willful misconduct. Nevertheless, I ask for a finding

11 that he did write this letter based on the following

12 circumstantial evidence that I believe is convincing as

13 to his authorship.

14 Now, the judge is the only person to have ever

15 received this letter. Why? Because he wrote it. His

16 subsequent and immediate conduct after receipt of the

17 letter demonstrates that he had the motive to write it.

18 It served as the mechanism he used to insinuate himself

19 into her life, to secure a close relationship, a special

20 friend. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates his

21 desire for a closer relationship. And we also know that

22 the various ways in which he used the letter, the threat

23 of disclosure of the letter, were part and parcel of his

24 design.

25 Now, despite obvious potential for a physical

20

1 to the BMW dealership together. Those texts are at 1:52

2 and 2:00 p.m. And he followed those apologies up with

3 another deposit in the afternoon of $500.

4 He claimed that everything was over after

5 November 3rd, but he deposited $200 on November 12th.

6 When he realized that she was going to seek a

7 transfer from the HR office of the court, he deposited

8 $8,000 to buy her silence, to ward off disclosure as to

9 the reason for her transfer request.

10 I submit the evidence is undisputed regarding

11 his misconduct in the following ways: He embarked on an

12 undue and oppressive level of unsolicited attention to a

13 subordinate court employee, including more than 450 text

14 messages over 63 days and notes seeking a special-friend

15 relationship. He lied to a subordinate court clerk. He

16 encouraged her to lie to coworkers. He continually

17 sought an improper relationship, a personal one, with a

18 subordinate. He gave her multiple gifts and cash

19 totalling over $26,000. And he ultimately told her he

20 was committing suicide unless she spoke with him after

21 she had made it crystal clear that she did not want to

22 receive any more texts, any more phone calls.

23 He regularly sought reassurance that she liked

24 him, appreciated what he was providing, notwithstanding

25 her expressed concerns that he was asking for an

19

1 confrontation, he did not report it to the court

2 administration, to the Human Resources Department, to his

3 PJ or to the sheriff. He never reported it to anyone.

4 Why? Well, there was no need to. He had the only copy

5 because he wrote it.

6 Despite his expressed concern for Mrs. Tovar's

7 safety, including telling his wife that he was concerned

8 her husband might beat her up, he did not tell her of the

9 letter until the following day.

10 Now, if a person gets what is a copy of a

11 letter, normally I think it's reasonable to conclude that

12 the person getting a copy would get it at the same time

13 or after the original letter was delivered to the

14 addressee. So his decision to do nothing about this on

15 the 17th of September, provide no immediate notification

16 to her at all until the next day, is implausible given

17 his concern for her safety.

18 Now, he did nothing to preserve the letter or

19 the envelope for fingerprints, although he knew such

20 tests existed. His claim that he wasn't concerned with

21 determining who wrote it is implausible. He offered to

22 commit a federal crime in intercepting United States mail

23 at the hospital only because he wasn't going to contact

24 them because there was no letter waiting for delivery to

25 her husband.

21

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine



1 Now, he lied to Mrs. Tovar that the letter was

2 intercepted and destroyed because he knew there was no

3 letter. He never spoke with Deputy Knoy to warn him

4 because there was no letter on its way to Mrs. Tovar's

5 husband. He had no reason to warn Knoy even though, on

6 its face, one would have to assume he would do so

7 immediately.

8 Now, he demanded that she keep it quiet. And

9 days later, he reinforced that she not mention it to

10 anyone, particularly Knoy, since he knew that if the

11 deputy found out about it, an investigation might be

12 possible. He did not give her a copy of the letter and

13 never convincingly explained why he didn't.

14 Now, the text of the letter itself serves no

15 one's interest other than the judge because it's a false

16 statement.

17 And also, by looking at the letter and the

18 envelope, it's a bit of a head-scratcher because there

19 were several gratuitous details that seemed highly

20 questionable to be included by one who had the intent of

21 fomenting trouble for either Knoy or Mrs. Tovar.

22 It is, for example, implausible that the writer

23 would carefully include "Care of Tulare Regional Medical

24 Center" on the top of the letter. And writing "Sent this

25 to her judge" similarly, I think, is an unlikely detail.

22

1 her about her husband's temper, whether there was any

2 past history of violence, although he had claimed that he

3 was very concerned for her safety.

4 The fact that the forensic analysis of his court

5 computer -- the fact that that analysis did not reveal

6 the anonymous letter is simply not dispositive because we

7 know that that analysis also didn't find other letters

8 that he admitted writing and he admitted writing on that

9 computer.

10 And now, his court reporter of more than

11 12 years saw an error in structure. As she stated to

12 Lisa Buehler, quote, "When Priscilla Tovar showed me the

13 letter, I remember saying, 'The punctuation, this is a

14 mistake the judge would make,'" close quote.

15 There are no other suspects as the author, and

16 none have surfaced in 20 months. In fact, the only

17 evidence that the judge did not write the letter is his

18 own testimony, and he simply is not credible at all.

19 Now, the Notice of Formal Charges states clearly

20 that the judge is charged with willful misconduct in

21 office as well as conduct prejudicial. And it provides a

22 time frame of mid September to mid November 2013 and

23 alleges a course of conduct over that period as

24 exemplified by subsequent facts and allegations contained

25 in the notice.

24

1 Writing "Personal and Confidential" on the

2 envelope doesn't make any sense unless it was mailed to

3 the court, where somebody else could open it, but it was

4 sent to his house.

5 Now, the judge has shown a proclivity for

6 gratuitous language such as including "Working on

7 prescription orders for inmates" in his September 23rd

8 e-mail to the court supervisor, including "The red car"

9 in a text when he's contemplating suicide, and including

10 "I submitted a resignation letter and rescinded it"

11 during his November 15th staff meeting. And many of his

12 notes and texts also contain gratuitous details that I

13 think are part of his writing style.

14 Now, he knew of Mrs. Tovar's tattoos. They were

15 plainly visible.

16 It's also highly likely that he knew of the

17 other details contained in the letter from overhearing

18 conversations at the court. The inclusion of "J.K." in

19 the letter, I believe, is another red herring since

20 Jeremy Knoy's full name is spelled out in the body of the

21 letter, and the only "J.K." entry is just once as an

22 abbreviation at the very end.

23 Now, in the two meetings that he had with

24 Mrs. Tovar lasting well more than an hour on the 18th of

25 September, there's no evidence at all that he ever asked

23

1 While clearly there are detailed allegations

2 described in that document, not every transgression or

3 ethical violation need be spelled out. The notice frames

4 this matter as a course of conduct undertaken during the

5 time period specified as exemplified by the allegations

6 contained in it.

7 It is the examiner's position that the judge's

8 course of conduct in this matter was prejudicial

9 misconduct involving bad faith, and in some instances,

10 the judge committed willful misconduct.

11 This analysis will be more thoroughly developed

12 in the post-hearing brief, but I wish to make a few

13 comments now.

14 First, as to prejudicial misconduct: The

15 standard is that it's conduct prejudicial to the

16 administration of justice that brings the judicial office

17 into disrepute. It is -- prejudicial misconduct is

18 established when one would appear, to an objective

19 observer familiar with the facts, that the conduct in

20 question is prejudicial to public esteem for the judicial

21 office. And prejudicial misconduct occurs when a judge,

22 even acting in good faith in a nonjudicial capacity,

23 engages in conduct that adversely affects public regard

24 for the judiciary. It may also involve acts done in bad

25 faith in a nonjudicial capacity, and in that context,

25

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine



1 "bad faith" means a culpable mental state beyond mere

2 negligence consisting of either knowing or not caring

3 that the conduct being undertaken is unjudicial and

4 prejudicial to public esteem.

5 Because the public's esteem for the judiciary is

6 measured by the objective observer standard, the

7 subjective intent or the motivation of the judge is not a

8 significant factor in assessing whether prejudicial

9 misconduct has occurred.

10 And all the case cites and analysis will be

11 provided in the post-hearing brief.

12 Now, the record in this matter clearly

13 establishes that the judge engaged in an entirely

14 inappropriate workplace relationship with his subordinate

15 clerk.

16 At a minimum, his conduct was prejudicial

17 misconduct involving bad faith. Lavishing expensive

18 gifts and cash on an employee, obtaining access and using

19 that access to her bank account to manipulate and control

20 her, excessive text messaging after hours, lying to the

21 employee, directing her to lie to others, pressuring her

22 to obtain attention and a close personal relationship,

23 making the employee fearful with threats are all conduct

24 inimitable to the role of supervisor in a workplace, let

25 alone a judge.

26

1 chambers, and he never gave her a copy nor did he give

2 her his copy.

3 I think we must, therefore, accept that the

4 first two prongs of the willful misconduct predicates are

5 satisfied, leaving the question of whether he was acting

6 in a judicial capacity.

7 Now, I acknowledge that there is no bright line

8 defining conduct that falls within the definition of the

9 faithful discharge of judicial duties. Analytically, the

10 determination of when a judge is acting in a judicial

11 capacity has proven to be fact based -- a fact-based

12 evaluation and somewhat elusive as a standard applicable

13 in all cases. Here, however, no such difficulty is

14 presented.

15 And of the two incidents, I submit the evidence

16 supports your finding that the judge committed willful

17 misconduct, first on September 18th, when he instructed

18 Mrs. Tovar to meet him in chambers to disclose the

19 letter; his reservation of the law library conference

20 room and directing his subordinate to meet with him again

21 over the lunch hour; his decision to ensure that the

22 letter be kept a secret and not reported to the Court or

23 law enforcement, placing the staff and the public at

24 risk; his intentional prohibition against her reporting

25 or disclosing the letter; his false claim of intercepting

28

1 The evidence, I believe, convincingly

2 establishes that the judge either knew or did not care

3 that his conduct was unjudicial and prejudicial. Thus,

4 he acted in bad faith within the meaning as it has

5 developed.

6 I submit that there are two incidents in which

7 the judge committed willful misconduct. Now, willful

8 misconduct is unjudicial conduct that is committed in bad

9 faith by a judge acting in his or her judicial capacity.

10 So it's a three-pronged test.

11 There could be no doubt that the course of

12 conduct engaged in by the judge was unjudicial. Bad

13 faith is established when a judge acts for any purpose

14 other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties.

15 I contend that the judge authored the anonymous

16 letter, and he did so to manipulate Mrs. Tovar into

17 trusting him and depending on him. Such deception and

18 manipulation were unquestionably done in bad faith.

19 Even if you determine that he did not write the

20 letter, his handling of it also exemplifies bad faith.

21 He failed to report the letter to the Court. He failed

22 to warn Deputy Knoy of the danger it posed. He lied to

23 Mrs. Tovar about having the letter intercepted. And then

24 he used the letter as a tool to control and manipulate

25 her. He also kept a copy of the letter secured in his

27

1 the letter by contacting her husband's employer; and his

2 failure to warn Deputy Knoy of the potential for a

3 physical confrontation.

4 Given that case law accepts the fact that judges

5 have some supervision over courtroom staff, his conduct

6 on this date was willful misconduct committed in bad

7 faith.

8 Similarly, his actions and conduct on

9 November 18th: When he handed a note to Mrs. Tovar in

10 open court with attorneys and staff present, instructing

11 her to read it on the spot, the note contained an implied

12 threat of criminal prosecution for extortion, designed to

13 intimidate and humiliate her and to obtain her silence

14 about his conduct toward her. This conduct was done in

15 his judicial capacity from the bench and committed in bad

16 faith.

17 I appreciate you making yourselves available for

18 closing arguments, and I respectfully submit that the

19 evidence in the record clearly and convincingly

20 establishes the violations contained in the Notice of

21 Formal Proceedings.

22 And I would like to reserve ten minutes for any

23 rebuttal after counsel speaks.

24 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right, Mr. Harrigan.

25 Judge Dugan, do you have any questions?

29

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine

PatLine



1 SPECIAL MASTER DUGAN: I don't.

2 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: Judge Hanoian?

3 SPECIAL MASTER HANOIAN: I do.

4 And I'm wondering whether or not you would speak

5 to what your opinion is of the actions as it relate to

6 the exclusion of Deputy Ballantyne and -- from the

7 courtroom, the exclusion of Deputy Knoy from the

8 courtroom and asking Deputy Cibrian to leave the

9 courtroom.

10 Are they part of this?

11 MR. HARRIGAN: Well, those -- I would ask that a

12 finding be made as to that conduct but not a finding of

13 willful misconduct per se because that was not

14 specifically alleged in the notice.

15 But I will say this as it relates to Ballantyne:

16 He was -- this is an individual that was innocent. He

17 did nothing wrong. He did his job. He made a report

18 that -- when he was told to make a report.

19 And what the judge did was not only have him

20 removed from his courtroom once he saw him, and did so

21 from the bench, but then he banished him so he could

22 never be in his courtroom again. And I certainly think

23 that -- that a finding is appropriate as to that.

24 I'm not -- I don't have full recollection on the

25 Deputy Knoy matter. I do remember that he asked

30

1 to her supervisor and in his judicial capacity.

2 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right. Anything

3 further?

4 SPECIAL MASTER HANOIAN: Not from me.

5 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right. Thank you.

6 Mr. Harrigan, yes, you may certainly reserve

7 that time.

8 We're going to take a very short break of

9 ten minutes. I have five minutes of 1:00. We'll be back

10 in session at five minutes after 1:00.

11 MR. HARRIGAN: Thank you.

12 (Recess taken.)

13 SPECIAL MASTER HALLER: All right. Thank you,

14 everyone. Please be seated.

15 And the record should reflect that we are

16 present with all counsel who are here before the three

17 special masters and Judge Saucedo.

18 All right. Mr. Miller, if you would like to

19 proceed, sir.

20 RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT

21 MR. MILLER: Thank you. And good afternoon,

22 Justice Haller, and Justice Dugan, and Judge Hanoian.

23 Judge Saucedo and I have appreciated the opportunity to

24 present the facts and the evidence in this case as we see

25 them and also to take the opportunity to introduce

32

1 Mrs. Tovar what he was doing there and that he wanted him

2 out and gone, but I don't know what the follow-up was. I

3 would have to deal with that in the post-hearing brief.

4 I'm sorry. The third one you mentioned was?

5 SPECIAL MASTER HANOIAN: Deputy Cibrian.

6 MR. HARRIGAN: Oh, Deputy Cibrian.

7 SPECIAL MASTER HANOIAN: Yes. November 18th or

8 somewhere -- somewhere in the November range.

9 MR. HARRIGAN: I mean, I think -- honestly, I

10 think it's a bit of a stretch to say he was acting in his

11 judicial capacity. I think that my recollection was

12 Cibrian and Tovar were talking in the courtroom. Court

13 had concluded. The judge came into the courtroom from

14 chambers hallway and told him to leave so he could talk

15 to Mrs. Tovar. That one has minimal context with, I

16 think, willful behavior in a judicial capacity.

17 There is one more, though, we would ask for a

18 finding on, which is: His behavior on the 20th and the

19 23rd of September, when he interfered with Mrs. Tovar's

20 attempt to communicate with her supervisor about her time

21 log. He kept her there, talking about what I believe was

22 only personal matters. He thereafter claimed they were

23 court matters that were discussed. And he followed up on

24 the 23rd with an e-mail to her supervisor, supporting her

25 work hours. I believe that was a false statement by him

31

1 Judge Saucedo to you, who is here today. And his wife,

2 Teresa, is also here.

3 We appreciate the time that you all took to

4 listen to Judge Saucedo and Teresa and other witnesses

5 about his background and his story and all the live

6 character testimony that brought his story some

7 additional context.

8 And since we're dealing here with evaluating a

9 judge's alleged conduct and the serious allegations being

10 advanced by the Commission, it's all that much more

11 important to understand the type of person and judge

12 whose conduct you are considering. Indeed, as I stated

13 in opening, his background, especially in mentoring and

14 helping others, is directly relevant here.

15 I agree with the examiner's comments that this

16 is a factually complex case. It's an intense case with

17 factually intensive examination of many facts that are

18 disputed and testimony that's disputed. This case,

19 unlike the many that have proceeded to discipline under

20 the CJP that have involved relationships with clerks like

21 Steiner and Woodward and a few others, this does not

22 involve a consensual physical or romantic relationship at

23 all. It does not fit into the rubric of discriminatory

24 or a hostile work environment like we've seen in those

25 cases with improper jokes or improper contact or

33

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

PatLine

PatLine



1 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss.

3 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )

________________________________)

4

5

6 I, Sandra Lee Hockin, hereby certify:

7 I am a duly qualified Certified Shorthand

8 Reporter in the state of California, holder of

9 Certificate Number CSR 7372 issued by the Court Reporters

10 Board of California and which is in full force and

11 effect.

12 I am not financially interested in this action

13 and am not a relative or employee of any attorney of the

14 parties, or of any of the parties.

15 I am the reporter that stenographically recorded

16 the testimony in the foregoing proceeding and the

17 foregoing transcript is a true record of the testimony

18 given.

19

20 Dated: May 11, 2015

21

22

23

24

25

82

Calif

orni

a Ju

dici

al B

ranc

h Ne

ws N

etwo

rk

CJBN

N.co

m

Next on Patch Foster City Welcomes New Assistant City Manager

Superior Court Corruption: Whistleblower Leaked Records Show Commision on Judicial Performance Protects Judges, Not ConsumersCJP Director Victoria Henley charged with implementing judge-friendly discipline process: Judges lie, commit perjury without consequences

By CATHY COHEN(Open Post) June 18, 2015

Share Comments

Foster City Find Your Patch 63 Partly Cloudy

Home All Topics Bulletin Board Order Fresh Groceries

Ditch debt and start savingBeing in debt=no fun. This 6-step guide will help you figure out which debt to tackle first, so you can put some money away for the future. [Sponsored by Fidelity]

Leaked Documents Posted by California Judicial Branch News Network Reveal CJP Ignores Lies, Perjury by Judges Under InvestigationFalse testimony under oath by Sacramento County Judge Peter McBrien is documented by the Commission on Judicial Performance in a set of whistleblower leaked documents published by the California Judicial Branch News Network, and viewable here. The CJP is the state agency responsible for the oversight and accountability of judges in California.

CJBNN has released a cache of leaked internal CJP documents from the 2009 prosecution of the Sacramento judge, who has a 15-year history of controversy and lawless conduct, including a criminal conviction for the destruction of trees in a public park. The judge had the trees cut to improve the view from his home on a bluff above the park.

CJP watchdogs charge that judges under investigation by the

commission routinely lie to investigators without consequences. The CJP is, in essence, a consumer protection agency, explained CJP reform advocate Ulf Carlsson.

But Victoria Henley, the head of the agency who is paid an obscene $194,000 per year, is instead an advocate for judges. Henley allows judges to commit perjury without any accountability whatsoever, Carlsson explained. Perjury is a crime. Former CJP employees tell us that to prevent embarrassment to the Judicial Branch, Henley prohibits CJP investigators from pursuing criminal charges against judges, or even adding counts for violating the Code of Judicial Ethics when judges are caught lying during the course of an investigation.

Sacramento Superior Court Corruption and Judge Peter McBrien Profiled in 2014 Documentary Divorce Corp Judge McBriens serial misconduct in the Carlsson divorce case led to his prosecution by the CJP and was chronicled in the 2014 documentary film Divorce Corp. To view a clip from the movie featuring an interview with Ulf Carlsson describing what a court of appeal judge called McBriens judicial reign of terror, against Carlsson, click here. The movie exposed court corruption throughout the United States and designated Sacramento County the worst-of-the-worst.

Court Whistleblowers Allege Family Court Division of Sacramento Superior Court Operates as Racketeering EnterpriseSacramento Superior Court watchdogs allege that Judge McBrien also is responsible for a family court criminal racketeering

enterprise involving collusion and kickbacks between judges and local divorce lawyers who also work as part-time judges in the same court. Click here for an investigative report by Sacramento Family Court News, an online, nonprofit journalism organization.

Sacramento County Presiding Judge Robert Hight and Supervising Judge James Mize Implicated in McBrien Corruption ScandalJudge McBrien retired from the bench in 2014, but was authorized to continue working as a family court commissioner by controversial Sacramento County Presiding Judge Robert Hight, and troubled family court Supervising Judge James Mize. Superior court watchdogs were outraged that McBrien was allowed to return to the bench this year.

Judge Hight testified as a character witness in support of McBrien at the judges 2009 CJP misconduct prosecution. Judge Mize, a long time personal friend of McBrien, also testified as a character witness for the judge.

The character witness testimony was cited by the CJP as a mitigating factor in assessing punishment against McBrien, allowing him to remain on the bench despite two misconduct prosecutions by the CJP, and a prior criminal conviction by the Sacramento County District Attorneys Office.

For more reporting on Sacramento County court corruption, visit Sacramento Family Court News.

Perjury and Lies by Judge Peter McBrien at the Commission on Judicial Performance: Whistleblower Leaked CJP... by California Judicial Branch News Network - Independent Investigative Reporting on California Courts

perjury and lies by judge valeriano saucedo at the commission on judicial performance: whistleblower...

Documents

special master haller

judge saucedo

james harrigan im

special masters13 san

randy miller

miller llp2521

im justice haller

judge valeriano saucedo5